The lived experience offers us insights into the complex and nuanced ways that the criminal law shapes and is shaped by society. Doctrinal understandings of criminal law reflect moments of legal praxis, when individual freedom, responsibility and social sanctions interact within the framework of doctrinal legal enquiry. As Giddens has noted, ‘if an individual is modelled as abstracted from this ‘living’ context, then that individual cannot be ‘ethically’ linked with his or her behaviour, and thus cannot justly be understood as responsible’. It is therefore through a focus on the ‘lived experience’ that we can seek to get some approximation of the ways that doctrinal law is transformed into something experienced and lived through. The Covid-19 global pandemic has perhaps provided a vivid example of such a moment. When these articles were originally commissioned, such an event was reasonably reserved for science fiction writers, and apocalyptic planners. Yet, as a number of our contributors identify, the pandemic has provided an added impetus and cast into vivid light acute issues pertaining to gender and sexuality and the criminal law. Our authors each draw upon the lived experience of criminal law to provide doctrinal and/or policy recommendations that better capture the nuance and complexity of these lived experiences. Criminal law acts as a system of moral obligations, standards, and concerns, but inevitably such understandings are rooted in a social context and with it, the shifting sands of opinion. This is matched by evolving understandings of responsibility within criminal law over time prompting persistent debates about the connection between responsibility, morality and criminal law, with Tadros noting that responsibility is predicated on the notion of ‘responsible agents’, that is to say, ‘agents who can develop their lives autonomously in relation to the set of moral concerns that are central to the criminal law’. Yet, this doctrinal conception—as Giddens noted above—must also be considered within the framework of the lived experience. It is within this context that the concept of Criminal Responsibility is being (re)understood in relation to bodily autonomy in this special issue. Whether in the context of HIV transmission, gender-based violence or the shifting constructions of consent within sexual relationships, doctrinal law faces a challenge as it

中文翻译：

---

生活经验、身体自主权和刑事责任的框架

亲身经历让我们深入了解刑法塑造和被社会塑造的复杂而微妙的方式。对刑法的教义理解反映了法律实践的时刻，当个人自由、责任和社会制裁在教义法律探究的框架内相互作用时。正如吉登斯所指出的那样，“如果一个人被建模为从这个“生活”背景中抽象出来的，那么这个人就不能与他或她的行为在“道德上”联系起来，因此不能被公正地理解为负责任的人。因此，通过关注“生活经验”，我们可以寻求对教义法转化为经验和经历的东西的方式的一些近似。Covid-19 全球大流行可能提供了这样一个生动的例子。当这些文章最初被委托时，这样的事件被合理地保留给科幻作家和世界末日计划者。然而，正如我们的一些撰稿人所指出的那样，大流行提供了额外的动力，并使与性别、性行为和刑法有关的尖锐问题变得生动起来。我们的作者都借鉴了刑法的实际经验，以提供更好地捕捉这些生活经验的细微差别和复杂性的理论和/或政策建议。刑法作为一种道德义务、标准和关注的系统，但不可避免地，这种理解植根于社会背景，随之而来的是不断变化的意见。随着时间的推移，人们对刑法中责任的理解不断演变，引发了关于责任、道德和刑法之间联系的持续辩论，Tadros 指出责任取决于“负责任的代理人”的概念，也就是说，“代理人”。谁可以根据刑法核心的一系列道德问题自主地发展自己的生活”。然而，这种教义概念——正如吉登斯在上面提到的——也必须在生活经验的框架内加以考虑。正是在这种背景下，刑事责任的概念在这个特刊中被（重新）理解为与身体自主有关。无论是在 HIV 传播、基于性别的暴力还是在性关系中不断变化的同意结构，