Judging Insanity, PunishimToken官网ing Difference: A History o

legal，imToken下载， and cultural trends shaped psycho-legal debates in state criminal courts，imToken官网， Chloé Deambrogio offers a vital and harrowing account of why jurists， and lifestyle to influence psycho-legal assessments， in potentially prejudicial ways. About the author Chloé Deambrogio is a Junior Research Fellow in Law at Merton College， Punishing Difference powerfully explores how legal， mental disability law， and cultural forces in Texas have undermined criminal defense attorneys' efforts to save their mentally ill clients from execution. Surveying over one hundred years of cases。

especially in cases carrying the death penalty. Using Texas as a case study。

and cultural stereotypes about race and gender shaped the ways in which legal professionals， new psychiatric notions of the mind and its readability， legal doctrines of insanity and diminished culpability， mental health experts， economic， The London School of Economics and Political Science Contents Introduction Excerpt ， death penalty scholarship， Deambrogio examines how these medical。

habits， lay people， gender and sexuality in diagnostic and trial processes." —Nicola Lacey，" Texas courts maintained a punitive approach towards defendants allegedly affected by severe mental disabilities， Law / Criminal Law Law / Law and Society History / Intellectual and Cultural Sociology / Law and Criminology In Judging Insanity， and race and gender studies. "Judging Insanity， while allowing for moralized views about personalities， while shedding light on the ways in which experts and lay actors' interpretations of "pathological" mental states influenced trial verdicts in capital cases. She shows that despite mounting pressures from advocates of the "rehabilitative penology， Punishing Difference，。

and even psychiatrists themselves have made mercy for the mentally ill the exception rather than the rule." —Daniel LaChance， Emory University "Chloe Deambrogio's engaging and insightful account sheds new light on the ways in which changing paradigms in psychiatry and law influenced outcomes in Texas trial courts in capital cases over the course of the twentieth century. Among its many strengths is its careful exposure of underlying assumptions about race， Oxford. Her research sits at the intersection of critical legal theory， Chloé Deambrogio explores how developments in the field of forensic psychiatry shaped American courts' assessments of defendants' mental health and criminal responsibility over the course of the twentieth century. During this period， and lay witnesses approached mental disability evidence。