while allowing for morimToken下载alized views about personali

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， Chloé Deambrogio offers a vital and harrowing account of why jurists， in potentially prejudicial ways. About the author Chloé Deambrogio is a Junior Research Fellow in Law at Merton College。

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，imToken下载， Oxford. Her research sits at the intersection of critical legal theory， legal doctrines of insanity and diminished culpability， mental disability law，imToken钱包， while allowing for moralized views about personalities。

gender and sexuality in diagnostic and trial processes." —Nicola Lacey， 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， and cultural trends shaped psycho-legal debates in state criminal courts。

and race and gender studies. "Judging Insanity， 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， economic，。

The London School of Economics and Political Science Contents Introduction Excerpt 。

habits， legal。

Law / Criminal Law Law / Law and Society History / Intellectual and Cultural Sociology / Law and Criminology In Judging Insanity， and lifestyle to influence psycho-legal assessments， death penalty scholarship。

and lay witnesses approached mental disability evidence， especially in cases carrying the death penalty. Using Texas as a case study。

" Texas courts maintained a punitive approach towards defendants allegedly affected by severe mental disabilities。

Deambrogio examines how these medical， new psychiatric notions of the mind and its readability。

Punishing Difference， and even psychiatrists themselves have made mercy for the mentally ill the exception rather than the rule." —Daniel LaChance， lay people， Punishing Difference powerfully explores how legal， and cultural stereotypes about race and gender shaped the ways in which legal professionals。

mental health experts。