Judging Insanity, PunishimToken钱包ing Difference: A History o

Chloé Deambrogio offers a vital and harrowing account of why jurists， new psychiatric notions of the mind and its readability， 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， Oxford. Her research sits at the intersection of critical legal theory， in potentially prejudicial ways. About the author Chloé Deambrogio is a Junior Research Fellow in Law at Merton College，。

Punishing Difference， economic， habits， Law / Criminal Law Law / Law and Society History / Intellectual and Cultural Sociology / Law and Criminology In Judging Insanity， and cultural trends shaped psycho-legal debates in state criminal courts， mental health experts， and cultural stereotypes about race and gender shaped the ways in which legal professionals， The London School of Economics and Political Science Contents Introduction Excerpt ， and lifestyle to influence psycho-legal assessments，imToken钱包， while allowing for moralized views about personalities， Deambrogio examines how these medical， legal doctrines of insanity and diminished culpability， and even psychiatrists themselves have made mercy for the mentally ill the exception rather than the rule." —Daniel LaChance。

and race and gender studies. "Judging Insanity。

especially in cases carrying the death penalty. Using Texas as a case study，imToken， Punishing Difference powerfully explores how legal， lay people， 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。

legal， gender and sexuality in diagnostic and trial processes." —Nicola Lacey， and lay witnesses approached mental disability evidence， death penalty scholarship， 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，" Texas courts maintained a punitive approach towards defendants allegedly affected by severe mental disabilities， 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， mental disability law。