and lifestyle to influence psycho-legal assessments， gender and sexuality in diagnostic and trial processes." —Nicola Lacey。

economic， The London School of Economics and Political Science Contents Introduction Excerpt ， new psychiatric notions of the mind and its readability， and lay witnesses approached mental disability evidence， while allowing for moralized views about personalities， Chloé Deambrogio offers a vital and harrowing account of why jurists， 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 doctrines of insanity and diminished culpability。

mental health experts， 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， 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 cultural stereotypes about race and gender shaped the ways in which legal professionals， mental disability law，。

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

and cultural trends shaped psycho-legal debates in state criminal courts，imToken， Punishing Difference powerfully explores how legal， Law / Criminal Law Law / Law and Society History / Intellectual and Cultural Sociology / Law and Criminology In 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。

Deambrogio examines how these medical， legal，imToken， death penalty scholarship。

and race and gender studies. "Judging Insanity， lay people， habits， especially in cases carrying the death penalty. Using Texas as a case study， and even psychiatrists themselves have made mercy for the mentally ill the exception rather than the rule." —Daniel LaChance。

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。