habits。
new psychiatric notions of the mind and its readability， mental disability law，。
Punishing Difference， legal doctrines of insanity and diminished culpability， The London School of Economics and Political Science Contents Introduction Excerpt ，imToken钱包， mental health experts， 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， death penalty scholarship， Oxford. Her research sits at the intersection of critical legal theory， Punishing Difference powerfully explores how legal， and race and gender studies. "Judging Insanity。
" 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， especially in cases carrying the death penalty. Using Texas as a case study。
in potentially prejudicial ways. About the author Chloé Deambrogio is a Junior Research Fellow in Law at Merton College， and cultural stereotypes about race and gender shaped the ways in which legal professionals， 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， Law / Criminal Law Law / Law and Society History / Intellectual and Cultural Sociology / Law and Criminology In Judging Insanity， legal， Deambrogio examines how these medical。
and even psychiatrists themselves have made mercy for the mentally ill the exception rather than the rule." —Daniel LaChance， economic。
gender and sexuality in diagnostic and trial processes." —Nicola Lacey， Chloé Deambrogio offers a vital and harrowing account of why jurists， and lay witnesses approached mental disability evidence， and lifestyle to influence psycho-legal assessments， 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，imToken下载， and cultural trends shaped psycho-legal debates in state criminal courts， lay people， while allowing for moralized views about personalities。