Explore the vast range of titles available.

\"Please do not supply a summary with this CIP\"-- Provided by publisher.

How do we bring the law into line with people's psychological experience? How can psychoanalysis help us understand irrational actions and bad choices? Our legal system relies on the idea that people act reasonably and of their own free will, yet some still commit crimes with a high likelihood of being caught, sign obviously one-sided contracts, or violate their own moral codes--behavior many would call fundamentally irrational. Anne Dailey shows that a psychoanalytic perspective grounded in solid clinical work can bring the law into line with the reality of psychological experience. Approaching contemporary legal debates with fresh insights, this original and powerful critique sheds new light on issues of overriding social importance, including false confessions, sexual consent, threats of violence, and criminal responsibility. By challenging basic legal assumptions with a nuanced and humane perspective, Dailey shows how psychoanalysis can further our legal system's highest ideals of individual fairness and systemic justice.

In Judging Insanity, Punishing Difference , 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, new psychiatric notions of the mind and its readability, legal doctrines of insanity and diminished culpability, and cultural stereotypes about race and gender shaped the ways in which legal professionals, mental health experts, and lay witnesses approached mental disability evidence, especially in cases carrying the death penalty. Using Texas as a case study, Deambrogio examines how these medical, legal, and cultural trends shaped psycho-legal debates in state criminal courts, 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,\" Texas courts maintained a punitive approach towards defendants allegedly affected by severe mental disabilities, while allowing for moralized views about personalities, habits, and lifestyle to influence psycho-legal assessments, in potentially prejudicial ways.

\"The first book-length rhetorical history and analysis of the insanity defense. The insanity defense is considered one of the most controversial, most misunderstood, and least straightforward subjects in the American legal system. Disorder in the Court: Morality, Myth, and the Insanity Defense traces the US legal standards for the insanity defense as they have evolved from 1843, when they were first codified in England, to 1984, when the US government attempted to revise them through the Insanity Defense Reform Act. Throughout this period \"insanity\" existed primarily as a legal term rather than a medical one; yet the testimony of psychiatric experts is required in cases in which an insanity defense is raised. The adjudication of such cases by courtroom practice is caught between two different but overlapping discourses, the legal and the medical, both of which have historically sought to assert and maintain firm disciplinary boundaries. Both expert and lay audiences have struggled to understand and apply commonplace definitions of sanity, and the portrayal of the insanity defense in popular culture has only served to further frustrate such understandings. Andrea L. Alden argues that the problems with understanding the insanity defense are, at their foundation, rhetorical. The legal concept of what constitutes insanity and, therefore, an abdication of responsibility for one's actions does not map neatly onto the mental health professions' understandings of mental illness and how that affects an individual's ability to understand or control his or her actions. Additionally, there are multiple layers of persuasion involved in any effort to convince a judge, jury--or a public, for that matter--that a defendant is or is not responsible for his or her actions at a particular moment in time. Alden examines landmark court cases such as the trial of Daniel McNaughtan, Durham v. United States, and the trial of John Hinckley Jr. that signal the major shifts in the legal definitions of the insanity defense. Combining archival, textual, and rhetorical analysis, Alden offers a close reading of texts including trial transcripts, appellate court opinions, and relevant medical literature from the time period. She contextualizes these analyses through popular texts--for example, newspaper articles and editorials--showing that while all societies have maintained some version of mental illness as a mitigating factor in their penal systems, the insanity defense has always been fraught with controversy\"-- Provided by publisher.

A study of the internal tensions of British imperial rule told through murder and insanity trialsUnsound Empire is a history of criminal responsibility in the nineteenth-century British Empire told through detailed accounts of homicide cases across three continents. If a defendant in a murder trial was going to hang, he or she had to deserve it. Establishing the mental element of guilt—criminal responsibility—transformed state violence into law. And yet, to the consternation of officials in Britain and beyond, experts in new scientific fields posited that insanity was widespread and growing, and evolutionary theories suggested that wide swaths of humanity lacked the self-control and understanding that common law demanded. Could it be fair to punish mentally ill or allegedly \"uncivilized\" people? Could British civilization survive if killers avoided the noose?

In 1802, Friedrich Hölderlin experienced his first mental breakdown, which was followed by a second one in 1805. On 15th September 1806, he was admitted to the clinic of Johann Heinrich Ferdinand von Autenrieth in Tübingen who addressed Hölderlin’s illness as “madness” (“Wahnsinn”). On 3rd May 1807, the poet was discharged as “incurable” (“unheilbar”). Until his death on 7th June 1843, he was cared for by the carpenter Ernst Zimmer. From the period between 1807 and 1843, 50 poems by Hölderlin have been preserved, in German studies known as the “Turmdichtung” (“tower poetry”). These poems have long been relegated to the margins of scholarly research. In my essay, I will discuss the modern and contemporary diagnoses, as well as Hölderlin’s literary (self-) therapy of his illness. I am suggesting that Hölderlin’s tower poetry contains a thera-peutic–poetic concept that is intended to serve the treatment of his illness.