245 records matched your query
05355aam a2200553 i 4500 001 F6EFC512E96D11E8978F920F97128E48 003 SILO 005 20181116010210 008 171221s2018 alu b s001 0 eng 010 $a 2017060818 020 $a 9780817391638 020 $a 0817391630 020 $a 0817319727 020 $a 9780817319724 035 $a (OCoLC)1012346405 040 $a DLC $b eng $e rda $c DLC $d OCLCO $d OCLCF $d GWL $d ALM $d YDX $d SILO 042 $a pcc 043 $a n-us--- 050 00 $a KF9242 $b .A75 2018 084 $a LAN015000 $a LAN015000 $2 bisacsh 100 1 $a Alden, Andrea L., $d 1977- $e author. 245 10 $a Disorder in the court : $b morality, myth, and the insanity defense / $c Andrea L. Alden. 264 1 $a Tuscaloosa, Alabama : $b University of Alabama Press, $c [2018] 300 $a x, 197 pages $c 25 cm. 490 1 $a Rhetoric, law, and the humanities 520 $a "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"-- $c Provided by publisher. 520 $a "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"-- $c Provided by publisher. 504 $a Includes bibliographical references and index. 650 0 $a Insanity (Law) $z United States $x History. 650 0 $a Insanity (Law) $z United States $v Cases. 650 0 $a Insanity defense $z United States $x History. 650 0 $a Forensic psychiatry $z United States. 650 0 $a Mental health laws $z United States. 650 0 $a Law $z United States $x Psychological aspects. 650 7 $a LAW / Mental Health. $2 bisacsh 650 7 $a LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES / Rhetoric. $2 bisacsh 650 7 $a Forensic psychiatry. $2 fast $0 (OCoLC)fst00932002 650 7 $a Insanity defense. $2 fast $0 (OCoLC)fst01743092 650 7 $a Insanity (Law) $2 fast $0 (OCoLC)fst01715759 650 7 $a Law $x Psychological aspects. $2 fast $0 (OCoLC)fst00993801 650 7 $a Mental health laws. $2 fast $0 (OCoLC)fst01016447 651 7 $a United States. $2 fast $0 (OCoLC)fst01204155 655 7 $a History. $2 fast $0 (OCoLC)fst01411628 655 7 $a Trials, litigation, etc. $2 fast $0 (OCoLC)fst01423712 830 0 $a Rhetoric, law, and the humanities. 941 $a 2 952 $l OZAX845 $d 20240525041652.0 952 $l OVUX522 $d 20191213023349.0 956 $a http://locator.silo.lib.ia.us/search.cgi?index_0=id&term_0=F6EFC512E96D11E8978F920F97128E48Initiate Another SILO Locator Search