No description available.

Through an analysis of records from Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum, this PhD thesis sheds new light on current understandings of the asylum, masculinity and the relationship between medicine and the law in late-Victorian England and Wales. The material consulted includes a database containing the details of 2246 patients which was compiled from the Admissions Registers as part of this thesis, and the case files of 425 male patients. Newspaper reports, trial proceedings, Home Office records, and medical and legal publications are also consulted, as are publications that sought to define ideal behaviour for men. The sources are woven together to formulate accounts of the crimes committed, the subsequent trials, and defendants’ experiences in Broadmoor. Through an examination of new evidence, this thesis surveys the history of the asylum, its staff, treatment and patients. An examination of paternal child-murderers questions the assumption that it was only women who were thought to be going against nature if they killed their child. An analysis of discourses on jealousy highlights that whilst crimes of passion existed in theory and were common narratives in popular culture, jealous wife and sweetheart murderers were subjects of legal and medical contention. Additionally, the thesis adds to current histories on medico-legal conflict in the late-nineteenth century and highlights the haphazard application of the McNaughton Rules through the use of new examples. Finally, an examination of Broadmoor’s insane convicts, as well as the publications and Addresses of Broadmoor’s Superintendents, sheds new light on the question of the criminal, not only in theory but also regarding their treatment in a criminal lunatic asylum from the point of view of the press, Government, and Broadmoor’s staff and patients.

Thesis (M.A.)--Lehigh University, 2009. / Adviser: Kate Crassons.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Bryn Mawr College, 1928. / Vita. Bibliography: p. 136-144.

This thesis explores the relationship between law, sovereignty and violence in colonial India in the period 1857-1914. From murder, to corporal punishment, to jubilee amnesty, this thesis highlights two gaps within the scholarship of nineteenth-century Indian legal and political history. Firstly, that histories of colonial law have been reluctant to provide a political analysis of the relationship between crime, sovereignty and identity in the everyday. Secondly, the much-noted shift in political discourse from East India Company to British Crown rule in histories of imperial political philosophy has left unexplained the relationship between liberalism, the codification of criminal law, and the production of colonial legal-political subjectivity. This lacuna in scholarship has resulted in the construction of a limited theoretical framework for understanding the underlying politics at play in the histories of crime, law, and punishment. Ultimately this work provides such framework, allowing the writing of law and the act of crime to be brought into histories of political philosophy and colonial sovereignty. As a revisionist history of colonial politics and law the thesis therefore breaks new ground in respect to our broader understandings of colonial sovereignty and politics, the practice of colonial law, and the constitution of the colonial state in India.

<p> A century ago, foreign governments and their actions were essentially beyond U.S. judicial reach. In the 1950s, however, U.S. courts began to govern more and more activities of foreign governments leading to a transformation in the modality of U.S. power directed abroad. Legal historians describe this as a transition from an &ldquo;absolute&rdquo; to a &ldquo;restrictive&rdquo; practice of sovereign immunity, and one dominant narrative explains the transition as a pragmatic move away from an obsolete model of &ldquo;territorial sovereignty&rdquo; to a more flexible, &ldquo;de-territorialized&rdquo; or even &ldquo;de-spatialized&rdquo; sovereignty better suited for a globalized economy. Through tracing key U.S. legal changes involving foreign sovereign governments from 1898 to 2014, with a focus on sovereign debt law, I argue that transnational sovereign economic activity in fact remains dependent as ever on national borders &mdash; albeit borders that are continually reconfigured through minute changes in U.S. common law. </p><p> Far from representing a homogeneous de-territorialization of the contemporary international legal order, I show that there has been an uneven re-territorialization that reduces the authority of most countries over their own economic decisions while expanding the judicial reach of a few &mdash; primarily the United States &mdash; and that New York state law has been especially important in this process. This has resulted not in a general restriction of state sovereignty in the face of &ldquo;globalization,&rdquo; but in a differential displacement of economic sovereignty from post-colonial, poor and indebted states to rich, industrialized ones. The legal structures developed since the 1960s have aimed at entrenching and extending U.S. dominance over the global capitalist order and presently function to perpetuate exploitative relations between sovereign debtors and private creditors. </p><p> U.S. judicial power has been a crucial and largely overlooked pillar of post-war U.S hegemony. I show how judicial transformations of the past half-century have occurred in relation to changing economic conditions, including threats to U.S. property posed by Third World nationalizations in the 1950s to the 1970s, rising indebtedness since the 1970s, and an ongoing overaccumulation crisis. The expansion of U.S. judicial power has simultaneously been driven at every step by U.S. geopolitical interests, including, importantly, the desire to contain Communism and maintain the colonial status quo in the context of the Cold War, widespread de-colonization and Third Worldist movements, and the reconstruction of U.S. dollar hegemony in the 1980s. </p><p> I argue that the expansion of U.S. judicial power in the past half-century should be understood as territorial insofar as it has defined the space over which the state (in the form of courts) may exercise authority. Through a critical analysis of this legal history I show how the reconceptualization of key legal dichotomies &mdash; most importantly, foreign/domestic, public/private, and political/legal &mdash; has been a fundamental spatial mechanism through which these legal territories are produced and contested. Since the 1960s, U.S. &mdash; especially New York &mdash; courts have increasingly reclassified foreign sovereign transnational activities as &ldquo;private&rdquo; (rather than &ldquo;public&rdquo; or &ldquo;sovereign&rdquo;) and therefore as properly within the scope of U.S. judicial (&ldquo;legal&rdquo;) rather than executive (&ldquo;political&rdquo;) authority. Foreign sovereign activities have also increasingly been reclassified from &ldquo;foreign&rdquo; (meaning outside the United States) to &ldquo;domestic&rdquo; (meaning inside the United States). Together, these interlinked changes have been used to bring activity that would previously have been considered beyond the authority of U.S. courts within U.S. judicial reach. This has expanded U.S. authority as a whole through the modality of judicial power, while simultaneously de-politicizing important social questions and removing them from even the possibility of democratic debate. (Abstract shortened by ProQuest.)</p><p>

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Iowa, 1923. / Bibliography: p. [337]-354.

This study investigates the surrender of the conventional forces of the Orange Free State (OFS) to the British forces on the 30th July 1900. The surrender might signify the end of the existence of the OFS as a state, and implied that the British forces had successfully conquered the OFS. The study provides a legal historical perspective on the events that led to the surrender, the surrender itself and its consequences. The study further explores allegations of high treason, as well as other crimes committed, and allegations of illegal acts with regard to the surrender.

No description available.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Iowa, 1923. / Bibliography: p. [337]-354.