Theses and Dissertations
This collection includes both ASU Theses and Dissertations, submitted by graduate students, and the Barrett, Honors College theses submitted by undergraduate students.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2
Filtering by
Description
Arizona’s struggle with the opioid crisis reflects a failure of drug policy. This failure stems from decades of mimicking federal narcotic criminalization legislation. Arizona’s deference on narcotic policy was driven by a fear of addicts that was intentionally inflated by federal agents. Further, the federal prioritization of state uniformity of narcotic policy spread and entrenched the consequences of creating an illegal narcotics market. Arizona adopted these uniform policies enthusiastically. The state’s continued adoption of federal policy— exemplified by five pieces of legislation spanning between 1931 and 1979— show a continued theme of fear of addicts and prioritization of criminalization for the sake of uniformity. Criminalization and demonization of addicts are the main drivers of the modern opioid crisis. In this way, Arizona is culpable and is thus obligated to adopt an alternate narcotic policy approach that prioritizes evidence, compassion, and individual rights.
ContributorsRamsey, Grace Michele (Author) / Provine, Doris Marie (Thesis director) / Spohn, Cassia (Committee member) / School of Criminology and Criminal Justice (Contributor) / School of Public Affairs (Contributor) / Sanford School of Social and Family Dynamics (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2019-12
Description
A polygraph exam attempts to measure “truthfulness” based on several physiological factors—such as changes in heart rate, breathing, sweating, and other physical responses. Ever since the polygraph exam was invented in 1921, however, it has been surrounded by heavy controversy. The largest controversy is whether or not polygraph exams are scientifically valid. Aside from debate over whether “truthfulness” can actually be scientifically measured, polygraph testing is vulnerable to factors like the skill level of the examiner, the IQ of the subject, the setting of the exam, and finally, the ability for subjects to employ “countermeasures.” Countermeasures include physical movements, mental exercises, drug use, and biofeedback training. In addition to these drawbacks, the polygraph exam is not admissible in court. Despite this, the polygraph can still serve other purposes—anywhere from assisting in the law enforcement hiring process to classifying the behavior of convicted sex offenders. Polygraph examinations may be administered at various points during a criminal investigation, both pre-conviction and post-conviction. For example, when a criminal investigation first begins, a subject may be polygraphed to be eliminated as a suspect. Once charges are filed against an individual for an offense, law enforcement may polygraph the subject to obtain more information. After conviction, an offender may be polygraphed at various points during their incarceration, as a part of research studies, as well as part of monitoring sex offenders. In the United States, more than thirty states require that polygraph exams be administered to monitor sex offenders. These periodic exams help track sexual offender’s therapeutic progress, identify risk factors, and shed light on any new offenses. This thesis paper provides a synthesis of the current state of literature surrounding the use of post-conviction polygraphs on sex offenders by outlining the numerous advantages and disadvantages.
ContributorsBlakley, Audrey Kay (Author) / Fox, Kate (Thesis director) / Spohn, Cassia (Committee member) / School of Accountancy (Contributor) / School of Criminology and Criminal Justice (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2019-05