Filtering by
- All Subjects: Criminal Justice
- Creators: School of Social Transformation
- Resource Type: Text
The United States Supreme Court decided Ramos v. Louisiana in 2020, requiring all states to convict criminal defendants by a unanimous jury. However, this case only applied to petitioners on direct, and not collateral, appeal. In this thesis, I argue that the Ramos precedent should apply to people on collateral appeal as well, exploring the implications of such a decision and the criteria that should be used to make the decision in the case before the court, Edwards v. Vannoy (2021). Ultimately, I find that because the criteria currently used to determine retroactivity of new criminal precedents does not provide a clear answer to the question posed in Edwards, the Court should give more weight to the defendant's freedoms pursuant to the presumption of innocence while considering the potential for any disastrous outcomes.
For this thesis, I analyzed the discourse and content of Proposition 22, a California law which defined all workers utilizing gig-based apps to sell services as independent contractors meaning they were not legally entitled to certain protections such as minimum wage. The law was overturned in court in 2020, however, the advertisements in favor of and discourse behind the law has had a continued impact on all workers. Because of this it is important to examine and conceptualize the ideologies behind the law in order to understand how it was able to pass in a state which tends to vote in favor of increasing employee rights and regulation of industries. To do so, I utilized two methods of analysis, a discourse analysis of legal documents and a content analysis of advertisements. The former revolves around analyzing the discourse and ideologies around two versions of the legislation which were shown to the public, while the latter analysis categorizes and examines the implications of various advertisements utilized by companies to support the proposition. Ultimately, gig companies created an effective campaign that was able to repackage neoliberal deregulation for the general public while actively misrepresenting information around the law leading to long lasting effects that continue to harm workers while lining the pockets of investors despite its overturning.
Despite countless research reports, research studies, and studies of human psychology verifying that the Reid Method interrogation tactics used by police in the United States cause false confessions, the method is still heavily accepted and used on suspects everyday. This research paper will look into the Reid Method interrogation tactics, their connection to false confessions in order to establish a basis for repealing and replacing the Reid Method with an alternative interrogation technique. This paper will show that the guilt-presumptive nature of the Reid Method leads to innocent individuals falsely confessing and spending years in prison. Evidence of this phenomenon will be shown through research papers, studies, case examples, and an interview with a false confession expert Dr. Richard A. Leo. The Reid Method is problematic and jeopardizes the presumption of innocence for every citizen in the United States and should be repealed by an alternative interrogation technique called P.E.A.C.E in order for justice to be renewed.