Matching Items (3)
Filtering by
- Status: Published
Description
Suspect classification is a judicial process by which classes of people are determined as either suspect, quasi-suspect, or not suspect at all due to a combination of five factors: 1) minority status, 2) discrimination history, 3) political powerlessness, 4) an immutable trait, and 5) trait relevance as it relates to a discriminatory law in question. Laws that discriminate against a suspect class become immediately subject to strict scrutiny while most discriminatory laws only need to pass a rational basis test. Craig v. Boren (1976) established a precedent for the class of sex, which thereafter became subject to an intermediate level of scrutiny as a quasi-suspect class. With a more visible distinction between sex and gender today, this study seeks to determine whether gender rather than sex may become protected through heightened scrutiny by applying factors for suspect classification. In a call for heightened scrutiny for both gender and sex, this thesis argues that the suspect classification of both classes should include combinations of subclasses between gender, sex, and any other protected class. The central thesis employs a content analysis of case law, statutory law, and administrative law as it discriminates against classes of people with varying protection under the court system in the United States. In the question of whether courts should protect gender with suspect classification, the main argument calls for such action but if and only if an intersectional approach to protecting gender along with sex at a heightened level of judicial scrutiny is applied by individual judges on higher courts of review.
ContributorsTorres, Cristian Jesus (Author) / Hoekstra, Valerie (Thesis director) / Durfee, Alesha (Committee member) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor) / Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law (Contributor) / School of Social Transformation (Contributor) / School of Public Affairs (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2018-05
Description
Arizona’s Dram Shop Statute, specifically ARS 4-311, was enacted in 1986 to hold liquor licensees financially responsible for any injuries or deaths that arise from the service and consumption of alcohol by customers of their establishment. The intent of such policies was to mitigate instances of driving under the influence of alcohol. However, evidence shows that such statutes have little to no effect on incidents of drunk driving in the State of Arizona, yet are detrimental to the viability of local restaurants and bars. The full liability that businesses in this industry face has an adverse effect on the following:
• The ability of establishments to obtain and maintain insurance coverage
• Limits the number of insurance carriers in Arizona, which increases the cost of such coverage.
• Expensive insurance directly affects business profitability:
o restricting their ability to make capital purchases
o limiting their ability to make local investments
o reduces state income tax revenue
o the need to reduce their staff or close their doors completely
o less money that any local business can bring to their bottom line is less money that they are able to
o reinvest in their community, their city, and in their state
In an effort to reduce the burdens imposed on Arizona’s restaurant and bar industry, I propose legislative changes to Arizona Revised Statute 4-311. These legislative changes would not only aid these small businesses in their efforts to be profitable and serve their communities, but would be beneficial to local cities and the State of Arizona alike. I would propose the following:
• Place a burden of proof on the plaintiff that a customer was served in an “obviously intoxicated” state as defined in A.R.S 4-311 (D), diminishing the ability to file suits based solely on the driver’s BAC of .08 or above.
• Strike all claims with basis on “known or should have known” judge made and judge applied common law standard that has not been incorporated in to the Arizona Dram Shop Statutes through legislation.
With these changes to Arizona Dram Shop Statutes, local restaurants and bars could contribute not only to their local economies, but also to support deterrence of the crime through a .5% tax on liquor sales generated through the sale of such in a liquor licensed establishment. This tax would amount to approximately $27* million dollars annually for the State of Arizona. This additional tax revenue would go directly to their local police departments to specifically fund increased efforts to deter instances of drunk driving. This deterrence could be achieved through increased police presence, hiring and training officers in the specialty of detecting drunk drivers, and/or conducting additional sobriety checkpoints throughout the state. Currently, a few other states (MD 9%, MN 2.5%, ND 7%, D.C 10%) have implemented a small tax on retail sales of liquor in addition to the various excise tax imposed at the wholesale and/or manufacturing level.
• The ability of establishments to obtain and maintain insurance coverage
• Limits the number of insurance carriers in Arizona, which increases the cost of such coverage.
• Expensive insurance directly affects business profitability:
o restricting their ability to make capital purchases
o limiting their ability to make local investments
o reduces state income tax revenue
o the need to reduce their staff or close their doors completely
o less money that any local business can bring to their bottom line is less money that they are able to
o reinvest in their community, their city, and in their state
In an effort to reduce the burdens imposed on Arizona’s restaurant and bar industry, I propose legislative changes to Arizona Revised Statute 4-311. These legislative changes would not only aid these small businesses in their efforts to be profitable and serve their communities, but would be beneficial to local cities and the State of Arizona alike. I would propose the following:
• Place a burden of proof on the plaintiff that a customer was served in an “obviously intoxicated” state as defined in A.R.S 4-311 (D), diminishing the ability to file suits based solely on the driver’s BAC of .08 or above.
• Strike all claims with basis on “known or should have known” judge made and judge applied common law standard that has not been incorporated in to the Arizona Dram Shop Statutes through legislation.
With these changes to Arizona Dram Shop Statutes, local restaurants and bars could contribute not only to their local economies, but also to support deterrence of the crime through a .5% tax on liquor sales generated through the sale of such in a liquor licensed establishment. This tax would amount to approximately $27* million dollars annually for the State of Arizona. This additional tax revenue would go directly to their local police departments to specifically fund increased efforts to deter instances of drunk driving. This deterrence could be achieved through increased police presence, hiring and training officers in the specialty of detecting drunk drivers, and/or conducting additional sobriety checkpoints throughout the state. Currently, a few other states (MD 9%, MN 2.5%, ND 7%, D.C 10%) have implemented a small tax on retail sales of liquor in addition to the various excise tax imposed at the wholesale and/or manufacturing level.
ContributorsRutten, Lori Ann (Author) / Novak, Shawn (Thesis director) / Herbert, Anne (Committee member) / School of Public Affairs (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2016-12
Description
For my honors thesis project in Barrett, the Honors College, I conducted an online college survey that measured student attitudes and perceptions with regard to gender, sexual assault, and domestic violence. In doing so, I also asked students situational questions about their experiences with sexual violence. The research question for the project centered around hidden victims who have been affected by gender-based violence but have yet to report the incident to law enforcement or university officials, despite a number of prominent educational and prevention campaigns on campus and in mainstream media. At the conclusion of the Spring 2016 semester, I received 683 responses from current students at Arizona State University. For the majority of situational questions, 20-30% of individuals answered "yes" to experiencing incidents of sexual violence, many of which focused on if someone had used alcohol/drugs, threats, or physical force to obtain sexual intercourse. For the survey, 11% of women said yes to the question, "have you ever been raped?" Additionally, a significant number of students hesitate to report incidents to law enforcement or university officials because: (1) they were ashamed or embarrassed, (2) wanted to forget it happened, and (3) believed it was a private matter that they wanted to deal with on their own. With this information, university administrators can develop a better understanding of the ASU campus culture as it relates to sexual violence. Additionally, organizational and institutional efforts can be organized and designed to meet the specific needs of our student body with the goal of ultimately reducing the number of sexual assaults that take place.
ContributorsBarney, Emily Marie (Author) / Wright, Kevin (Thesis director) / Spohn, Cassia (Committee member) / School of Public Affairs (Contributor) / School of Social Transformation (Contributor) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2016-12