Matching Items (7)
149375-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
This thesis looks at the 1842 Supreme Court ruling of Prigg v. Pennsylvania, the events leading up to this case, and the subsequent legislative fallout from the decision. The Supreme Court rendered this ruling in an effort to clear up confusion regarding the conflict between state and federal law with

This thesis looks at the 1842 Supreme Court ruling of Prigg v. Pennsylvania, the events leading up to this case, and the subsequent legislative fallout from the decision. The Supreme Court rendered this ruling in an effort to clear up confusion regarding the conflict between state and federal law with regard to fugitive slave recovery. Instead, the ambiguities contained within the ruling further complicated the issue of fugitive slave recovery. This complication commenced when certain state legislatures exploited an inadvertent loophole contained in the ruling. Thus, instead of mollifying sectional tension by generating a clear and concise process of fugitive slave recovery, the Supreme Court exacerbated sectional tension. Through an analysis of newspapers, journals, laws and other contemporary sources, this thesis demonstrates that Prigg v. Pennsylvania and the subsequent legislative reactions garnered much attention. Through a review of secondary literature covering this period, a lack of demonstrable coverage of this court case emerges, which shows that scant coverage has been paid to this important episode in antebellum America. Additionally, the lack of attention paid to this court case ignores a critical episode of rising sectional tension during the 1840s.
ContributorsCoughlin, John (Author) / Schermerhorn, Calvin (Thesis advisor) / O'Donnell, Catherine (Thesis advisor) / Whitaker, Matthew (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2010
141336-Thumbnail Image.png
Description

There is substantial controversy over the extent to which social science should be used in jury selection. Underlying the debate are two competing interests in the make-up of a jury: a privilege to strike prospective jurors on subjective grounds, which supports scientific jury selection, and a collective interest of citizens

There is substantial controversy over the extent to which social science should be used in jury selection. Underlying the debate are two competing interests in the make-up of a jury: a privilege to strike prospective jurors on subjective grounds, which supports scientific jury selection, and a collective interest of citizens to be free from exclusion from jury service, which does not. While the incommensurability of the interests precludes resolution of the controversy in the abstract, specific solutions are possible. Using the example of selection of jurors based upon their respective levels of extraversion, we describe how the competing interests frequently do not apply to concrete cases. In the subsequent analysis, we show that, rhetoric notwithstanding, a normative preference for adhering to tradition and institutional inertia are the primary instrumental considerations for determining whether peremptory challenges based upon personality traits like extraversion ought to be allowed. Consistent with this analysis, we conclude that the practice of striking jurors based upon estimates of such personality traits is appropriate.

ContributorsGirvan, Erik J. (Author) / Cramer, Robert J. (Author) / Titcomb, Caroline (Author) / Neal, Tess M.S. (Author) / Brodsky, Stanley L. (Author)
Created2013
141314-Thumbnail Image.png
Description

The essential tasks for an expert witness are to be prepared, to be effective and credible on the stand, and to manage well the demands of cross-examinations. Most novice experts are excessively anxious about their testimony. Effective experts are well-oriented to the legal and scientific context of court testimony. This

The essential tasks for an expert witness are to be prepared, to be effective and credible on the stand, and to manage well the demands of cross-examinations. Most novice experts are excessively anxious about their testimony. Effective experts are well-oriented to the legal and scientific context of court testimony. This chapter reviews research-backed tips for preparing for expert testimony.

ContributorsBrodsky, Stanley L. (Author) / Neal, Tess M.S. (Author)
Created2013
141315-Thumbnail Image.png
Description

The majority of trust research has focused on the benefits trust can have for individual actors, institutions, and organizations. This “optimistic bias” is particularly evident in work focused on institutional trust, where concepts such as procedural justice, shared values, and moral responsibility have gained prominence. But trust in institutions may

The majority of trust research has focused on the benefits trust can have for individual actors, institutions, and organizations. This “optimistic bias” is particularly evident in work focused on institutional trust, where concepts such as procedural justice, shared values, and moral responsibility have gained prominence. But trust in institutions may not be exclusively good. We reveal implications for the “dark side” of institutional trust by reviewing relevant theories and empirical research that can contribute to a more holistic understanding. We frame our discussion by suggesting there may be a “Goldilocks principle” of institutional trust, where trust that is too low (typically the focus) or too high (not usually considered by trust researchers) may be problematic. The chapter focuses on the issue of too-high trust and processes through which such too-high trust might emerge. Specifically, excessive trust might result from external, internal, and intersecting external-internal processes. External processes refer to the actions institutions take that affect public trust, while internal processes refer to intrapersonal factors affecting a trustor’s level of trust. We describe how the beneficial psychological and behavioral outcomes of trust can be mitigated or circumvented through these processes and highlight the implications of a “darkest” side of trust when they intersect. We draw upon research on organizations and legal, governmental, and political systems to demonstrate the dark side of trust in different contexts. The conclusion outlines directions for future research and encourages researchers to consider the ethical nuances of studying how to increase institutional trust.

ContributorsNeal, Tess M.S. (Author) / Shockley, Ellie (Author) / Schilke, Oliver (Author)
Created2016
Description

The power of language in leadership positions and social movements is well established. Charismatic Language patterns have been identified as effective for influencing perception and decision-making. This study examines the use of Charismatic Language in a court of law through a randomized survey of different treatments of oral arguments in

The power of language in leadership positions and social movements is well established. Charismatic Language patterns have been identified as effective for influencing perception and decision-making. This study examines the use of Charismatic Language in a court of law through a randomized survey of different treatments of oral arguments in a homicide case. Results show that Charismatic Language used by the prosecution is less likely to influence a jury and can even dissuade their decision. Additionally, the study finds that Charismatic Language used by a female attorney may hinder the argument's reliability to a jury.

ContributorsSchultz, Natalie (Author) / Jensen, Ulrich (Thesis director) / Whittenton, Justin (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law (Contributor) / Dean, W.P. Carey School of Business (Contributor)
Created2023-05
131693-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
After the landmark case, Gideon v Wainwright was heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1963, the 6th Amendment granted counsel to indigent defendants. However, since 1963 the United States population has skyrocketed and so have arrest rates leaving many public defenders underpaid and overworked. Knowing these facts Can

After the landmark case, Gideon v Wainwright was heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1963, the 6th Amendment granted counsel to indigent defendants. However, since 1963 the United States population has skyrocketed and so have arrest rates leaving many public defenders underpaid and overworked. Knowing these facts Can Justice be Bought uses interviews, real-life stories, and research to determine if the 6th Amendment is upheld in the way the system is currently working, and are indigent defendants given a fair chance at trial. After an overview of public defense in the United States as a whole, it becomes clear that in many states the way the system is operating gives them less than a fair chance at justice. This, however, is not from a lack of effort from public defenders, they are simply just so overworked by exorbitant caseloads that they cannot possibly give each of their cases the time it deserves. However, not all indigent defense systems were created equal, states like Maryland have a number of resources for their public defenders that set them up for success. In order to close the gap between private counsel and public defense in the United States, public defenders’ offices should begin to allocate more funding in order to lighten their defenders’ caseloads as well as to provide them with resources such as expert witnesses and social workers. Funding is not found overnight, so in the meantime, the implementation of “participatory defense” can also help close the gap. The advantage of wealth is not found only in the courtroom but through nearly every part of the criminal justice system. From bail to parole, wealthier defendants typically see higher rates of success and lower rates of recidivism due to their ability to pay for these programs.
ContributorsAyd, Olivia (Author) / Koretz, Lora (Thesis director) / Moore, James (Committee member) / Dean, W.P. Carey School of Business (Contributor, Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2020-05
131402-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
Juvenile restorative justice has become an increasingly common alternative to punitive justice in recent decades. This project evaluates best practices and strategies that have been effective in reducing recidivism while upholding the key tenets of restoration. The goal of this project is to compile a reference for best practices and

Juvenile restorative justice has become an increasingly common alternative to punitive justice in recent decades. This project evaluates best practices and strategies that have been effective in reducing recidivism while upholding the key tenets of restoration. The goal of this project is to compile a reference for best practices and recommendations for the implementation of a juvenile restorative justice program at the Tempe Municipal Court. Through a comparison of two court-based restorative programs in the United States and a compilation of relevant research, a recommendation of Circle Conferencing is appropriate for the needs of the Tempe Municipal Court.
ContributorsBarger, Courtney Elizabeth (Author) / Broberg, Gregory (Thesis director) / Kane, Kevin (Committee member) / Dean, W.P. Carey School of Business (Contributor) / Economics Program in CLAS (Contributor) / School of International Letters and Cultures (Contributor) / School of Social Transformation (Contributor, Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2020-05