Matching Items (9)
Filtering by
- Creators: School of Social Transformation
Description
Today's prison industrial complex in the United States often dehumanizes inmates simply because they are criminals. Members of the free society are generally too far removed from the inside of prisons that most people do not see the harsh and cruel conditions for and treatment of prisoners. As a Dance and Justice Studies major at Arizona State University, I was curious about how to intertwine my interests in dance and justice. This paper chronicles my exploration of adding a human rights issue to my dance practice through choreographing a solo dance performance based on Cleve Foster's unusual experience on death row. Research on theories of prison and punishment in American society combined with physical research in the dance studio enabled me to create a solo performance that shed light on the inhumane conditions for and treatment of prison inmates in today's society. Through the process, I found that some elements of my dance practice stayed the same, while others changed. This informed me of what continuously remains important to me, while allowing me to expand my personal dance practice. I ultimately discovered a bridge between my two passions, dance and justice, and learned a meaningful way to convey a contemporary social justice issue to the general public.
ContributorsKerr, Elena Marie (Author) / Schupp, Karen (Thesis director) / Vissicaro, Pegge (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / Herberger Institute for Design and the Arts (Contributor) / School of Social Transformation (Contributor) / School of Film, Dance and Theatre (Contributor)
Created2015-05
Description
In 1972, the United States Supreme Court found that the death penalty was being applied too arbitrarily in the United States and that this arbitrary application constituted cruel and unusual punishment under the eighth amendment (Furman V. Georgia, 1972). This lead to a moratorium on capital punishment until the case Gregg V. Georgia, which outlined guidelines for the states in applying the death penalty in order to ensure that its application was constitutional (Gregg V. Georgia, 1976). These guidelines included enumerated aggravating factors and a bifurcated capital trial (Gregg V. Georgia, 1976). Despite these findings from the Supreme Court, the application of the death penalty in Arizona has remained problematic. In practice, Arizona has adopted a death penalty statute that appears to conform to the standards set by Furman and Gregg. Arizona state law includes a list of aggravating factors to help guide juries in capital trials and these trials are bifurcated. However, Arizona's aggravating factors are both numerous and inclusive, to the point that it is challenging to commit a first-degree murder in Arizona that does not include an aggravating factor. The statute fails to limit the crimes that qualify for the death penalty so state budgetary concerns become the limiting factor. Arizona's application of the death penalty remains arbitrary, in consistent, and as a result, unconstitutional as defined by the United States Supreme Court.
ContributorsPerez-Vargas, Maricarmen Contreras (Author) / Cavender, Gray (Thesis director) / Corey, Susan (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / School of International Letters and Cultures (Contributor) / School of Social Transformation (Contributor) / Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law (Contributor)
Created2015-05
Description
By providing vignettes with manipulated scientific evidence, this research examined if including more or less scientific detail affected decision-making in regards to the death penalty. Participants were randomly assigned one of the two manipulations (less science and more science) after reading a short scenario introducing the mock capital trial and their role as jury members. Survey respondents were told that a jury had previously found the defendant guilty and they would now deliberate the appropriate punishment. Before being exposed to the manipulation, respondents answered questions pertaining to their prior belief in the death penalty, as well as their level of support of procedural justice and science. These questions provided a baseline to compare to their sentencing decision. Participants were then asked what sentence they would impose \u2014 life in prison or death \u2014 and how the fMRI evidence presented by an expert witness for the defense affected their decision. Both quantitative and qualitative measures were used to identify how the level of scientific detail affected their decision. Our intended predictor variable (level of scientific detail) did not affect juror decision-making. In fact, the qualitative results revealed a variety of interpretations of the scientific evidence used both in favor of death and in favor of life. When looking at what did predict juror decision-making, gender, prior belief in the death penalty, and political ideology all were significant predictors. As in previous literature, the fMRI evidence in our study had mixed results with regards to implementation of the death penalty. This held true in both of our manipulations, showing that despite the level of detail in evidence intended for mitigation, jurors with preconceived notions may still disregard the evidence, and some jurors may even view it is aggravating and thus increase the likelihood of a death sentence for a defendant with such brain abnormalities.
ContributorsBerry, Megan Cheyenne (Author) / Fradella, Hank (Thesis director) / Pardini, Dustin (Committee member) / Department of Psychology (Contributor) / School of Life Sciences (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2016-12
Description
Protection orders are a common remedy for victims of domestic violence in Arizona, but problems of access and unnecessary complexity can prevent these orders from achieving their full potential impact. Through interviews with court officials and advocates, data collected from survivors of domestic violence and observation of court proceedings, this study takes a comprehensive look at how to make protection orders as effective and accessible as possible. This analysis concludes with a series of recommendations to improve the protection order process and guidelines for the information to be included in a comprehensive resource to help plaintiffs through the process.
ContributorsDavis, Lauren Elise (Author) / Durfee, Alesha (Thesis director) / Messing, Jill (Committee member) / Buel, Sarah (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / School of Social Transformation (Contributor) / Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law (Contributor) / School of Historical, Philosophical and Religious Studies (Contributor)
Created2013-05
Description
The project follows a recent issue between the U.S. and Mexico concerning the shared use of the transborder Santa Cruz River. The situation remains unresolved and the long-term sustainability of the river is unknown. The study is based on an analysis of scholarly research and interviews pulling from three fields: Law, social science, and the environment. The project explores potential solutions from multiple levels of governance, and contextualizes the issue in terms of the people affected on both sides of the border.
ContributorsSimons, Amelie Christine (Author) / Haglund, LaDawn (Thesis director) / Lara-Valencia, Francisco (Committee member) / Sass, Sherry (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / School of Social Transformation (Contributor)
Created2013-05
Description
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.
ContributorsCaldwell, Rachel Lillian (Author) / Hoekstra, Valerie (Thesis director) / Bender, Paul (Committee member) / Historical, Philosophical & Religious Studies (Contributor) / School of Social Transformation (Contributor, Contributor) / Historical, Philosophical & Religious Studies, Sch (Contributor) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2021-05
Description
This paper explores the relationship between social and cultural capital and the experience of Asian Americans in law school and after graduating from law school. Bourdieu’s (1986) conceptualizations of institutional cultural capital, embodied cultural capital, and social capital guide this analysis. Two electronic surveys resulted in participation by fourteen Asian American law students and nine Asian American law school graduates from American Bar Association-accredited law schools in the United States. The research design is qualitative, and a partial grounded theory approach based upon Charmaz’s (2006) work was utilized. Thematic coding, line-by-line coding, and focused coding were also used to analyze survey responses. Results demonstrate that there is a relationship between social and cultural capital and the experience of Asian Americans in law school and post-law school graduation. Institutional cultural capital, in the form of J.D. degrees, seems to influence the development of embodied cultural capital and social capital, particularly when considering membership in groups and forming personal and professional connections. When considering embodied cultural capital, family members appear to influence important personal characteristics that participants carry into law school and the workplace. These results may have implications for the larger trend of Asian Americans leaving large law firms; in addition, perceptions of embodied cultural capital may influence barriers to career advancement. Suggested areas for future research include the role of mentorship in Asian American career development, patterns within specific Asian American ethnic/cultural groups in the legal field, and the intersection of gender and Asian American identities in legal practice.
ContributorsSu, Yuhong (Author) / Nakagawa, Kathryn (Thesis director) / Broberg, Gregory (Committee member) / School of Social Transformation (Contributor, Contributor, Contributor) / Economics Program in CLAS (Contributor) / Dean, W.P. Carey School of Business (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2019-12
Description
Realistically, everyone should either be in jail or in court for crimes that everybody
commits. Outside of the house, there are people speeding, jaywalking, littering, sharing
medication, and driving without seat belts. Inside the house, people are downloading
music/movies, drinking while underage, using (and abusing) social media while under the age of
18, and reading another person’s mail. With so much of a focus on serious crimes, or felonies,
people tend to forget about the everyday actions in America that are also illegal. For example, a
police officer may not do anything if several cars are going well over the speed limit on the
highway, because it is normalized. This paper explores two sides of this issue: the psychological
side and the legal side. The goal is to find out how culpable people really are for their actions
when they do not have the mental intent that the they are determined to have in court. All human
behavior will be divided into two sections (people with non-extreme mental disorders and people
who have total control over their behavior). First, I dive into the complexity of anxiety,
depression, and ADHD, and explain how these disorders will subtly change someone’s behavior.
Next, I examine how actions like speeding and jaywalking and explain how certain illegal
actions have become so normalized that people may not be very guilty, even when they are
knowingly committing these crimes. I use different misdemeanors as examples for each of these
types of behaviors to argue why people should be more culpable (aggravating factors) or less
culpable (mitigating factors) because of their respective predispositions. Finally, I discuss issues
of fixing the criminal justice system such as: how to make all punishments fair/accurate, how to
fix the public’s distrust towards the law, and how to stop these normalized illegal behaviors for
all people, regardless of mental health or intent.
commits. Outside of the house, there are people speeding, jaywalking, littering, sharing
medication, and driving without seat belts. Inside the house, people are downloading
music/movies, drinking while underage, using (and abusing) social media while under the age of
18, and reading another person’s mail. With so much of a focus on serious crimes, or felonies,
people tend to forget about the everyday actions in America that are also illegal. For example, a
police officer may not do anything if several cars are going well over the speed limit on the
highway, because it is normalized. This paper explores two sides of this issue: the psychological
side and the legal side. The goal is to find out how culpable people really are for their actions
when they do not have the mental intent that the they are determined to have in court. All human
behavior will be divided into two sections (people with non-extreme mental disorders and people
who have total control over their behavior). First, I dive into the complexity of anxiety,
depression, and ADHD, and explain how these disorders will subtly change someone’s behavior.
Next, I examine how actions like speeding and jaywalking and explain how certain illegal
actions have become so normalized that people may not be very guilty, even when they are
knowingly committing these crimes. I use different misdemeanors as examples for each of these
types of behaviors to argue why people should be more culpable (aggravating factors) or less
culpable (mitigating factors) because of their respective predispositions. Finally, I discuss issues
of fixing the criminal justice system such as: how to make all punishments fair/accurate, how to
fix the public’s distrust towards the law, and how to stop these normalized illegal behaviors for
all people, regardless of mental health or intent.
ContributorsHildebrand, David Abel (Author) / Rigoni, Adam (Thesis director) / Cavanaugh-Toft, Carolyn (Committee member) / School of Social Transformation (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2020-05
Description
In the United States, Black defendants are more likely to be sentenced to death than their white counterparts exclusively due to their race. There are several aspects that work to explain why this pattern is present, and this paper analyzes our current sentencing disparity through the lens of race to understand why this is the case. First, the historical context of legal racial discrimination will be explored as I discuss the legacy slavery and how the trade and ownership of Black people led to the devaluation of African Americans long after the 13th Amendment abolished the practice. This is seen from the establishment of convict leasing directly following abolition, to the development of Black Codes and Jim Crow laws, and eventually this legacy became the foundation that contributed to the targeted mass incarceration of African Americans beginning with Richard Nixon’s 1970s “war on drugs” campaign and spanning to today. Next, six important milestone Supreme Court cases relating to the evolution of capital punishment in the United States will be described. These cases include Furman v. Georgia, Gregg v. Georgia, Lockett v. Ohio, Batson v. Kentucky, and McCleskey v. Kemp. This research also presents data that illustrates the current trends in death penalty sentencing within 26 states who currently implement this punishment. The results show that there is an overwhelming amount of data in support of harsher criminal sentences and therefore a higher likelihood of Black defendants being sentenced to death in comparison to their white counterparts. Lastly, the systemic inequalities embedded within several aspects of capital trials are outlined—both in terms of juror bias against African American defendants as well as racial issues when hiring an attorney—and works to inform my argument that the death penalty should be abolished. An offender’s race should not play any role in determining the severity of their punishment, but the historic criminalization of Black people works to ensure that these groups of people are typically at a severe disadvantage when navigating the American justice system. Overall, the application of the death penalty can not be applied in a standard manner, nor can there be regulations passed in such a way to guarantee an absence of racism within our current system. Therefore, the United States should abolish this unjust, discriminatory practice.
ContributorsSasselli, Annabella (Author) / Shabazz, Rashad (Thesis director) / Corey, Susan (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / School of Social Transformation (Contributor) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor)
Created2023-12