Matching Items (8)
Description
The aim of this thesis is to explore the relationship between architecture and history in Virginia from 1607 to the eve of the American Revolution to create a complete historical narrative. The interdependency of history and architecture creates culturally important pieces and projects the colonist's need to connect to the past as well as their innovations in their own cultural exploration. The thesis examines the living conditions of the colonists that formed Jamestown, and describes the architectural achievements and the historical events that were taking place at the time. After Jamestown, the paper moves on to the innovations of early Virginian architecture from Colonial architecture to Georgian architecture found in Williamsburg. Conclusively, the thesis presents a historical narrative on how architecture displays a collection of ideals from the Virginian colonists at the time. The external display of architecture parallels the events as well as the economic conditions of Virginia, creating a social dialogue between the gentry and the common class in the colony of Virginia.
ContributorsChang, Hosu (Author) / Gray, Susan (Thesis director) / O'Donnell, Catherine (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / School of Historical, Philosophical and Religious Studies (Contributor) / School of Social Transformation (Contributor)
Created2015-05
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
With cannabis legal in 38 states, 5 territories, and the District of Columbia as of 2023, the legal cannabis industry has become a major emerging industry that will continue to grow rapidly as continuing support for legalization drives both states and the federal government toward relaxing and even repealing prohibitions on both medical and recreational cannabis. However, the patchwork of conflicting state and federal laws surrounding cannabis create a legal and economic quagmire that severely limit the growth and success of legal cannabis businesses while aggravating longstanding socioeconomic disparities. In this thesis, I offer an evaluation of the history of cannabis in the US, current cannabis policy at the state and federal level, as well as offer a selection of federal and state policy options to promote a dramatic overhaul of current federal cannabis policy. These proposals aim to effectively and efficiently address the state/federal divide in cannabis law while simultaneously addressing key socioeconomic disparities aggravated by federal cannabis prohibition.
ContributorsValenzuela, Joshua (Author) / Lewis, Paul (Thesis director) / Rigoni, Adam (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor) / School of Music, Dance and Theatre (Contributor)
Created2023-05
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
This thesis explores the evolution of the insanity defense throughout legal history beginning with ancient Greek and Roman times. Ideas about treating the insane separate from the sane in a criminal proceeding were first expressed by famous philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle. The insanity defense was codified into the Justinian Code under Roman Law, but there was no criteria to distinguish who was insane and who was not. From the 14th to 19th centuries, a number of insanity tests were developed in English common law, resulting in the milestone M’Naghten rules, which became the basis for the insanity defense as it exists in the United States today. This paper explores how M’Naghten can be interpreted, what it does well, and its criticism. The thesis then explores how a number of other insanity defense standards rose in the United States, including the Irresistible Impulse Test, the New Hampshire test, the Durham test, the Model Penal Code, the Insanity Defense Reform Act, Guilty but Mentally Ill, and abolishing the insanity defense all together. The thesis asserts why all of these standards fall short of providing adequate protections for the insane in the criminal justice system and do not accurately define legal insanity. There is an analysis of both the theoretical and practical implications of trending alternate proposals for the insanity defense, including the Mental Illness Contribution Defense and Not Criminally Responsible By Reason of Recognized Medical Condition. Then, an argument is presented for the proposal for a new standard for insanity incorporating the ideas of philosopher Herbert Fingarette.
ContributorsHartunian, Jordyn (Author) / Rigoni, Adam (Thesis director) / Mack, Robert (Committee member) / Dean, W.P. Carey School of Business (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2020-05
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