Matching Items (9)
Filtering by

Clear all filters

137534-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
Certain laws relating to self-defense were created known as "Stand Your Ground" laws. The public has interpreted these laws in ways that expand them beyond their original scope. To gain an understanding of self-defense laws, a look at the origins of self-defense is needed. Following the historical background, several cases

Certain laws relating to self-defense were created known as "Stand Your Ground" laws. The public has interpreted these laws in ways that expand them beyond their original scope. To gain an understanding of self-defense laws, a look at the origins of self-defense is needed. Following the historical background, several cases will be examined that illustrate how the public has interpreted "Stand Your Ground" laws, and how these interpretations clash with elements of self-defense. Several philosophical principles including natural rights, the social contract, and some form of utilitarianism, will be discussed in relation to "Stand Your Ground" laws. A possible conclusion can be drawn that by misinterpreting "Stand Your Ground" laws, people compromise the philosophical ideals they hold, and infringe on other people's natural rights, break the social contract, and create societal unhappiness. Finally, some people are calling for reform of "Stand Your Ground" laws. These reforms focus on correcting public perception of "Stand Your Ground" laws.
ContributorsSmith, Geramya Joseph (Author) / Sigler, Mary (Thesis director) / Stanford, Michael (Committee member) / Kader, David (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law (Contributor) / W. P. Carey School of Business (Contributor)
Created2013-05
136984-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
This study examines the social construction of the border by researching how frequently select issues are written about by the media of both countries, and in what light two different groups of actors (Mexico and the US) are portrayed. The Dallas-based The Dallas Morning News, and the Monterrey-based, El Norte

This study examines the social construction of the border by researching how frequently select issues are written about by the media of both countries, and in what light two different groups of actors (Mexico and the US) are portrayed. The Dallas-based The Dallas Morning News, and the Monterrey-based, El Norte are the two newspapers chosen to perform the content analysis. Furthermore, this study seeks to examine differences in the way both newspapers portray the US-Mexico border in 1994, or the year NAFTA began, and 2012, the most recent year for which data is available. A major find of this study is the discovery of how even though the frequency that select issues are brought up in the border vary drastically by year and newspaper, portrayals of the actors around the border stay fairly consistent. More specifically, with the exception of NAFTA in 1994, border issues outside of crime, illegal immigration, drug violence, and the economy, are rarely mentioned by the two selected newspapers a significant amount of the time. Also, issues at the border such as crime, drug violence, and national security are often portrayed as the fault of Mexico and Mexican actors, while immigration issues at the border are often blamed exclusively on each newspaper's host countries.
ContributorsCelis-Aguirre, Ignacio (Author) / Lara-Valencia, Francisco (Thesis director) / Diaz McConnell, Eileen (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor) / Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law (Contributor)
Created2014-05
134681-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
The Freedom of Information Act (1966), an amendment altering Section Three of the Administrative Procedure Act (1964), outlines the rules and regulations for United States citizens to obtain federal government records. The act, written with the guidance of journalists, was created for all members of the public, but with the

The Freedom of Information Act (1966), an amendment altering Section Three of the Administrative Procedure Act (1964), outlines the rules and regulations for United States citizens to obtain federal government records. The act, written with the guidance of journalists, was created for all members of the public, but with the intent that the press would be the primary users of the legislation. The authors of the act believed the press would utilize FOIA to enhance its ability to accomplish its duty of keeping the public informed. Now, 51 years after the act was passed into law, critics say FOIA has not satisfactorily allowed the press or the public in general to inform and be informed. Issues with demand rates, unorganized systems and subjective interpretations of the act have combined to lock information from public access through an act that was intended to be the key to it. The data from annual federal agency FOIA reports to the attorney general from 2008 to 2015 have indicated that, in multiple metrics, FOIA has increasingly struggled to fulfill and often has failed to provide records to requesting parties. These trends have inspired a discussion among journalists and right-to-information advocates about how to best resolve the issues that have contributed to them. Proposed solutions range from adjustments to requesters' approaches to the act, amendments to the act and even abandoning the act entirely in favor of constructing a new law.
Created2016-12
Description
After having worked in the legal field for two years, I began to notice a pattern with clients. Several clients had an unrealistic view of the court system regarding trial proceedings. Oftentimes, I would come across clients that were perplexed by the idea of disclosing witnesses and exhibits to the

After having worked in the legal field for two years, I began to notice a pattern with clients. Several clients had an unrealistic view of the court system regarding trial proceedings. Oftentimes, I would come across clients that were perplexed by the idea of disclosing witnesses and exhibits to the opposing party before trial. They seemed to believe that evidence was only meant to be disclosed at the time of trial, so as to surprise the opposing side. This is just one of the many distorted ideas that several people have come to me with. I can see that clients feel upset and overwhelmed by how the reality of court differs from the court that they had been imagining. These patterns in client questions and realizations began my thinking of how to better raise awareness to Americans regarding realistic dealings in the courtroom. My desire to find a means to help people unfamiliar with the legal system better understand the rules of the court, paired with my love for card games, led me to create Judge and Jury, a card game about the legal system. Judge and Jury is a game that is meant to simplify concepts of the legal system through playing cards. Each rule in the game corresponds with real-life court rules and is meant to allow people to play out "court trials' through each round of the game. The correlations between the game rules and real-life court rules are subtle to keep players engaged and entertained. The subtleness allows players to grasp legal concepts without feeling overwhelmed. Game Website: https://judgeandjurygame.weebly.com/
ContributorsHomewood, Alexa (Author) / Eaton, John (Thesis director) / Wood, Robert (Committee member) / Department of Management and Entrepreneurship (Contributor) / W.P. Carey School of Business (Contributor) / Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2018-05
137713-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
Bad Samaritans are bystanders who omit from preventing some foreseeable harm when doing so could have been accomplished with little risk. Although failing to intervene to prevent a harm often renders Bad Samaritans morally culpable, under current common law in the United States they could not be held criminally liable

Bad Samaritans are bystanders who omit from preventing some foreseeable harm when doing so could have been accomplished with little risk. Although failing to intervene to prevent a harm often renders Bad Samaritans morally culpable, under current common law in the United States they could not be held criminally liable for any harm that resulted to the victims of that harm. In this paper I argue for the criminalization of individuals who fall under this label; I argue for the adoption of Bad Samaritan laws. To accomplish this, I first argue for the conclusion that omissions can causally contribute to harm. From here I am able to reach three further conclusions relative to Bad Samaritan legislation. These three conclusions are that Bad Samaritan laws are justified, that the punishment for the violation of a Bad Samaritan law should be proportional to the degree culpability for the harm caused, and that if "commission by omission" statutes are justified, then so too are Bad Samaritan laws.
ContributorsCallahan, Ty William (Author) / Sigler, Mary (Thesis director) / Murphy, Jeffrie (Committee member) / Botham, Thad (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / Chemical Engineering Program (Contributor) / Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law (Contributor) / School of Historical, Philosophical and Religious Studies (Contributor)
Created2013-05
137657-Thumbnail Image.png
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

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
135536-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
For decades, firms and individuals have utilized written documents to aid in the negotiation of, and completion of, business transactions. One such document is known as a "letter of intent." A letter of intent is often in the form of a letter that serves to evidence preliminary discussions and aid

For decades, firms and individuals have utilized written documents to aid in the negotiation of, and completion of, business transactions. One such document is known as a "letter of intent." A letter of intent is often in the form of a letter that serves to evidence preliminary discussions and aid in negotiations between parties. They are generally intended to be "non-binding," meaning neither party will be bound by terms or conditions set forth in the letter of intent unless formal documents are later prepared and executed by the parties. Letters of intent take myriad forms and names, such as "memorandum of understanding," "proposal letter," and "letter of interest." They have been used in many areas of business, including finance, real estate, and supply chain management. Parties often choose to use a letter of intent for varied benefits it may provide, memorializing preliminary discussions, establishing a timeline for negotiations, seeing whether there are any "deal breakers" among terms being proposed, confirming that a party is serious about a deal, or putting moral pressure on the other party to continue negotiations. However, letters of intent carry with them a significant level of risk, which raises the question of whether or not they should be used at all. Many of the risks associated with the use of a letter of intent stems from the potential for a court to find that a letter of intent constitutes a binding agreement, or creates a duty of the parties to continue negotiations in good faith. Parties to a letter of intent may later disagree as to whether they intended all of the terms, or a particular provision, to be legally binding and enforceable, resulting in legal action. Even if a court finds that a letter of intent does not constitute a binding contract, a party may be able to recover damages under a number of legal theories, such as breach of a duty to negotiate in good faith or promissory estoppel. The use of letters of intent is therefore risky, and ultimately, the risks may outweigh the benefits of utilizing letters of intent. This thesis studies the types, uses, benefits, and risks associated with the use of letters of intent, including an examination of statutes and cases that have been applied by courts in disputes surrounding their use. Ways to mitigate the risks of use are also examined including simple practices such as not signing a letter of intent and using a separate document for any terms which must be binding, such as a "no shop" clause. A proposed legislative solution is also discussed that would prevent letters of intent not explicitly intended to be binding and meeting statutory requirements from being enforced in court, thereby substantially reducing the risks associated with the use of letters of intent.
ContributorsGilman, Alexander James (Author) / Birnbaum, Gary (Thesis director) / Stein, Luke (Committee member) / Claus, Scot (Committee member) / Department of Finance (Contributor) / W. P. Carey School of Business (Contributor) / Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law (Contributor) / Department of Supply Chain Management (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2016-05
132027-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
This paper will discuss how USA Gymnastics (USAG), Michigan State University (MSU), and the United States Olympic Committee (MSU) failed to properly investigate and take corrective action of former physician and now convicted serial pedophile, Larry Nassar. This includes a description of the powerful individuals who worked with or

This paper will discuss how USA Gymnastics (USAG), Michigan State University (MSU), and the United States Olympic Committee (MSU) failed to properly investigate and take corrective action of former physician and now convicted serial pedophile, Larry Nassar. This includes a description of the powerful individuals who worked with or oversaw Nassar, how they received complaints of his sexual assault, and an explanation of the institutional environment that fostered a culture of silence and obedience. To provide a comparative analysis, this paper will analyze other athletic organizations (such as USA Swimming and USA Diving) which are also overseen by the USOC in order to compare their previous cases and reactions to sexual assault. This will be followed by recommended corrective policies for athletic organizations if claims of sexual assault arise. These policies and procedures will aim to prevent sexual assault in the future, reduce any culture of silence and vulnerability within similar organizations, and hopefully be implemented throughout athletic organizations everywhere.
ContributorsUdowitch, Heather Lynne (Co-author) / Udowitch, Heather (Co-author) / Lynk, Myles (Thesis director) / Hooper, Dana (Committee member) / Garner-Smith, Deana (Committee member) / Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law (Contributor) / Department of Marketing (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2019-12
132328-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
This paper looks at case studies, legal journals, and legal commentaries to examine the history of plea bargains and determine how such a practice slowly crept its way into the American judicial system. Next, I discern both the two specific benefits and three disadvantages of utilizing plea bargains in a

This paper looks at case studies, legal journals, and legal commentaries to examine the history of plea bargains and determine how such a practice slowly crept its way into the American judicial system. Next, I discern both the two specific benefits and three disadvantages of utilizing plea bargains in a system that was traditionally renowned for its unique form of adversarial / trial based justice. By analyzing case studies and legal texts, I find that the administrative advantages and cost benefits used to rationalize continued usage of plea deals does not outweigh its extremely negative effects on significant aspects of law and the American legal system. These significant negative effects as a product of the plea bargain are a definitive hindrance to justice and further characterize the system as no longer fair and certainly not equitable. Consequently, I assert that in order to maintain the ethics of the system, plea bargains should be removed. I also generally outline the Philadelphia Bench Trial as a prospective and viable alternative to plea bargains that could act as an intriguing substitute. The Philadelphia Bench Trial represents a highly viable alternative to the plea bargain and consequently preserves many of the advantages plea bargains offer the system without sacrificing the adversarial element necessary to receive correct and accurate verdicts.
ContributorsRimsza, Alex Gill (Author) / Stanford, Michael (Thesis director) / Forst, Brad (Committee member) / Dean, W.P. Carey School of Business (Contributor) / Department of English (Contributor) / Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2019-05