Matching Items (20)
Filtering by
- All Subjects: Law
- Creators: Salerno, Jessica
- Creators: Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law
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 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
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
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
Description
Previous studies exploring variability in sentencing decisions have consistently found gender differences, such that women receive lighter sentences than men. In the proposed study, I present a new framework for understanding gender differences in sentencing preferences, including circumstances under which no gender differences should emerge. The Affordance Management Approach suggests that our minds are attuned to both group- and individual-level threats and opportunities that others afford us. I conceptualize the sentencing difference between men and women as driven by perceived affordances that assist or hinder an individual in achieving certain fundamental goals. When faced with sanctioning an offender in our community, the offender's sex, the victim's age, and environmental variables such as the ratio of men to women may influence our decision-making, because these factors have affordance implications. Thus, I hypothesized that individuals will express differences in the sentencing of offenders who commit assault, and that these differences vary by offender sex, victim age, and sex-ratio. The results indicate that, as predicted, female offenders received lighter sentencing than men when the offender committed an assault against a same-sex adult, but received equally punitive sentences as men when the assault was committed against a child. In general, results do not support a consistent effect of sex ratio as a factor when making sentencing decisions. Although results do not fully support the current study's specific hypotheses, there remains much to be gained from applying an affordance management perspective to understanding variability in sentencing between the sexes.
ContributorsUzzanti, Charlene Ann (Author) / Neuberg, Steven (Thesis director) / Knight, George (Committee member) / Salerno, Jessica (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / School of Criminology and Criminal Justice (Contributor) / Department of Psychology (Contributor)
Created2015-05
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 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
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 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
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 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
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 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.
ContributorsPrime, Tyler Scott (Author) / Russomanno, Joseph (Thesis director) / Douglas, Anderson (Committee member) / School of Community Resources and Development (Contributor) / Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication (Contributor) / Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law (Contributor) / Department of Information Systems (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2016-12
Description
Evaluators of eyewitness evidence (e.g., judges, jurors) often must determine whether an eyewitness’s identification of a police suspect is accurate or mistaken. It has recently been argued that a particular class of variables—suspect-bias variables—pose a unique threat to the reliability of eyewitness identification evidence. Unlike “general impairment” variables that generally impair eyewitness identification accuracy (e.g., poor viewing conditions, biased lineup instructions), suspect-bias variables produce a suspect-specific bias that increases the risk of confident misidentifications of innocent suspects. The goal of this research was to examine evaluators’ sensitivity to suspect-bias variables compared to general impairment variables, and to test whether sensitivity to suspect-bias differs as a function of whether the suspect-bias variable is under the control of the legal system (system suspect-bias) or outside of the legal system’s control (estimator suspect-bias). Participant-evaluators (N = 214) read eight crime vignettes paired with one of four different eyewitness variables (system suspect-bias, estimator suspect-bias, general impairment, or no-variable control) and rated the accuracy of each eyewitness. Evaluators also explained the reasoning for their accuracy rating, and their explanations were coded for mentions of procedural suggestion, eyewitness memory strength, memory contamination, and general eyewitness (un)reliability. Evaluators appear to be more sensitive to general impairment variables than to suspect-bias variables. This finding is alarming, as suspect-bias variables pose a greater threat to eyewitness reliability than general-impairment variables. Implications for the collection and evaluation of eyewitness evidence are discussed.
ContributorsKulak, Kylie (Author) / Smalarz, Laura (Thesis advisor) / Salerno, Jessica (Committee member) / Schweitzer, Nick (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2022
Description
Civil juries are becoming an increasingly rare means of resolving civil disputes. One reason for this is widespread mistrust in jury decision-making do to highly publicized nuclear verdicts where verdicts do not seem to match the alleged harm suffered by a plaintiff. Critics allege that jurors are biased against defendants with deep pockets. This research aims to test whether there is evidence of so-called deep-pocket bias in juror decision-making. Previous research has compared how the wealth of defendants impacts jurors’ verdicts while other studies have compared how jurors’ verdicts are impacted when the defendant is an individual versus a corporation. The first aim is to explore the impact of defendant wealth and corporate identity on jurors’ liability verdicts and damage awards. The second aim is to explore whether the theory of dyadic morality helps to explain any potential observed deep-pocket biases. The study tested the hypothesis that perceptions of a defendant’s moral agency (in other words, their responsibility and intentionality) would predict jurors’ liability verdicts while perceptions of a defendant’s moral patiency (in other words, their vulnerability and capacity for suffering) would predict jurors’ damage awards. In a study of mock juror decision-making, results concluded that when assessing the same alleged wrongdoing and harm, jurors were more confident in a liable verdict against wealthy defendants and corporate defendants compared to poor defendants and individuals as defendants. Higher perceptions of a defendant’s moral agency did explain these effects. However, there was no evidence that defendant wealth or corporate identity influenced damage awards. Ultimately, in cases where plaintiffs portray themselves as a small and vulnerable “David” taking on a large and resourceful “Goliath,” juror decision-making on liability verdicts is likely to unfairly punish “Goliath” defendants, revealing deep-pocket biases against wealthy defendants and corporations.
ContributorsRosales, Breanna Olson (Author) / Schweitzer, Nicholas (Thesis advisor) / Salerno, Jessica (Thesis advisor) / Smalarz, Laura (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2024