Matching Items (14)
Filtering by
- All Subjects: Law
- Creators: Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law
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
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
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 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
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
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
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
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