Matching Items (3)
Filtering by
- Creators: School of Politics and Global Studies
Description
The jury is a perfect example of American democracy in action. People convicted of crimes are put before a randomly-selected jury of their peers. This jury consists of people with a variety of backgrounds and experiences without any sort of specialized training. Ideally, this jury is representative of the population and does not have any biases towards the victim or the defendant. They view all evidence, hear all facts, and ultimately decide on a verdict. However, this system does not always create accurate outcomes. Often times and for a number of reasons, jurors are distracted in the courtroom. This can lead to incorrect verdicts, meaning that either guilty people walk free or innocent people are incarcerated. This paper will explore the idea of the distracted juror and ways to minimize these distractions so that the most accurate decision can be made during a trial. It will first examine the statistics behind jury inaccuracies as well as how other countries conduct their jury trials. It will then briefly explore grand juries and their differences between trial juries. This paper will analyze data from a survey conducted at the beginning of the project. It will then provide analyses of some possible reforms. This paper will conclude with how this research could be pursued further, why it should be pursued further, and how jury trials could look in the future.
ContributorsAnderson, Ethan David (Author) / Kirkpatrick, Jennet (Thesis director) / Valerie, Hoekstra (Committee member) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor, Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2018-12
Description
This project discusses a Medical-Legal Partnership (MLP) between the Arizona Legal Center (ALC) and the Student Health Outreach for Wellness (SHOW) clinic. The ALC is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) legal aid clinic located in at the Beus Center for Law and Society alongside the Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law at Arizona State University. They are a community- based legal aid service that helps low income and underserved populations find answers and solutions to their legal questions through free of charge consultations. The ALC is primarily operated by student volunteers and volunteer attorneys. The SHOW clinic is a tri-university, student-led community-based project that works to provide whole person health care for poor, low income, or underserved individuals in Phoenix, Arizona. I was given the opportunity to join in this effort through my role as an undergraduate student volunteer at the ALC during the summer of 2017. Planning and coordination between these two entities has been ongoing, and after several months of work, the partnership has reached a more formative state. Our team estimates our partnership will be implemented into clinical facilities and operational by the Fall of 2018. By the summer of 2018, the SHOW clinic will be providing medical services at three locations: the Human Services Campus clinic, Crossroads Flower clinic, and Crossroads Mesa clinic. These clinical sites are where the MLP between the ALC and SHOW will operate. The ALC will provide legal consultations at each facility once a month, every month during the fall semester of 2018. They will also conduct educational workshops for facility patients once a month, every month. The following paper discusses: 1) a brief history of healthcare delivery and healthcare trends in the United States, 2) discusses what Medical-Legal Partnerships are and why they should be used, 3) specific health needs in the state of Arizona, 4) the developmental process of this specific partnership, 4) the challenge of medical and legal confidentiality, 5) and a proposed timeline of how we intend to successfully implement our partnership at clinical sites.
ContributorsAlvarenga, Montserrat (Author) / Rigoni, Adam (Thesis director) / Feeney, Michele (Committee member) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor) / Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law (Contributor) / School of International Letters and Cultures (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2018-05
Description
This short documentary on the Equal Rights Amendment features attorney Dianne Post and State Representative Jennifer Jermaine, and it examines the fight for passage at the federal and state level. This film attempts to answer the following questions: What is the ERA? What is its history? Why do we need it? How do we get it into the Constitution of the United States of America?
The text of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) states that “equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.” The amendment was authored by Alice Paul and was first introduced into Congress in 1923. The ERA did not make much progress until 1970, when Representative Martha Griffiths from Michigan filed a discharge petition demanding that the ERA move out of the judiciary committee to be heard by the full United States House of Representatives. The House passed it and it went on to the Senate, where it was approved and sent to the states for ratification. By 1977, 35 states had voted to ratify the ERA, but it did not reach the 38 states-threshold required for ratification before the 1982 deadline set by Congress. More recently, Nevada ratified the ERA in March 2017, and Illinois followed suit in May 2018. On January 27th, 2020, Virginia finalized its ratification, making it the 38th state to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment.
Supporters of the ERA argue that we have reached the required goal of approval by 38 states. However, opponents may have at least two legal arguments to challenge this claim by ERA advocates. First, the deadline to ratify was 1982. Second, five states have voted to rescind their ratification since their initial approval. These political and legal challenges must be addressed and resolved before the ERA can be considered part of the United States Constitution. Nevertheless, ERA advocates continue to pursue certification. There are complicated questions to untangle here, to be sure, but by listening to a variety of perspectives and critically examining the historical and legal context, it may be possible to find some answers. Indeed, Arizona, which has yet to ratify the ERA, could play a vital role in the on-going fight for the ERA.
The text of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) states that “equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.” The amendment was authored by Alice Paul and was first introduced into Congress in 1923. The ERA did not make much progress until 1970, when Representative Martha Griffiths from Michigan filed a discharge petition demanding that the ERA move out of the judiciary committee to be heard by the full United States House of Representatives. The House passed it and it went on to the Senate, where it was approved and sent to the states for ratification. By 1977, 35 states had voted to ratify the ERA, but it did not reach the 38 states-threshold required for ratification before the 1982 deadline set by Congress. More recently, Nevada ratified the ERA in March 2017, and Illinois followed suit in May 2018. On January 27th, 2020, Virginia finalized its ratification, making it the 38th state to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment.
Supporters of the ERA argue that we have reached the required goal of approval by 38 states. However, opponents may have at least two legal arguments to challenge this claim by ERA advocates. First, the deadline to ratify was 1982. Second, five states have voted to rescind their ratification since their initial approval. These political and legal challenges must be addressed and resolved before the ERA can be considered part of the United States Constitution. Nevertheless, ERA advocates continue to pursue certification. There are complicated questions to untangle here, to be sure, but by listening to a variety of perspectives and critically examining the historical and legal context, it may be possible to find some answers. Indeed, Arizona, which has yet to ratify the ERA, could play a vital role in the on-going fight for the ERA.
ContributorsSchroder, Jude Alexander (Author) / Adelman, Madelaine (Thesis director) / Mitchell, Kathryn (Committee member) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor, Contributor, Contributor) / School of International Letters and Cultures (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2020-05