Matching Items (8)
Filtering by

Clear all filters

136581-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
Today's prison industrial complex in the United States often dehumanizes inmates simply because they are criminals. Members of the free society are generally too far removed from the inside of prisons that most people do not see the harsh and cruel conditions for and treatment of prisoners. As a Dance

Today's prison industrial complex in the United States often dehumanizes inmates simply because they are criminals. Members of the free society are generally too far removed from the inside of prisons that most people do not see the harsh and cruel conditions for and treatment of prisoners. As a Dance and Justice Studies major at Arizona State University, I was curious about how to intertwine my interests in dance and justice. This paper chronicles my exploration of adding a human rights issue to my dance practice through choreographing a solo dance performance based on Cleve Foster's unusual experience on death row. Research on theories of prison and punishment in American society combined with physical research in the dance studio enabled me to create a solo performance that shed light on the inhumane conditions for and treatment of prison inmates in today's society. Through the process, I found that some elements of my dance practice stayed the same, while others changed. This informed me of what continuously remains important to me, while allowing me to expand my personal dance practice. I ultimately discovered a bridge between my two passions, dance and justice, and learned a meaningful way to convey a contemporary social justice issue to the general public.
ContributorsKerr, Elena Marie (Author) / Schupp, Karen (Thesis director) / Vissicaro, Pegge (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / Herberger Institute for Design and the Arts (Contributor) / School of Social Transformation (Contributor) / School of Film, Dance and Theatre (Contributor)
Created2015-05
136507-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
In 1972, the United States Supreme Court found that the death penalty was being applied too arbitrarily in the United States and that this arbitrary application constituted cruel and unusual punishment under the eighth amendment (Furman V. Georgia, 1972). This lead to a moratorium on capital punishment until the case

In 1972, the United States Supreme Court found that the death penalty was being applied too arbitrarily in the United States and that this arbitrary application constituted cruel and unusual punishment under the eighth amendment (Furman V. Georgia, 1972). This lead to a moratorium on capital punishment until the case Gregg V. Georgia, which outlined guidelines for the states in applying the death penalty in order to ensure that its application was constitutional (Gregg V. Georgia, 1976). These guidelines included enumerated aggravating factors and a bifurcated capital trial (Gregg V. Georgia, 1976). Despite these findings from the Supreme Court, the application of the death penalty in Arizona has remained problematic. In practice, Arizona has adopted a death penalty statute that appears to conform to the standards set by Furman and Gregg. Arizona state law includes a list of aggravating factors to help guide juries in capital trials and these trials are bifurcated. However, Arizona's aggravating factors are both numerous and inclusive, to the point that it is challenging to commit a first-degree murder in Arizona that does not include an aggravating factor. The statute fails to limit the crimes that qualify for the death penalty so state budgetary concerns become the limiting factor. Arizona's application of the death penalty remains arbitrary, in consistent, and as a result, unconstitutional as defined by the United States Supreme Court.
ContributorsPerez-Vargas, Maricarmen Contreras (Author) / Cavender, Gray (Thesis director) / Corey, Susan (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / School of International Letters and Cultures (Contributor) / School of Social Transformation (Contributor) / Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law (Contributor)
Created2015-05
136237-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
This thesis provides jurors in criminal cases with a body of advice to guide and enrich their understanding of legal proof, knowledge, and justification, in order to ensure that the American legal system is carrying out justice. According to Michael Pardo’s (2010) article ‘The Gettier Problem and Legal Proof,’ there

This thesis provides jurors in criminal cases with a body of advice to guide and enrich their understanding of legal proof, knowledge, and justification, in order to ensure that the American legal system is carrying out justice. According to Michael Pardo’s (2010) article ‘The Gettier Problem and Legal Proof,’ there are five different possible accounts of the relationship between knowledge and legal proof, which vary based on the way they handle different perspectives on legal proof, epistemic concepts, and the extent to which justification is part of the goal or the goal of legal proof. I will argue that jurors in serious criminal cases should adhere to the knowledge account when evaluating evidence in trial. On this account the aim of a criminal trial is for the jurors to gain knowledge, ensuring that their verdict aims at something beyond a merely justified true belief.
Under the knowledge account the existence of any probatory errors or material errors sufficient to undermine knowledge in a trial are grounds for an acquittal. The definitions that I use for the material perspective and the probatory perspective differ from the standard notions of these terms. The term probatory more commonly refers to evidence and/or propositions that prove or help prove a proposition at issue for the purposes of deciding on a legal verdict. Evidence and/or propositions that are not probative do not prove or help prove a proposition at issue for the purposes of deciding on a legal verdict. The term material more commonly refers to evidence and/or propositions that are relevant to a legal case and establish or help establish the truth or falsity of a point at issue in a legal case. Evidence and/or propositions that are immaterial are irrelevant to a legal case and do not establish the truth or falsity of a point at issue in a legal case. I will use the following idiosyncratic definitions of the terms probatory and material as used in Pardo’s article ‘The Gettier Problem and Legal Proof’. The probatory perspective holds that truth is not essential to the goal of legal proof; instead, a proof standard is formulated that regulates whether the evidence meets the epistemic level set by the proof standard. A probatory error occurs when the evidence provided is insufficient to demonstrate that a proposition has met the requisite epistemic level set by the proof standard, yet a juror concludes that the proposition is proven. The material perspective includes truth as an essential part of the goal of legal proof, and on this perspective when probatory errors or material errors are made, the juror, the legal system, and the verdict have failed to achieve justice. A material error has occurred when either (a) the evidence provided is insufficient to demonstrate that a proposition has met the requisite epistemic level set by the proof standard, yet a juror concludes that the proposition is proven and/or (b) the proposition did not actually occur and a juror concludes that the proposition did occur. The case of Troy Anthony Davis provides an example of a trial that was arguably free from probatory errors, because the conviction of Davis was supported by sufficient evidence for knowledge beyond a reasonable doubt. Yet, Davis argued that his conviction was a miscarriage of justice, because material errors occurred in his trial viz., that he’s innocent and so the jury failed to find the truth.
According to Justice Scalia (2009), defendants do not have the constitutional right to challenge their convictions through the writ of habeas corpus multiple times on the federal level when the state court and district court have already ruled that their trial is free of procedural errors. Under Justice Scalia’s perspective, defendants like Davis have exhausted all avenues of post conviction relief, if the state and federal courts have not unreasonably applied federal law, even if the convicted defendants claim that material
errors occurred in his/her trial, i.e., the defendant actually did not commit the crime, yet the jury convicted the defendant. Justice Scalia argues that the district court would be in violation of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, if it granted Davis the opportunity for a new trial, even if the district court was persuaded by the new evidence Davis provided to demonstrate that material errors occurred during his trial. Justice Stevens disagrees with Justice Scalia’s argument and upholds the constitutional significance of material errors. Justice Stevens argues that federal law, which bars death row inmates, who are actually able to prove their innocence, from receiving habeas corpus relief, may be unconstitutional even if their trials lack procedural errors.
Davis exhausted the maximal amount of recourse the American legal system could provide him. The state court, appellate court, and the U.S. Supreme Court all denied Davis post conviction relief. Troy Anthony Davis was executed by lethal injection on September 21, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. For all the jury knew, however, Davis may very well have been innocent, even though he had a fair trial from a probatory perspective alone. If Davis were (and, he very well may have been) innocent, then a grave injustice has occurred. For the purposes of my thesis, I will use the Davis case as a case study and assume that Davis was innocent. I contest Justice Scalia’s ruling, arguing that a jury legally (and morally) should acquit a defendant if either probatory or material errors occur during his/her trial. The existence of these errors entails that the legal proof presented for the purposes of issuing a verdict failed to satisfy the knowledge account.
ContributorsSmith, Jenna (Contributor) / Botham, Thad (Thesis director) / Kobes, Bernard (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2015-05
134869-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
By providing vignettes with manipulated scientific evidence, this research examined if including more or less scientific detail affected decision-making in regards to the death penalty. Participants were randomly assigned one of the two manipulations (less science and more science) after reading a short scenario introducing the mock capital trial and

By providing vignettes with manipulated scientific evidence, this research examined if including more or less scientific detail affected decision-making in regards to the death penalty. Participants were randomly assigned one of the two manipulations (less science and more science) after reading a short scenario introducing the mock capital trial and their role as jury members. Survey respondents were told that a jury had previously found the defendant guilty and they would now deliberate the appropriate punishment. Before being exposed to the manipulation, respondents answered questions pertaining to their prior belief in the death penalty, as well as their level of support of procedural justice and science. These questions provided a baseline to compare to their sentencing decision. Participants were then asked what sentence they would impose \u2014 life in prison or death \u2014 and how the fMRI evidence presented by an expert witness for the defense affected their decision. Both quantitative and qualitative measures were used to identify how the level of scientific detail affected their decision. Our intended predictor variable (level of scientific detail) did not affect juror decision-making. In fact, the qualitative results revealed a variety of interpretations of the scientific evidence used both in favor of death and in favor of life. When looking at what did predict juror decision-making, gender, prior belief in the death penalty, and political ideology all were significant predictors. As in previous literature, the fMRI evidence in our study had mixed results with regards to implementation of the death penalty. This held true in both of our manipulations, showing that despite the level of detail in evidence intended for mitigation, jurors with preconceived notions may still disregard the evidence, and some jurors may even view it is aggravating and thus increase the likelihood of a death sentence for a defendant with such brain abnormalities.
ContributorsBerry, Megan Cheyenne (Author) / Fradella, Hank (Thesis director) / Pardini, Dustin (Committee member) / Department of Psychology (Contributor) / School of Life Sciences (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2016-12
135733-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
In the last seven years the practice of capital punishment in the United States has been shaken by one of the most unlikely suspects- the prescription drug market. The practice of capital punishment has gone from fervent support to abolishment and back again throughout the nation's history. Over time the

In the last seven years the practice of capital punishment in the United States has been shaken by one of the most unlikely suspects- the prescription drug market. The practice of capital punishment has gone from fervent support to abolishment and back again throughout the nation's history. Over time the process of capital punishment has evolved from public hangings to a secretive medical procedure. The American people have become detached from the act because it is no longer right in front of their face, but often occurs in a small prison room with a viewing window for a select group of witnesses. The modern method of capital punishment is lethal injection- a three-drug protocol that is accepted as the most humane means of executing criminals. The protocol has faced criticism and legal challenges for years. This is in part because the United States stands alone as one of the last westernized democratic nations to regularly execute convicted criminals. European activist groups and government agencies have been fighting for abolishment in the United States for years with little progress. Recently, the activist groups discovered a novel way to make an impact on the capital punishment system in the United States that had not been attempted. The groups appealed to the drug manufacturing companies in Europe and exposed their supply chains to the public. When it was revealed that the drugs these companies produced were ending up in U.S. prisons for executions the companies eventually stopped all sales of execution drugs to U.S. corrections facilities. This led to the European Union banning all exports of drugs for lethal use in 2011. This study will analyze the effects of the lethal injection drug boycott on the death penalty in the United States. Since the ban, death penalty states have been scrambling in order to procure enough drugs to carry out their future executions. They have attempted to obtain the drugs illegally, trade between each other, reinstate older methods of execution, and entirely change their three-drug protocol to incorporate new drugs or less drugs. Executions have dropped both in the number of death sentences handed down and the number of executions. Also, polls analyzing acceptance of the death penalty have shown decreasing support for the practice domestically. Although there are other factors that may have contributed to the decline of capital punishment in the United States, it seems as though the international lethal injection boycott has made the most progress in the shortest amount of time and has the potential to drastically change the future of the death penalty in the United States.
ContributorsFleming, Karlea Paulette (Author) / Herbert, Anne (Thesis director) / Bodansky, Daniel (Committee member) / Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law (Contributor) / W. P. Carey School of Business (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2016-05
Description

In this project, I aim to provide a comprehensive account of the acceptability and utilization of capital punishment through the lens of retributivist and consequentialist ethical theory. After determining the moral justification for the use of the death penalty, I conclude that there is not enough theoretical ground to claim

In this project, I aim to provide a comprehensive account of the acceptability and utilization of capital punishment through the lens of retributivist and consequentialist ethical theory. After determining the moral justification for the use of the death penalty, I conclude that there is not enough theoretical ground to claim that capital punishment is ethical or morally justifiable on the basis of theory alone. It is necessary to account for the practical, empirical evidence when making policy decisions, rather than basing them on theory alone. I propose various alternative methods of reaching collective unity and establishing justice in the form of restoration and rehabilitation.

ContributorsWilliams, Owen (Author) / Simhony, Avital (Thesis director) / Saint, Michelle (Thesis director) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor) / Historical, Philosophical & Religious Studies, Sch (Contributor)
Created2023-05
Description

This report explores the United States’ continued use of the death penalty and the various costs of maintaining such a policy. This paper aims to investigate issues in the continued use of the death penalty and potential policy alternatives to this inhumane practice. To this end, topics such as constitutional

This report explores the United States’ continued use of the death penalty and the various costs of maintaining such a policy. This paper aims to investigate issues in the continued use of the death penalty and potential policy alternatives to this inhumane practice. To this end, topics such as constitutional law, crime control, and economic costs associated with the death penalty will be explored. Ultimately, due to patterns of racial and economic discrimination, a lack of evidence for a deterrent effect, the risk imposed on innocent defendants, and the economic cost of maintaining the status quo, it is suggested that the United States, at the very least places a federal moratorium on executions, while simultaneously encouraging states to do the same through the use of grants or mandates designed to lessen the cost of swapping to a life without parole or LWOP system could create on a state’s budget. Additionally, alternatives such as LWOP are explored as a means to address many of the concerns surrounding the death penalty.

ContributorsDoyle, Alexander (Author) / Scholz, Elizabeth (Thesis director) / Harris, Elizabeth (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / School of Public Affairs (Contributor)
Created2023-05
Description
In the United States, Black defendants are more likely to be sentenced to death than their white counterparts exclusively due to their race. There are several aspects that work to explain why this pattern is present, and this paper analyzes our current sentencing disparity through the lens of race to

In the United States, Black defendants are more likely to be sentenced to death than their white counterparts exclusively due to their race. There are several aspects that work to explain why this pattern is present, and this paper analyzes our current sentencing disparity through the lens of race to understand why this is the case. First, the historical context of legal racial discrimination will be explored as I discuss the legacy slavery and how the trade and ownership of Black people led to the devaluation of African Americans long after the 13th Amendment abolished the practice. This is seen from the establishment of convict leasing directly following abolition, to the development of Black Codes and Jim Crow laws, and eventually this legacy became the foundation that contributed to the targeted mass incarceration of African Americans beginning with Richard Nixon’s 1970s “war on drugs” campaign and spanning to today. Next, six important milestone Supreme Court cases relating to the evolution of capital punishment in the United States will be described. These cases include Furman v. Georgia, Gregg v. Georgia, Lockett v. Ohio, Batson v. Kentucky, and McCleskey v. Kemp. This research also presents data that illustrates the current trends in death penalty sentencing within 26 states who currently implement this punishment. The results show that there is an overwhelming amount of data in support of harsher criminal sentences and therefore a higher likelihood of Black defendants being sentenced to death in comparison to their white counterparts. Lastly, the systemic inequalities embedded within several aspects of capital trials are outlined—both in terms of juror bias against African American defendants as well as racial issues when hiring an attorney—and works to inform my argument that the death penalty should be abolished. An offender’s race should not play any role in determining the severity of their punishment, but the historic criminalization of Black people works to ensure that these groups of people are typically at a severe disadvantage when navigating the American justice system. Overall, the application of the death penalty can not be applied in a standard manner, nor can there be regulations passed in such a way to guarantee an absence of racism within our current system. Therefore, the United States should abolish this unjust, discriminatory practice.
ContributorsSasselli, Annabella (Author) / Shabazz, Rashad (Thesis director) / Corey, Susan (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / School of Social Transformation (Contributor) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor)
Created2023-12