Matching Items (1,848)
Filtering by

Clear all filters

134300-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
Father Daniel Berrigan once said that "writing about prisoners is a little like writing about the dead." I think what he meant is that we treat prisoners as ghosts. They're unseen and unheard. It's easy to simply ignore them and it's even easier when the government goes to great lengths to keep them hidden.
Supermax prisons

Father Daniel Berrigan once said that "writing about prisoners is a little like writing about the dead." I think what he meant is that we treat prisoners as ghosts. They're unseen and unheard. It's easy to simply ignore them and it's even easier when the government goes to great lengths to keep them hidden.
Supermax prisons are used to hold those prisoners whom prison authorities regard as the most problematic in the prison system. These facilities merge the 19th-century practice of long-term solitary confinement with 21st-century technology in ways that subject prisoners to unparalleled levels of isolation, surveillance, and control, usually for long duration, with the potential to inflict significant amounts of psychological harm. Despite a range of academic studies documenting the serious and potentially long-lasting psychological harm it may inflict, and several judicial opinions criticizing the risks it entails and significantly limiting its use, supermax prisons are still in full effect today.
Although there have been no successful cases brought to the Supreme Court alleging the use of supermax prisons being in violation of the inmate’s Eighth Amendment right, one can look at isolated factors that distinguish supermax prisons in which judges at the Supreme Court level have shown to be unconstitutional in general population prisons. This thesis examines the Eighth Amendment implications of cruel and unusual punishment within supermax prisons, through isolated factors through judicial intervention.
ContributorsLucca, Veronica Cristina (Author) / Stanford, Michael (Thesis director) / Cavender, Gray (Committee member) / School of Social Transformation (Contributor) / School of International Letters and Cultures (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2017-05
136685-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
This paper explores the issues regarding disparities in sentencing of men and women to death. Research conducted includes both primary and secondary. A variety of sources were used to gain insight into societal gender differences and stereotypes. Theories were investigated for causes in gender discrepancies. Specific standards and factors were

This paper explores the issues regarding disparities in sentencing of men and women to death. Research conducted includes both primary and secondary. A variety of sources were used to gain insight into societal gender differences and stereotypes. Theories were investigated for causes in gender discrepancies. Specific standards and factors were found to be relevant for men and others for women. The methods used to implement the death penalty, the constitutionality of the death penalty, and other various death penalty issues were studied to see if they had implications for the minimal number of women sentenced to death. Research indicated that the media had a significant influence in these cases, particularly in the cases where a female committed brutal murder. This paper examines these different elements, using Arizona as a test case, with four separate female case examples in order to determine what causes disparities in sentencing men and women to death. The case facts and analysis are given in each example. The conclusion is that the discrepancies found in sentencing men and women to death are ultimately based on cultural gender stereotypes that have been in place for some time, and are often exploited in the media.
ContributorsLopez, Rachael (Author) / Stanford, Michael (Thesis director) / Kirchler, Jeffrey (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / Department of Management (Contributor)
Created2014-12
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
136864-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
An important question that needs to be discussed is whether drug detection dogs can be used the same way as machines in assisting drug detection and how these drug detection dogs should be used under the Fourth Amendment. In answering these questions, the history, training, certifications, and case law relating

An important question that needs to be discussed is whether drug detection dogs can be used the same way as machines in assisting drug detection and how these drug detection dogs should be used under the Fourth Amendment. In answering these questions, the history, training, certifications, and case law relating to drug detection dogs should be reviewed. The dogs are powerful tools in the detection of narcotics, but it is critical to remember that they are only animals and far from flawless. They can make mistakes because of lapses in training, due to irregular training and certification standards, or cues, intentional or not, from their handlers. Under current precedent, walking around something, like a car, is not a search and does not require reasonable suspicion. A dog alert during this non-intrusive, superficial contact can give rise to probable cause to search. If the dog alert is not reliable, it can lead to many unnecessary searches that violate people's privacy. In order to protect Fourth Amendment rights from the, drug detection dogs need to be used carefully and with limitations. A dog's ability to smell is impressive and humans' ability to train them is vast, but a dog is just a dog. The limited accuracy of a dog sniff is not an issue when they are used to search for people in landslides or avalanches, because even 10% accuracy is helpful when trying to save someone's life. However, when a drug detection dog is used to establish probable cause for a search, accuracy becomes an issue. United States v. Place was based on faulty scientific evidence on the accuracy of dogs, and it set the standard for future drug detection dog cases. The courts need to revisit this issue in light of more recent information. Except in certain locations where Fourth Amendment rights are limited, drug detection dogs should only be used when reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct exists. This limitation, as well as enhanced training and certification standards, strikes the appropriate balance between living in a civilized society and living in a secure society.
ContributorsGodinez, Katherine Mary (Author) / Stanford, Michael (Thesis director) / Kirchler, Rebecca (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry (Contributor) / Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law (Contributor)
Created2014-05