Matching Items (4)
Filtering by
Description
For my honors thesis project in Barrett, the Honors College, I conducted an online college survey that measured student attitudes and perceptions with regard to gender, sexual assault, and domestic violence. In doing so, I also asked students situational questions about their experiences with sexual violence. The research question for the project centered around hidden victims who have been affected by gender-based violence but have yet to report the incident to law enforcement or university officials, despite a number of prominent educational and prevention campaigns on campus and in mainstream media. At the conclusion of the Spring 2016 semester, I received 683 responses from current students at Arizona State University. For the majority of situational questions, 20-30% of individuals answered "yes" to experiencing incidents of sexual violence, many of which focused on if someone had used alcohol/drugs, threats, or physical force to obtain sexual intercourse. For the survey, 11% of women said yes to the question, "have you ever been raped?" Additionally, a significant number of students hesitate to report incidents to law enforcement or university officials because: (1) they were ashamed or embarrassed, (2) wanted to forget it happened, and (3) believed it was a private matter that they wanted to deal with on their own. With this information, university administrators can develop a better understanding of the ASU campus culture as it relates to sexual violence. Additionally, organizational and institutional efforts can be organized and designed to meet the specific needs of our student body with the goal of ultimately reducing the number of sexual assaults that take place.
ContributorsBarney, Emily Marie (Author) / Wright, Kevin (Thesis director) / Spohn, Cassia (Committee member) / School of Public Affairs (Contributor) / School of Social Transformation (Contributor) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2016-12
Description
Arizona’s struggle with the opioid crisis reflects a failure of drug policy. This failure stems from decades of mimicking federal narcotic criminalization legislation. Arizona’s deference on narcotic policy was driven by a fear of addicts that was intentionally inflated by federal agents. Further, the federal prioritization of state uniformity of narcotic policy spread and entrenched the consequences of creating an illegal narcotics market. Arizona adopted these uniform policies enthusiastically. The state’s continued adoption of federal policy— exemplified by five pieces of legislation spanning between 1931 and 1979— show a continued theme of fear of addicts and prioritization of criminalization for the sake of uniformity. Criminalization and demonization of addicts are the main drivers of the modern opioid crisis. In this way, Arizona is culpable and is thus obligated to adopt an alternate narcotic policy approach that prioritizes evidence, compassion, and individual rights.
ContributorsRamsey, Grace Michele (Author) / Provine, Doris Marie (Thesis director) / Spohn, Cassia (Committee member) / School of Criminology and Criminal Justice (Contributor) / School of Public Affairs (Contributor) / Sanford School of Social and Family Dynamics (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2019-12
Description
A polygraph exam attempts to measure “truthfulness” based on several physiological factors—such as changes in heart rate, breathing, sweating, and other physical responses. Ever since the polygraph exam was invented in 1921, however, it has been surrounded by heavy controversy. The largest controversy is whether or not polygraph exams are scientifically valid. Aside from debate over whether “truthfulness” can actually be scientifically measured, polygraph testing is vulnerable to factors like the skill level of the examiner, the IQ of the subject, the setting of the exam, and finally, the ability for subjects to employ “countermeasures.” Countermeasures include physical movements, mental exercises, drug use, and biofeedback training. In addition to these drawbacks, the polygraph exam is not admissible in court. Despite this, the polygraph can still serve other purposes—anywhere from assisting in the law enforcement hiring process to classifying the behavior of convicted sex offenders. Polygraph examinations may be administered at various points during a criminal investigation, both pre-conviction and post-conviction. For example, when a criminal investigation first begins, a subject may be polygraphed to be eliminated as a suspect. Once charges are filed against an individual for an offense, law enforcement may polygraph the subject to obtain more information. After conviction, an offender may be polygraphed at various points during their incarceration, as a part of research studies, as well as part of monitoring sex offenders. In the United States, more than thirty states require that polygraph exams be administered to monitor sex offenders. These periodic exams help track sexual offender’s therapeutic progress, identify risk factors, and shed light on any new offenses. This thesis paper provides a synthesis of the current state of literature surrounding the use of post-conviction polygraphs on sex offenders by outlining the numerous advantages and disadvantages.
ContributorsBlakley, Audrey Kay (Author) / Fox, Kate (Thesis director) / Spohn, Cassia (Committee member) / School of Accountancy (Contributor) / School of Criminology and Criminal Justice (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2019-05
Description
The United States (USA) and the United Kingdom (UK) have a long and complicated history, but through this they have learned an abundance of things from each other. In this paper, I will argue that the two countries still have much to learn from each other to this day about how to enforce the law and manage crime. An important structure that the United Kingdom helped influence the United States in was the development of their criminal justice system. Although the two country’s values differ, there are great similarities in the ways the two countries deal with crime but numerous differences as well. Looking deeper into the differences between the two systems can help future research identify new and innovative ways to combat crime and actively reduce crime rates. This paper will compare violent crime rates in the USA and UK for four years (2014, 2015, 2016, 2017). Doing so will provide evidence regarding the degree to which the police in each country have been able to effectively enforce the law. After evaluating these differences, I will conclude with a discussion of the key items that I believe each country should take from the other to create a path forward to better justice. Our societies are constantly evolving, creating a necessity to progress our laws and aspects of the criminal justice system, and examining internal workings will only tell so much. There is never a reason to stop learning from each other, which is why this type of research is important.
ContributorsEubanks, Hannah E. (Author) / Spohn, Cassia (Thesis director) / Fradella, Hank (Committee member) / Department of Psychology (Contributor) / School of Criminology and Criminal Justice (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2019-05