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.
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.
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.
Lockean principles of liberty and individual freedoms propelled the American colonists to revolt against British dominion and establish a constitutional republic. Unlike ancient republics, usually empires or monarchies, the Founding Fathers, determined to be governed by their consent instead of the divine right of an absolute ruler, set forth a written covenant to structure their government and safeguard those liberties. Conflicting views of republican democracy led to factionalism, separatism and ultimately, war. Using the war power, the victorious North would embark upon an even more liberal project to reunite the war-torn nation, expand citizenship and individual rights to more of the nation's inhabitants and set the stage for the vast expansion of rights in the 20th Century.
In this project I created a series of infographics as comprehensive resources for students to reference as educational guides. As a business law student I have been able to accumulate knowledge through all of my law courses to better understand our society and its laws, albeit this knowledge is not yet complete. Other students are not always given this same opportunity to understand their rights and the laws that govern them and have clearly indicated to me through my survey that they would feel better prepared to become young adults in society if they were given additional resources. Therefore, my thesis consists of research based on the results of my survey regarding the areas of law that students indicated interest in along with a series of seven infographics with easy to understand information about the First Amendment, the Sixth Amendment, women’s rights, arbitration, legal offenses and consequences, Arizona State University’s legal and emergency resources, and the main constitutional amendments students should be aware of. Students should understand the laws they must abide by as members of society as well as the constitutional rights they are guaranteed if they are expected to fully obey and use both as incoming adults 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.