Matching Items (17)
Description
In the United States, clinical testing is monitored by the federal and state governments, held to standards to ensure the safety and efficacy of these tests, as well as maintaining privacy for patients receiving a test. In order for the ABCTL to lawfully operate in the state of Arizona, it had to meet various legal criteria. These major legal considerations, in no particular order, are: Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments compliance; FDA Emergency Use Authorization (EUA); Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act compliance; state licensure; patient, state, and federal result reporting; and liability. <br/>In this paper, the EUA pathway will be examined and contextualized in relation to the ABCTL. This will include an examination of the FDA regulations and policies that affect the laboratory during its operations, as well as a look at the different authorization pathways for diagnostic tests present during the COVID-19 pandemic.
ContributorsJenkins, Landon James (Co-author) / Espinoza, Hale Anna (Co-author) / Filipek, Marina (Co-author) / Ross, Nathaniel (Co-author) / Salvatierra, Madeline (Co-author) / Compton, Carolyn (Thesis director) / Rigoni, Adam (Committee member) / Stanford, Michael (Committee member) / School of Life Sciences (Contributor) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2021-05
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 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
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 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
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 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
Description
It's a book about two people from two very different cultures, but have a shared experience growing up. Atinuke is a Nigerian girl who grew up in well-to-do home, but lived with an abusive father. Noah, on the other hand, is a white American boy who also grew up in a model home with very rich parents and a long line of rich ancestors. However, his parents are not on talking terms, his mother is dependent on him for her happiness and he has no relationship with his father. Once the two protagonists break away from their respective prisons, they meet, they learn from each other and they develop a bond.
ContributorsOnyenso, Ahanna Ugonne (Author) / Stanford, Michael (Thesis director) / Fette, Donald (Committee member) / School of Life Sciences (Contributor) / School of International Letters and Cultures (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2021-05
Description
This paper looks at case studies, legal journals, and legal commentaries to examine the history of plea bargains and determine how such a practice slowly crept its way into the American judicial system. Next, I discern both the two specific benefits and three disadvantages of utilizing plea bargains in a system that was traditionally renowned for its unique form of adversarial / trial based justice. By analyzing case studies and legal texts, I find that the administrative advantages and cost benefits used to rationalize continued usage of plea deals does not outweigh its extremely negative effects on significant aspects of law and the American legal system. These significant negative effects as a product of the plea bargain are a definitive hindrance to justice and further characterize the system as no longer fair and certainly not equitable. Consequently, I assert that in order to maintain the ethics of the system, plea bargains should be removed. I also generally outline the Philadelphia Bench Trial as a prospective and viable alternative to plea bargains that could act as an intriguing substitute. The Philadelphia Bench Trial represents a highly viable alternative to the plea bargain and consequently preserves many of the advantages plea bargains offer the system without sacrificing the adversarial element necessary to receive correct and accurate verdicts.
ContributorsRimsza, Alex Gill (Author) / Stanford, Michael (Thesis director) / Forst, Brad (Committee member) / Dean, W.P. Carey School of Business (Contributor) / Department of English (Contributor) / Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2019-05
Description
Normally, the United States and most of Europe are grouped into the same category as “Western countries”, yet their ideological differences have become larger in the last 50 years, especially in regards to free speech/expression protections. This raises the possibility that extremely broad free speech/expression protections aren’t intrinsic values of a Western society, but are instead an American experiment that was gradually adopted by Western Europe. Analyzing historical documents from both Europe and the United States, this becomes much more of a probability than a possibility and would help explain the recent differences in case law regarding free speech rights in American and European jurisprudence. Furthermore, Europe is also experiencing a potential threat to social stability in the form of massive, sudden demographic shifts, something that America has not experienced on nearly the same scale. Due to the heightened sensitivity towards hateful expression resulting from such a demographic shift, governmental action in the form of restrictions on racially, religiously, and ethnically charged forms of expressions may be deemed necessary in order to preserve social cohesion. Often throughout history, governments have deemed it necessary to limit free expression/speech and the spread of information in order to prevent any threat to its ability to rule, regardless of whether or not said government is tyrannical or democratized. Although not a direct threat to power, in a representative democracy social unrest created by increased division in the populace rooted in the spread of hateful ideology is nonetheless still a threat to those who depend on social harmony in order to govern in a representative democracy. In analyzing these two possible reasons for emerging differences and considering supporting textual and historical evidence, it becomes much clearer as to what the differences in case law and fundamental beliefs regarding the extent of free speech protections are attributable to.
ContributorsMantz, Noah (Author) / Stanford, Michael (Thesis director) / Foy, Joseph (Committee member) / Department of Economics (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2019-05
Description
It may be a common misconception that animal rights are primarily an issue which only the Western world is concerned about. However, many countries around the world with distinct cultural backgrounds and norms are becoming more cognizant of the importance of defending these rights, and are demanding changes in laws governing the treatment of animals.
ContributorsIndacochea, Nicole (Author) / Suk, Mina (Thesis director) / Stanford, Michael (Committee member) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2020-05
Description
This thesis advocated for a humanities-forward bioethics in order to promote more robust discussion, foster public involvement in research, and enrich scientific education. Furthermore, embracing a field founded on personal expression allows for a wider breadth of concerns to be considered, not just those that are able to be articulated in strictly technical terms. Speculative fiction liberates discussion from being constrained by what is presently feasible, and thus works to place societal and ethical deliberation ahead of scientific conception. The value of such stories is not tied to any one character or storyline, but rather it is derived from our ability as a culture with a shared understanding to superimpose our concerns and fears onto the novels and use them as a means of communication. Three famous science fiction novels- The Island of Dr. Moreau, Frankenstein, and Brave New World- were analyzed to illustrate the salience of science fiction to contend with fundamental issues in bioethics.
ContributorsVarda, Nicole Elizabeth (Author) / Hurlbut, Benjamin (Thesis director) / Stanford, Michael (Committee member) / Maynard, Andrew (Committee member) / School of Life Sciences (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2020-12
Description
Executive orders are legally-binding proclamations issued by Presidents in their own independent capacity as executor of the nation's laws. Despite there being no mention of these orders in the Constitution, they have been implemented since Washington's presidency, with some Presidents issuing over a thousand. Many contemporary legal scholars fear that this practice has gotten out of control over the past 80 years or so, resulting in an inappropriate usurping of Congress' legislative power by the executive branch. In this essay, I will use a chronology of executive orders from across the relevant time period to assess the historical validity of this claim. Additionally, I will use federal court decisions that have overturned executive orders to examine whether anything unconstitutional or otherwise legally improper has taken place over the time period in question. Ultimately, I will conclude that while the legislative authority wielded by the executive branch has grown, this expansion has adequate legal justification and political safeguards until such time that the judiciary provides more robust guidelines.
ContributorsMcCoy, Kevin William (Author) / Rigoni, Adam (Thesis director) / Stanford, Michael (Committee member) / School of Historical, Philosophical and Religious Studies (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2018-05