From Congress's findings on Equal Opportunity for Individuals with Disabilities, "some 43,000,000 Americans have one or more physical or mental disabilities, and this number is increasing as the population as a whole is growing older" (ADA of 1990). One primary purpose of the Americans with Disabilities Act is to erase the fear that because someone has a mental illness, he or she is a threat. Employers sometimes hesitate, though, to hire individuals with mental illnesses. The ADA, as it is currently written, generally provides an effective guideline for eliminating discrimination against persons with physical and mental disabilities. It requires employers to make reasonable accommodations to meet the needs of otherwise qualified employees, without imposing an undue hardship upon the companies. However, reasonable accommodations for mentally ill individuals in the workplace are not clearly defined. The purpose of this thesis is to evaluate the ADA and to make recommendations, based on case law and other sources, for changes to the ADA to better meet the needs of mentally ill employees in the United States.

In 1996, the United States Congress passed an addition to the United States Code known as the Child Pornography Prevention Act CPP A. This legislation sought to expand child pornography definitions in federal statute to included "virtual child pornography" or material that did not involve the use of a minor in its creation. However, because of the language used by the Congress, the constitutionality of the Act was called into question by the Supreme Court. On April 16th, 2002, the Court ruled on the case of Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, which directed that two sections of the CPP A be held unconstitutional, and thus, not valid. This leave current federal statutes without any measures against virtual child pornography. A study of this decision reveals the Court support of Congressional intent in the CPPA. The ruling against the Act was simply the result of definitions within the legislation which, the Court felt, could be interpreted in a broad manner. Rather, than rather than exercise judicial authority to more narrowly define the legislation, the Court struck sections of the CPPA. However, despite the Court's decision not to support the CPPA, it depicts a method to salvage the CPP A in the opinions presented by the Justices. By analyzing the case of Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition it may be seen that the Supreme Court recommends a reconstruction of the CPP A. The suggested redefining, if adopted by Congress would provide a new CPP A which would both prevent the spread of virtual child pornography and eliminate constitutional concerns as well.

The laws that make up what society calls copyright are aspects that govern all bodies of art, literature, and creative ideas throughout the world. While this fact is not in dispute, the way people apply the rules of law surrounding copyright is a notoriously hot topic. Copyright allows authors to retain rights to the work they create. Through these laws, authors can own their work seventy years after their death. This pulls into question the length of time works are withheld from the public domain. Initially the market for regulation dealing with copyright concerned copied materials only, which lasted for a period of fourteen years. Copyright now protects written work, music, films, sound recordings, paintings, and some computer programs and chips, just to name a few. The underlying question is how do we as a society allow these works to be released from their protected bonds and regenerate them back into the general population? With such new inventions as the World Wide Web and the increased use of the Internet, the future of copyright has been thrown a curve ball. As civilization become keen on sharing everything from mass media to personal files, law suddenly has to conform at lightning speed in order to keep up. It is here where the focus shifts to how copyright law influences this sharing in a negative way though its attempt to control the dealings of unsuspecting users. The purpose of this thesis is to try to shed some light on these subjects and provide an understanding of how copyright worked its way up to controversial subject matter it is today. From the research examined and data collected, recommendations regarding the future of copyright will be presented.

This thesis will explore the legal process of adoption. Research will show that not only is this process complicated it can also be very cruel. Despite poor attempts to uniform the states' laws with Acts such as the Uniform Adoption Act of 1994. This system is extremely confusing, state, federal, and international adoptions laws. The states are in no way uniform nor have they ever been in their deliverance of adoption laws. There are so many different types of children, different types of adoptions, all kinds of people who are looking to adopt. There is no lucid answer to fundamental questions as to who may place a child for adoption, whose consent is required, who is required to pay for what, when is the consent final, when is there no turning back on a decision or when records are sealed forever. The Uniform Adoption Act made a poor attempt to try to resolve these problems but in actuality all it did was make it even more abstract and more difficult to uniform these laws. The states need to come together and mandate all adoptions laws on the federal level and take the power away from the states.

The Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA) was an integral part of the Judiciary Act of 1789. In creating the judiciary, the Founding Fathers did not want to make the United States safe haven for enemies of nations. The ATCA provides a federal forum for suits involving foreign plaintiffs injured abroad by a person under U.S. jurisdiction in violation of the law of nations. Up until approximately twenty-five years ago, the ATCA remained predominantly unused in U.S. jurisprudence. In 1997, a suit was filed on behalf of Burmese villagers alleging human rights abuses. Doe v. Unocal involves claims that Unocal Corporation, a California corporation, enlisted the ruling military junta of Myanmar to provide security for a pipeline project. Egregious human rights abuses including murder, rape, torture, slavery, summary and arbitrary execution, forced relocation, and forced labor were committed upon the plaintiffs in furtherance of the joint venture. Drawing upon international law, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals confirmed the validity of plaintiffs' ATCA claims against Unocal for knowledge of the human rights abuses. This study intends to clarify issues relevant to parties in future ATCA cases. By distinguishing the need for a liability standard in cases filed under the ATCA and identifying the legal entities that can contribute to that effect, U.S. federal courts can develop sensible precedent in ATCA cases.

Heroin overdoses have become an epidemic in the Orlando area. The number of heroin overdoses has significantly increased over the years. The Drug Enforcement Administration is making efforts to combat this problem by actively investigating heroin overdoses, and then sending the cases to the federal prosecutors for prosecution. When an individual overdoses on a drug, the person they bought the drug from is held criminally responsible for their injury or death under Federal Statute 21 USC § 841. This statute mandates a minimum of twenty (20) years prison time, but is almost impossible to prove and convict. This research will address the difficulties investigating and prosecuting heroin overdoses. It will examine the groups in the federal system that are involved in the investigation of these cases; the Drug Enforcement Administration, and the U.S. Attorneys. This research will propose that certain changes need to happen in order for this statute to be effective and useful. It will be necessary to address heroin and what it does to the body when an overdose occurs. The federal statute concerning drug overdoses will be presented. This research will introduce those in the federal system that work on heroin overdose cases, then will proceed into the difficulties each of these groups encounters while working these cases. Sample situations and examples of cases will be described in order to illustrate the points. This research will lead to a proposed solution in an attempt to successfully prosecute more cases under this federal statute and reduce the number of heroin overdoses occurring. The purpose of this research endeavor is to address the problems and educate on this statute in an effort to decrease the number of heroin overdoses that occur in our community. It will attempt to help adapt the current statute and policies in order to improve the outcome of these cases and better serve the interest of society. The number of heroin overdoses needs to be curbed and this research will attempt to aid in helping deter and punish those involved in selling illegal drugs.

The medical malpractice insurance system experienced a period of crisis in the early 1970s. High jury awards and an increased amount of litigation were cited as causing a substantial increase in malpractice premiums. These premiums covered doctors for claims arising from their treatment of patients. As a result, physicians were unable to afford the high price of premiums and many insurers discontinued malpractice insurance. After years of stability, the medical malpractice crisis has resurfaced. In an effort to reduce malpractice premiums, many states implemented legislative tort reform acts. The majority of these acts included caps on noneconomic damages. These caps place a limit on the amount of money an injured person can receive for pain and suffering as the result of medical malpractice. Tort reform bills, which include these caps, created controversy in the court system. Lawyers argue that these caps violate an injured person's constitutional rights, but the legislature believes that they are necessary to ensure access to health care. The Florida legislature recently passed a Medical Liability Bill in an attempt to alleviate the crisis. The bill includes a $500,000 cap on noneconomic damages. My research was designed to analyze the current malpractice crisis, review Florida's Medical Liability Bill, and examine the effect of damage caps on medical liability litigation. The purpose is to evaluate the effects of current tort reform legislation, assess the constitutionality of damage caps, and propose solutions to the medical malpractice crisis.

Owning property, starting a business, and owning your own home are things considered to be part of the American dream. Our country was founded upon certain rights, which allow ownership of homes and small businesses. The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the interests of private property owners from the seizure of their land, except where the property is needed to satisfy a public use, and they are provided with just compensation for their loss. The 2005 United States Supreme Court case decision in Keio v. City of New London eliminated private property owner's protection under the Constitution. The Supreme Court's decision allows for the public taking of private property which is then transferred to another private party for the economic development of a city. The court determined that the redevelopment of the city which provided an increase in jobs and in tax revenue for the city, is a public use under the Fifth Amendment. As a result of the decision in Keio, the floodgates to hundreds of similar cases across the county are open. Throughout the United States, local governments are attempting to seize land needed for economic gain and redevelopment through eminent domain. Thousands of private residences, businesses, churches, and other community buildings are being seized and transferred to other private owners who will benefit from this seizure and transfer. The courts are moving away from the words actually written in the Constitution, "for public use" and instead accepting a looser interpretation of a public benefit as a result of a huge governmental and corporate gain, to meet the requirements set forth in the Fifth Amendment.

The phone rings and Jan jumps from her seat. Jan knows that it is the person who has been stalking her. He showed up at Jan's work, school, and even at the mall when she went shopping with a friend. Jan is afraid because she knows if she calls the police, they will not be able to help her unless the police see him outside her house. Victims are no longer left on their own to handle stalkers. Florida and the federal government have enacted laws to protect stalking victims and to prosecute the offenders. Florida law gives a victim the right to obtain an order for protection from the stalker. The Florida stalking statutes allow stalkers to be charged with either misdemeanor or felony offenses if they violate these stalking statutes. Nevertheless, it is incumbent that state and federal laws continue to evolve as offenders begin to use additional resources, such as through the Internet, to stalk their victims. There are pretrial detention options that should be exercised by judges in stalking eases where it has been proven that the offender poses a threat of great bodily injury or death to the victim. There are also many victim support centers established to help victims understand the laws in their respective state, understand what safety precautions to take, and understand what actions to avoid. These services are available to any victim of stalking, whether a college student, a female, a male, a minor or an elderly person.

In the wake of September 11, 2001 Congress quickly approved a radical bill known as the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools and Resources to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act. The Patriot Act modifies fundamental aspects of criminal law and civil liberties in the United States. While many sections have provoked controversy, most of those fall within Title II, known simply as "Surveillance Provisions." Among the Title II provisions, the sections concerning pen registers and trap and trace devices are among the most significant, and yet most widely misunderstood. For that reason, Title II's pen register and trap and trace statutes are the focus of this essay. This essay systematically and chronologically evaluates each of the pen register provisions - Sections 204, 214, and 216. Each provision receives a four-part analysis: (1) What was the law prior to the Patriot Act? (2) How does that section change the law? (3) What arguments have been cited in defense of the section? (4) What objections and criticisms about the section have been raised? The purpose of this essay is to inform and educate the UCF population about the many legal implications and considerations created by the pen register provisions. The conclusion of the essay resolves to seek common ground between supporters and critics. Some aspects of the pen register statutes are found to be acceptable, while two others should be declared unconstitutional. Common ground exists. however, and the pen register provisions could be rewritten to maintain the benefits to law enforcement while minimizing concerns of abuse or infringements on civil liberties.