Abstract not available.

Under the Eighth Amendment, the death penalty is in and of itself not considered cruel and unusual punishment. Although the death penalty is frequently attacked for the numerous death row exonerations (more than 150 in the United States alone), lack of evidence supporting the idea that the death penalty deters crime, and marginalized groups being more likely to receive this sentencing, the death penalty still remains on solid constitutional ground. In fact, the arguments that pose the biggest threat to the constitutionality of the death penalty tend to revolve around the potential risk of substantial pain while executing an offender, or the type of offender that can or cannot be executed. One argument that has not received as much traction, but rests on similar logic to those that have, revolves around the constitutionality of sitting on death row. Specifically, the argument that this thesis will address is whether the time spent on death row, not the execution itself, violates the Eighth Amendment? This question will be addressed through three-parts: I. Death Penalty in Modern U.S. Jurisprudence, II. Overlooked Problematic Effects of Death Row and III. Time on Death Row as a Possible Constitutional Violation. Part I. reviews the literature of death penalty jurisprudence and is divided into three smaller parts. Part II. presents an analysis of death row and the effects it has on inmates. Part III. analyzes connections between inmates' mental health and their competency.

The field of' Liability for Animals' appears at first sight to be only of minor interest to academics. This, however, is a false syllogism as incidents involving animals are frequent, and courts constantly deal with claims regarding damages for injuries caused by animals. Indeed, in many countries the law of animals forms special subject. With respect to English law for instance Lord Simonds, using the metaphor of a train, remarked that the Common Law of torts has developed historically in separate compartments and that beasts have travelled in a compartment of their own. 1 However, it is also true, that within this "tort-train" a few animals lurking in the other compartments marked 'Negligence or Nuisance' may also be found.

The value of free speech is deeply rooted in democratic principles designed to foster a marketplace of ideas where diverse viewpoints thrive and enable accountability and social progress. Simultaneously, academic freedom is essential for the pursuit of knowledge. Yet both must be exercised responsibly. This thesis examines the intricate relationship between free speech, academic freedom, and humanistic concerns like respect, inclusivity, and diversity. By exploring pivotal court cases such as Sweezy v. New Hampshire (1957), Bonnell v. Lorenzo (2001), Axson-Flynn v. Johnson (2004), Tinker v. Des Moines (1969), and Morse v. Frederick (2007), this paper illustrates the delicate balance needed in educational settings. The analysis suggests that schools should establish clear speech policies, prioritize education on responsible speech, and create committees to address speech-related concerns. An ideal policy balances court requirements, humanistic concerns, and promotes respectful dialogue while prohibiting harmful speech.

The focus of this thesis is to explore the legality, the issues, and the remedy to a controversial statute in the State of Illinois. This thesis will explain how the First Amendment relates to the Illinois statute and its desire of a citizen is right to report information that is not being granted. Moreover, this paper will further go into a recent legislative bill to amend the Illinois statute, its failure, the media surrounding the issue, and the consequences of amending or not amending the statute. It will further review state law in regard to citizens recording police officers, and explain how some states deal with the statute.

Following the decision rendered in Obergefell v. Hodges, there have been unabating talk as to how courts may rule on disputed matters involving same-sex marriages. One specific aspect this thesis intends to focus on is what to expect from custody rulings following dissolutions of same-sex marriages. The purpose of this thesis is to interpret just how courts may rule regarding child custody in same-sex divorces, based on the concept of stare decisis. Given the fresh face of marriage equality in America, there is a lack of research done in the area. This thesis will serve as a substructure and reference for other studies of its kind. Through a focus on defining factors in same-sex relationships as well as factors often identified in heterosexual relationships, this thesis will be able to compare the two to determine what appropriate outcomes courts may result to in cases of child custody following same-sex dissolutions of marriage. This thesis will compile heterosexual cases involving more role-based relationships such as the caregiver and provider as well as collect cases that reflect the egalitarian lifestyle we know to be present in same-sex couples to get a general idea of how courts may rule when both parents are at an equal standing.

It is clear that D.U.I related accidents (driving under the influence) are a highly destructive, and often preventable, occurrence in our society. In response to this, many states in the past decade or so have started to implement D.U.I court programs modeled after drug court programs. Florida, like many other states in the U.S., have multiple active D.U.I court program districts. As of this time, there are currently four active D.U.I. court programs in Florida. These D.U.I. court programs, like drug court, are designed to focus on and facilitate rehabilitative measures against offenders whom have multiple D.U.I offenses. Studies on this relatively new court program, in relation to lowering the recidivism rate on the program's participators, have mostly shown to be effective in lowering the recidivism rate and overall court costs. However, there have been studies that cast doubt on the overall effectiveness on the recidivism rate. There is also little to no amount of studies and data in regard to Florida's D.U.I. court programs. Although understudied, Florida D.U.I courts show equal potential as many other studied D.U.I. courts throughout the U.S. in effecting the recidivism rate of D.U.I. offenders. The intent of this thesis is to explore the feasibility and method of conducting research on the court program designs of each Florida's DU.I. courts, and the recidivism rate of those who successfully underwent the court programs. The present study evaluates the size, scope, and method of each of the potential DU.I. court program research methods on the currently active D.U.I. courts in Florida.

The Supreme Court Justices of the United States sit on the highest court of the land. The justices have the ultimate say as to the meaning of the Constitution, and their role could aptly be summarized as interpreters of the Constitution. They decide what the words of the nation's founding document mean and therefore help to determine the rule of law for the social, political, and economic areas of society. To help them analyze the text of the Constitution and decide what it means and subsequently apply it to cases, justices use constitutional methodologies. Constitutional methodologies are algorithms or ways of thinking about provisions of the Constitution that guide a justice's reasoning and application of the Constitution to cases. These different structured methods of analysis seem to be fair and objective ways of interpreting the Constitution and deciding cases, yet this thesis argues the opposite. The argument expounded in this thesis is that constitutional methodologies instead act as smoke screens, a sort of constitutional camouflage, that allow a justice to decide a constitutional question not according to some objective standard but rather by however they feel it should be decided according to their beliefs and values. These methodologies use their theories, arguments, and philosophies to legitimize interpreting the Constitution a certain way, but this thesis shows that they inevitably lead a justice down a camouflaged path towards a single subjective decision. Multiple justices using the same constitutional methodology to analyze the same constitutional issue could come to different conclusions based on the values they hold and how they utilize the methodology. This subjective decision hides behind the structured methods of analysis purported by constitutional methodologies, and ultimately makes them more akin to smoke screens rather than objective mechanisms for interpreting and applying the Constitution.

In criminal cases, poor individuals must qualify as legally indigent to receive legal representation. In civil cases, poor and indigent individuals must find their own resources to support themselves since the government does not guarantee counsel. Without counsel, poor and indigent individuals are forced to find legal representation for these cases on their own, which can be difficult considering the expenses of fees and fines. Cognitive processes, including bias and stereotypes, create a barrier in advocacy because they cloud judgement of decision-makers, which can diminish the voice of this vulnerable community. Barriers like these create an invisible wall where limited court access restricts poor and indigent people. While there are many factors that contribute to this problem, the legal community has a responsibility to increase and promote education on reducing the impact of the invisible wall towards vulnerable communities.

No description available.