This paper takes the view that the substance of that knowledge and information is to be found with the very women we are concerned with. It seeks to investigate this by eliciting the experiences of women who have entered the profession, specifically the advocate’s profession, more commonly known as the Bar. Closer scrutiny of women in the profession in this way will determine whether and to what extent patriarchal normative attitudes still operative in the legal profession.

Note: 5 volumes

In the Canadian criminal justice system, there is a procedure which provides additional protections to Indigenous offenders during sentencing and its related events. This procedure is commonly referred to as the Gladue process. This thesis defends the plausibility of extending Gladue-like procedures to non-Indigenous offenders on the grounds that failing to do so would be a failure of consistency of the law. The law must be consistent in the sense that it must treat like cases alike. It will be argued in this thesis that there are other individuals and groups who may be similarly deserving of additional protections during sentencing because of their significant circumstances of vulnerability. This includes black individuals, LGBTQIA+, and mentally ill persons, but this is by no means an exhaustive list. This thesis does not aim to diminish the unique experience of Indigenous persons, but rather, it suggests that extending Gladue-like processes to particular non-Indigenous persons and groups may be required based on consistency of the law and attention to intersectionality. It is my hope that this thesis brings about greater awareness to the sentencing procedures pertaining to both Indigenous and non-Indigenous offenders alike, and that it may spark discussion on the subject of extending additional legal protections to vulnerable persons. This thesis relies heavily on the hybrid theory of punishment, as presented by H.L.A. Hart, which combines both utilitarian and retributivist elements in justifying the act of punishment. Hart’s theory aligns with the Canadian legislation on sentencing and provides a convincing justification for punishment while allowing the inclusion of restorative punishment practices for vulnerable persons. It will be argued that extending restorative practices to non-Indigenous offenders is, in some cases, plausible, and at times, necessary. / Thesis / Master of Arts (MA) / Within Canadian legislation Indigenous offenders are provided an additional procedure during sentencing and its related events. This system is commonly known as the Gladue process. Gladue provides a good model for how the sentencing of vulnerable individuals and groups should be handled. However, this process or something similar to it is not provided to other offenders who may also experience vulnerability or should be comparably deserving of additional protections or mitigating factors during sentencing. This thesis argues for the plausibility of extending Gladue-like procedures to other, similarly situated, non-Indigenous offenders based on arguments for consistency of the law and respect for intersectionality. The law must treat like cases alike, and in doing so, must pay particular attention to the intersections between layers of vulnerability. The main contribution of this thesis is to make suggestions for change in Canada’s sentencing procedures of vulnerable individuals and groups.

This thesis develops a novel account of judicial common-law reasoning by precedent. If a new case is relevantly similar to a precedent case, judges are generally bound to follow the decision made in the precedent case. Important differences between cases can justify deciding the new case differently. The literature offers two main approaches to reasoning by precedent. According to rule-based-approaches, every case is decided by either following an existing rule or establishing a new one. I show that rule-based approaches are untenable. Analogy-based approaches claim that similarities and differences between two cases are determined through reasoning by analogy. These approaches are problematic because some similarity or difference can always be found between two cases. Accounts suggested so far cannot explain how precedents can provide significant guidance to judges. My dissertation salvages analogy-based approaches by supplementing them with insights from argumentation theory. Analogies contain a figurative part that is used to make someone see the analogy‘s literal part in a new way. An arguer can manipulate her interlocutor‘s perception of the literal part through the way she describes the figurative part by rhetorically drawing attention to those similarities that she considers relevant. Arguments by analogy use this to convince interlocutors of conclusions about the literal part. I propose to see judges in the role of interlocutors, evaluating arguments by precedent. The opinion that documents the precedent case from the point of view of the former judge is the figurative part of an analogy. The literal part is the new case. They form an analogical argument for repeating the precedent decision. The judge evaluates the argument by considering a number of critical questions. If all the critical questions can be answered, the precedent is applicable and must be followed. Otherwise, the precedent is either not applicable or has to be distinguished. / Dissertation / Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) / This thesis describes reasoning by precedent in the common law. I discuss two important approaches to how reasoning by precedent works, rule-based theories and analogy-based theories. I reject rule-based theories as untenable. I describe the main problem analogy-based theories face: To show that precedents can constrain judicial reasoning so that judges cannot decide cases according to their own normative commitments. I use insights from psychological research into analogical reasoning and from argumentation theory to develop a new analogy-based account. I suggest that judges should be seen as interlocutors evaluating an argument by precedent. This argument contains an analogy between precedent case and present case, and a rule stating that the precedent decision needs to be followed if precedent case and present case are legally the same. The judge needs to first understand the analogy under the application of the principle of charity, and then evaluate it using critical questions.

Government propaganda has been a topic of interest since America was founded, and today is no exception. Every recent Presidential Administration has been accused of using taxpayer dollars to fund propaganda. Although the funding of propaganda has been prohibited by the Consolidated Appropriations Act since 1951, it still occurs frequently. There is no entity that reviews government correspondence before it is released to the public, so government agencies are free to produce what they feel is appropriate even if it is prohibited by the Act. Furthermore, there is no law that specifically forbids government propaganda, and the current punishments amount to a slap on the wrist making the production covert propaganda worth the risk. This thesis will also look at the Smith-Mundt Act and the media that it funds for foreign audiences. The material produced through this Act is banned from being disseminated in the U.S. The Smith-Mundt Act's ban does not take into account for the technological advances that have occurred since 1948 making the ban problematic for public diplomacy. The intent of this thesis is to evaluate the current state of government propaganda and determine what changes need to occur in order to curtail or eliminate government propaganda. This research will analyze the current laws and types of propaganda that are being used while taking into account the relevant history, frequently used types, and methods of propaganda.

Controversy surrounds the use of Genetically Modified organisms (GMOs): whether the process of developing GMOs should be allowed, and if so, how they should be labeled. Efforts by activist groups have caused food associated with GMOs to carry a stigma, but farmers across the nation are fighting to continue to grow GMO crops and maximize their yield. In the 1970’s, GMOs were credited for assisting in the attempt to defeat world hunger and had a positive image. However, there has been a recent trend toward political and consumer resistance of food items that contains GMOs. A prediction of an abrupt population increase, combined with sudden climate changes, present further complications for world hunger, and make GMOs even more essential in today’s society. Additionally, farmers must now consider certain potential legal liabilities when buying seed, planting crops, and marketing their crops. This thesis will examine United States federal and state law to review how courts have ruled on tort claims in order to determine the potential and future liabilities that farmers producing GMO crops might face. This thesis will also examine the regulations by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the federal laws they must comply with to determine if they need to be increased or if they are sufficient. Scientific studies will be used to assess the health risks associated with the consumption of GMOs and the impact they have on the environment. This thesis will also examine the First Amendment to determine how GMO foods should be labeled, so as to not interfere with consumers’ right to know if their food was genetically modified. Also, it will look at the impact labeling may have on the price of food in the United States, if mandated. Lastly, in order to understand the role that GMOs might play in the future with an increasing population, this thesis will review the work of Dr. Borlaug and how the implementation of GMOs assisted in alleviating a hunger crises in the 1970’s when the supply of food could not meet the demand.

When a defendant is arrested, they can choose to either hire a private attorney to represent them, have appointed counsel such as a public defender, or have no representation. While the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to counsel regardless of a defendant’s ability to pay, this counsel is not always required at first appearance. In fact, only 14 states have made it a requirement to have counsel at first appearance, and even in those states, counsel is not always appointed immediately. However, at first appearance, the judge determines whether to release the defendant pending trial, and if the defendant is released, whether to release them on their own recognizance or have them post bail. Accordingly, at first appearance someone’s freedom could be revoked without representation of counsel. Furthermore, even if a defendant is offered bail that doesn’t mean they can always post it. In fact, defendants remain detained for bail amounts as low as $100. Previous studies have explored the impact of being detained pending trial on case outcome and sentencing. The present study uses misdemeanor crimes in Orange County, Florida from 2018 to explore whether the type of representation (private attorney, public defender, or no representation) a defendant had at their first appearance impacted their initial release decisions. Furthermore, this study analyzes whether the type of representation impacted case dismissals, whether the defendant received a jail or fine sentence, and the sentence length and fine amount. Using multiple linear regressions and linear probability models, this study found that type of counsel did not impact release decisions, bail amounts, and fine amounts. However, there were significant differences for case dismissals – on average, having a private attorney was associated with a greater likelihood of having the case dismissed when compared to those without representation and to those with a public defender. In addition, having a private attorney versus a public defender was, on average, associated with a seven-day lower jail sentence. Moreover, on average, having a private attorney was associated with a lower probability of receiving a jail sentence (the most severe punishment) as compared to those without representation and those with a public defender. Having a public defender was associated with a greater likelihood of receiving a jail sentence as compared to those without representation.

Note: Volume 3 of 5

Note: Volume 4 of 5

Note: Volume 5 of 5