556 research outputs found
Sort by
The Controversy Over the Legacy Highway in Utah: An Opportunity for Invitational Rhetoric
Get PDFBeginning in the mid 1990s, residents of Utah began to debate the merits of the “Legacy Highway,” a large highway that would run near the Great Salt Lake in an attempt to alleviate the clogged commute on Interstate-15, which runs north/south through Salt Lake City, the state’s capital. Perhaps not surprisingly, environmental groups were upset with this proposed governmental project. Groups like the Advocates for Safe and Efficient Transportation and the Utah Department of Transportation faced off against the Sierra Club, Stop the Legacy Highway, and Utahns for Better Transportation. Generous amounts of rhetoric, including public discussion and litigation, resulted from this controversy. At stake for Utah’s residents were both transportation and environmental issues. In light of the extensive rhetoric in this controversy, this paper suggests invitational rhetoric as an alternative approach to help improve the discourse involved in the ongoing disagreement over the Legacy Highway in Utah. Sonja K. Foss and Cindy L. Griffin define invitational rhetoric as “an invitation to understanding as a means to create a relationship rooted in equality, immanent value, and self-determination.” One of the benefits of invitational rhetoric is that it can help parties work towards developing ongoing relationships, which could be beneficial in the case of the parties to the Legacy Highway conflict since both major sides have to live with each other in Utah. Hopefully, an invitational approach would allow parties to open doors to new possibilities rather than keeping open the same old doors that have led to repeated clash. The paper develops its thesis via several sections, including a more detailed statement of the conflict, methods employed in the study, discussion of the rhetorics of the two major sides in the conflict, an explanation of invitational rhetoric, and an application of an invitational approach to the environmental conflict at hand
Equal Access to Post-Secondary Education: The Sisyphean Impact of Flagging Test Scores of Persons with Disabilities
Get PDFIn view of the social stigma associated with disabilities, and the inherent costs of providing accommodations to disabled students, the opportunity for bias within the admissions selection process is clear. As a result, the practice of flagging standardized tests has come under increasing scrutiny. The practice of distinguishing test takers having a disability from those who do not runs counter to the social policy of inclusion, and prevents disabled individuals from enjoying the benefits of equal citizenship. Part II of this paper provides a brief overview of the prejudice disabled individuals have endured throughout history, and discusses some early movements toward change. Part III discusses the legality of flagging test scores and provides an overview of federal laws and professional standards applicable to the practice. Part IV discusses the practice of flagging and the use of accommodations in standardized testing, and evaluates the empirical evidence obtained from standard and nonstandard test administrations in the context of flagging. The section concludes with a brief discussion of why some testing entities stopped flagging test scores. Part V discusses the continued practice of flagging test scores received on the Law School Admission Test (LSAT) and the Medical College Admission Test (MCAT) and examines the empirical evidence used to justify the practice. The section concludes with an analysis of the leading case addressing flagging scores received on professional exams. Part VI provides commentary on the propriety of flagging tests and provides recommendations for change to eliminate the stigmatizing effects of segregating students with disabilities in the admissions process
The Danger of Future Dangerousness in Death Penalty Use
Get PDFIn spite of thousands of years of science, humankind is distinctly unable to predict the future. And yet, the judicial system is called upon to do just so daily. In bail considerations, judges predict flight risk. In parole hearings, officials contemplate the likelihood of reoffense. And in three states, a defendant convicted of a capital crime will live or die based on what a judge and jury thinks he will do in an unknown future. It has been observed that “what separates the executioner from the murderer is the legal process by which the state ascertains and condemns those guilty of heinous crimes. If that process is flawed ... the legitimacy of our legal process is threatened.” When states execute based in part on the defendant’s future actions, the legal process is confronted with several complex questions. If they cannot be satisfactorily answered, the state risks collapsing the distinction between murderer and executioner. This Comment collects and responds to several of the strongest arguments — stemming from both constitutional objections and more general concerns — against the use of future dangerousness as a consideration in death penalty sentencing. Following this Introduction, Part II provides definitions and basic background information on future dangerousness. Part III compares the use of clinical methods to actuarial methods for determining future dangerousness and advocates for the conclusion reached by other commentators that actuarial methods are preferable. It also briefly reviews the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG) and the Classification of Violence Risk (COVR) software, two actuarial tools referenced by example throughout this Comment. Part IV reviews the case law history of future dangerousness and the death penalty. On the foundation laid by Parts III and IV, Part V collects and responds to six of the most potent objections to future dangerousness: (1) relevance and admissibility of evidence, (2) the requirement of an individualized assessment, (3) reliance on factors that do not index blameworthiness, (4) vagueness challenges, (5) predestination considerations, and (6) objections to future dangerousness as nonretributive. Part VI considers generalized and specific arguments for the use of future dangerousness testimony. Part VII makes several specific suggestions as to how future dangerousness evidence should be used by courts. Part VIII concludes with general comments
Diplomatic Immunity Ratione Personae Did the International Court of Justice Create a New Rule of Customary International Law in Congo v Belgium
Get PDFThe Silent Criminal Defendant and the Presumption of Innocence: In the Hands of Real Jurors, Is Either of Them Safe
Get PDFRise and Fall of the Ultra Vires Doctrine in United States, United Kingdom, and Commonwealth Caribbean Corporate Common Law: A Triumph of Experience Over Logic
No full textGoogle the Gozerian and Fair Use Slimed: Copyright Again in the Technocrat\u27s Den
Get PDFThis article considers the fair use doctrine as it applies to Google\u27s Library Search Project and both predicts and advocates for a finding of fair use. Part I briefly reviews the past by considering the pertinent history of the fair use doctrine. It also explains the details of the current suit over Google\u27s Library Project. Part II moves on to consider the current state of fair use analysis by reviewing 110 fair use cases and conducting simple statistical analyses. It then explains and applies the fair use doctrine to Google\u27s project. Part III considers cases frequently compared to Google\u27s and discusses their impact on Google\u27s lawsuit. Part IV departs from a Google-centered analysis and examines the possible future of the four factors by suggesting modifications to the fair use doctrine
