16885 research outputs found
Sort by
Introduction to Various Online Teaching Tools
No full textBecause of the current pandemic, in the fall, many LRW faculty will meet their students for the first time on an online platform. In preparation for this, you might be feeling overwhelmed by all of the online teaching tools out there. We\u27ve come together to find some of the best and coolest tools to help you figure out what works best for planning, creating content, and actively teaching online. These tools can help prepare and get your online teaching plan together, help keep students engaged, interested, and excited to learn, create a classroom culture and build student professional identity in an on line format, and help you as the professor share the information in an easy to use and clear manner. Some of the tools to be discussed include Kaizena, Vialogues, Pad let, and A Web Whiteboard (AWW). In addition, we\u27ll introduce and discuss how to create a law school avatar to both figuratively and literally stand in for the on line student, and enhance the student experience. We\u27ll each briefly introduce a tool, explain its purpose, and give a quick demonstration of how it works. We\u27ll also each record a short tutorial on using the tool that will be uploaded separately
Online Peer Review
No full textPeer review is a well-established method of improving legal writing for both the writer and the reviewer. Peer review software uses technology to better engage student reviewers, structure and facilitate the review process, and provide faculty and students with data that increases learning and improves teaching. Moreover, it is particularly well suited for student collaboration in a distance-education environment. This session will describe the process of using peer review software in legal writing distance education and its benefits
Courts, Culture, and the Lethal Injection Stalemate
Get PDFThe Supreme Court’s 2019 decision in Bucklew v. Precythe reiterated the Court’s great deference to states in Eighth Amendment lethal injection cases. The takeaway is that when it comes to execution protocols, states can do what they want. Events on the ground tell a very different story. Notwithstanding courts’ deference, executions have ground to a halt in numerous states, often due to lethal injection problems. State officials and the Court’s conservative Justices have blamed this development on “anti-death penalty activists” waging “guerilla war” on capital punishment. In reality, though, a variety of mostly uncoordinated actors motivated by a range of distinct norms has contributed to states’ lethal injection woes. These actors, such as doctors, pharmaceutical companies, and institutional investors, follow their own professional incentives, usually unrelated to the morality of capital punishment.
States’ recent execution difficulties raise important questions about the future of the Eighth Amendment and the American death penalty. As certain lethal injection protocols and executions themselves become less common, future courts eventually might reconsider their deference in this area. The Eighth Amendment, after all, encompasses “evolving standards of decency,” which courts often measure with reference to changing state practices. Though constitutional doctrine has played only a bit part in the execution decline, that decline could eventually reshape constitutional doctrine.
This story also complicates long-accepted constitutional theories. While the traditional view is that federalism maximizes state policy choices so long as courts and Congress do not interfere, the lethal injection stalemate shows how nongovernmental actors, even uncoordinated ones, can undermine state policies. Courts and the political branches in some states stand united in support of capital punishment. It is, therefore, noteworthy that unorganized actors pursuing their own institutional objectives have obstructed executions and even cast new long-term doubt on previously entrenched penological practices
Criminal Trespass and Computer Crime
Get PDFThe Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) criminalizes the simple act of trespass upon a computer—intentional access without authorization. The law sweeps too broadly, but the courts and scholars seeking to fix it look in the wrong place. They uniformly focus on the term “without authorization” when instead they should focus on the statute’s mens rea. On a conceptual level, courts and scholars understand that the CFAA is a criminal law, of course, but fail to interpret it comprehensively as one.
This Article begins the first sustained treatment of the CFAA as a criminal law, with a full elaboration of the appropriate mens rea based upon congressional intent, cognate state criminal trespass statutes, and recent Supreme Court guidance on federal mens rea in general. A fully realized mens rea sweeps away many of the unjust potential applications of the CFAA on a far more principled basis than does a focus on, and re-writing of, “without authorization.”
My interpretative approach limits unjust applications of the provision, but many will remain. In a coda, I briefly show why we should likely abolish the trespass provision of the CFAA. The flaws of the CFAA, such as criminalizing ordinary and innocent behavior and arbitrary enforcement, flow from the same pathologies already inherent in criminal trespass law
5 Days Out — A Roundtable of Election Law Experts
No full textElection Law at Ohio State is honored to host this stellar panel of election law experts from around the country who will share their assessments of where things stand with 5 days to go before this unprecedented presidential election
