43674 research outputs found
Sort by
Clark Memorandum: Spring 2020
No full textClark Memorandum: Spring 2020 Of Rights and Responsibilities: The Social Ecosystem of Religious Freedom I am the Woman Who Can Flashes of Light: Thoughts on Circumstantial Evidence Capital Markets and Human Flourishinghttps://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/clarkmemo_gallery/1063/thumbnail.jp
How Effective are Police? The Problem of Clearance Rates and Criminal Accountability
No full textIn recent years, the national conversation in criminal justice has centered on police. Are police using excessive force? Should they be monitored more closely? Do technology and artificial intelligence improve policing? The implied core question across these national debates is whether police are effective at their jobs. Yet we have not explored how effective police are or determined how best to measure police effectiveness.This Article endeavors to measure how effective police are at their principal function—solving crime. The metric most commonly used to measure police effectiveness at crime-solving is a “clearance rate:” the proportion of reported crimes for which police arrest a person and refer them for prosecution. But clearance rates are inadequate for many reasons, including the fact that they are highly manipulable. This Article therefore provides a set of new metrics that have never been used systematically to study police effectiveness—referred to as “criminal accountability” metrics. Criminal Accountability examines the full course of a crime to determine whether crime that is committed is detected and ultimately resolved by police. Taking into account the prevalence and the number of crimes solved by police, the proportion of crimes solved in America is dramatically lower than we realize. Only with a clearer conversation, rooted in accurate data about the effectiveness of the American police system, can we attempt a path toward increased criminal accountability and public safety
Independent Creation in a World of AI
No full textScholars have long debated whether the outputs of AI systems should be subject to copyright. On the one hand, the automated nature of many AI systems may make copyright unnecessary as an incentive for the creation of those AI systems’ outputs, in which case society would be better off withholding copyright protections from them. On the other hand, those outputs often exhibit sufficient creativity to merit copyright protection, and without copyright, parties that use AI systems to create such outputs may lack the necessary incentives to do so.In this Essay, prepared as part of the Florida International University Law Review\u27s symposium on intelligent entertainment, I argue that copyright law’s independent creation defense, as well as the widespread availability of AI systems for helping authors in their creative efforts, help address some of the concerns embedded in these debates. Historically, the independent creation defense has rarely applied, simply because independent creation of similar expression is highly unusual. But as this Essay explores, AI increases the likelihood of multiple parties creating similar expression independently, meaning that the defense can help defuse worries that applying copyright to AI outputs will result in a copyright quagmire. Furthermore, the availability of AI systems for assisting authors in their creative efforts means that authors have tools for more readily creating unique works that avoid many of the remaining copyright landmines.Other copyright issues linger, however, and the last part of this Essay examines some of these concerns in brief. In particular, parties may wish to use specific AI outputs in their own creative efforts, and neither the independent creation defense nor the availability of AI tools for creating something unique help address this problem. Copyright law’s fair use defense may, however, and the Essay concludes by briefly examining how
ALEXIE KAMOE, Petitioner/ Appellant v. HONORABLE STEVAN RIDGE, Respondent / Appellee : Brief of Appellant
No full textAppeal Following An Order Of Certification From The Utah Court Of Appeals Challenging The Denial Of A Rule 65B Petition For Extraordinary Relief In The Fourth District Court, Before The Honorable Judge Robert Lunnen, Arising From An Order For Trial In The Utah County Justice Court
Carl Hollan, David Leavitt, Utah County Attorney, Counsel for Appellee
Douglas J. Thompson (12690), Appeals Division, Utah County Public Defender Assoc., Counsel for Appellan
Chad Laney Holmes and Holmes4SALE, LLC, Plaintiffs/ Appellants v. GARRETT FAUCETTE, Defendants/ Appellees : Brief of Appellant
No full textAppeal from Order Granting Motion to Dismiss in the Fourth District Court, the Honorable Judge Jared Eldridge Presiding
Aaron P. Dodd-10239, Fillmore Spencer LLC, Attorney for Defendants/Appellees
Michael Winn-14040, Winn at Law PLLC, Attorney for Appellants/Appellant
Shutting Down Speech 101: Saving Campus Free Speech from the Heckler’s Veto and the Speech Gerrymander
Get PDFDeregulation Defanged: An Empirical Review of Federal Deregulatory Policy and its Legal Obstacles
Get PDFJACOB M. SCOTT, Plaintiff/ Appellant, v. WINGATE WILDERNESS THERAPY, LLC, Defendant/ Appellee. : Response Brief of Appellee
Get PDFReview of Question of Law Certified by theUnited States Court of Appeals, Tenth CircuitCase No. 19-4052
RESPONSE BRIEF OF APPELLEORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTE
