18043 research outputs found
Sort by
Choosing Children: Preventing Intra-Family Conflict from Feeding the Prison Pipeline
Get PDFParents struggling to raise challenging children often lack needed community
support. These parents turn to law enforcement when they feel their
child cannot be controlled. Problematically, law enforcement officers are
trained to respond to crime, not simple parent-child domestic disputes. Thus,
when parents call police during disagreements, the argument may end in arrest
and contact with the juvenile court system. Interaction with the juvenile
justice system carries a myriad of risks. This comment outlines the risks inherent
in calling the police and entering the juvenile court system. The author
evaluates existing alternatives to calling law enforcement and recommends
that communities adopt alternatives to calling the police for cases of intrafamily
conflict
Motivational Factors for Conducting Program Evaluations within Nonprofit Youth Development Organizations
No full textDeveloping and implementing a program evaluation process is vital to the success of nonprofit organizations, including youth development nonprofit organizations. However, the motivation to develop and implement program evaluation varies and may have an impact on future program implementations. This study was designed to understand the motivational factors of conducting program evaluations within youth development nonprofit organizations and how this impacts future programming. This study was conducted through a multiple choice and short answer survey. The survey yielded thirty-one (31) responses from program directors within a national youth development organization. Responses were categorized and coded according to theme. Research found that serving the youth population and the nonprofit’s community, making improvements to current programs, and securing funding were the most popular motivational factors. Program evaluations have varying degrees of implications on the organization’s stakeholders that are worth exploring in the future
Jepson School of Leadership Studies Dean\u27s Report 2021 - 2022
Get PDFUniversity of Richmond\u27s Jepson School of Leadership Studies Dean\u27s Report for 2021 - 2022
Applying Products Liability Law To Facebook’s Platform and Algorithms: Addiction, Radicalization, and Real-World Harm
Get PDFFacebook has become central to the lives of millions of Americans. As of 2021, 69% of U.S. adults use Facebook. Among those U.S. adults who use Facebook, roughly 70% visit Facebook at least once a day. Moreover, as of 2020, 36% of U.S. adults receive their news through Facebook. That means roughly 60 million U.S. adults receive their news through Facebook each day. Facebook’s impact on American society cannot be overstated when viewed through such a lens. Thus, it is important to ensure Facebook responsibly designs its products: its platform and its algorithms
Rethinking Retroactive Rulemaking: Solving the Problem of Adjudicative Deference
Get PDFThe Chevron doctrine enables courts to defer to authoritative, legally binding agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. Though more frequently applied when reviewing rulemaking, the doctrine is actually more powerful when applied to an adjudication. In an adjudication, the agency can attach consequences to past actions made before the interpretation announced in the adjudication itself. Since such a determination will receive deference on review, this declaration effectively becomes a new rule, having gone through neither public notice or public comment. Not only does it become a new rule, it becomes a new rule that is effective retroactively. It is illogical to have a system that gives more power to a less democratic process, and Chevron deference should therefore not apply to adjudication.The notice and comment process that Chevron more typically defers to is the best method yet devised to enable an agency to benefit from not only its own expertise but that of the general interested public as well. Public comment can point out potential problems with the agency’s preferred approach that the agency has not otherwise foreseen as well as present solutions not yet considered by the agency. This type of input could be beneficial for ambiguities that come to light in an adjudication as well as those initially addressed in rulemaking. Agencies should therefore be encouraged to undertake rulemakings when ambiguities arise in adjudications. But because of the retroactive nature of adjudication itself, these rules would need to (at least potentially) be used retroactively in the adjudication that gave rise to them, or there would be no incentive for the agency to undertake the delay and effort of the rulemaking.
This Article argues that not only should adjudications not receive Chevron deference, but a limited exception should also be created to the current ban on retroactive rulemaking to encourage agencies to engage in the rulemaking process to address ambiguities arising in adjudication. This exception could be specifically cabined to apply only in these unique situations. Enabling such an exception would provide the agency and the public with the benefits arising from public participation
Pretextual Stops: The Rest of the Story
Get PDFPretextual stops made by law enforcement officers—stops aimed at serving some purpose other than the official reason for the stop—have received renewed attention in the public discourse following several high-profile law enforcement confrontations with people of color. Naturally, the conversations about pretextual stops have centered around their most horrid iteration: discriminatory stops made by bad cops. These stops are damaging to both motorists and officers, and conversations about them are undeniably important. But there is more to pretextual stops than the nefarious purposes attributed to them.
As a former police officer who regularly made pretextual stops for reasons entirely unrelated to race, I’d like to tell the rest of the story (as Paul Harvey would say). Whatever we as a society might decide about pretextual stops, the fact that cops regularly put pretext to use for good should be part of the conversation. To that end, this Essay offers a “boots on the ground” perspective. It aims to share how pretextual stops are used for good, and to shift the focus from how we can eliminate an officer’s discretion to make pretextual stops, to a candid evaluation of which laws are really worth having (and enforcing) and what else we might do to ameliorate the valid concerns that they raise.
I begin in Part I by outlining the doctrine of, and principal concerns with, pretextual stops. I complicate the issue in Part II by discussing the legitimate uses to which police officers regularly put pretextual stops. In Part III, I turn to a few thoughts about how to separate the bad from the good, refocusing the discussion as a question of what laws we want the police to enforce and how we might foster trust between the police and the policed