2011

This article was written by guest author Kathryn A. Sampson, Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Arkansas School of Law. In January of 2010, the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) released a study conducted by Thomas Dee and Brian Jacobs that reported success in anti-plagiarism instruction.[i]   Dee and Jacobs examined the effectiveness of an anti-plagiarism tutorial among 1,200 papers and concluded that pre-assignment completion of the tutorial “reduced instances of plagiarism by roughly 2 percentage points overall (i.e., a two-thirds reduction) and that this treatment effect was concentrated among students with lower [standardized test] scores.”[ii]  From this data, Dee & Jacob concluded “intervention reduced plagiarism by increasing student knowledge rather than by increasing the perceived probabilities of detection and punishment.”[iii] In addition to the on-line tutorial suggested…

This article was written by guest author Nick Walter. Mr. Walter is a 2012 J.D. candidate at Yale Law School, and Executive Editor of the Yale Law Journal. This blog post is based on his article, The Status of Religious Arbitration in the United States and Canada, which will appear in 52 Santa Clara L. Rev. (forthcoming Jan. 2012). Arbitration is a popular form of dispute resolution. It is effective, too: in the United States and Canada, arbitral agreements and awards can be enforced in court.[i] This includes religious arbitration agreements—arbitration proceedings that are conducted before religious tribunals, or in accordance with religious principles. Religious arbitration from time to time appears in the news, often in relation to some kind of controversy. In Ontario in 2006, the premier, Dalton McGuinty,…

This article was written by guest author, Susan Morse. Ms. Morse is an Associate Professor at UC Hastings College of the Law. Ever heard of Dr. Love, also known as Paul Zak?  I have met him, and he deserves his reputation, although he did not hug me.  My loss.  Zak’s new book, The Moral Molecule, is due out in 2012.   He is a neuroeconomist who studies the hormone and neurotransmitter oxytocin — the love molecule.  Oxytocin is the molecular reason why people thrive on hugging, Twitter and other people in general.  Oxytocin production facilitates pair bonding and mother-infant attachment by making sex, as well as breastfeeding, feel good. Oxytocin is relevant to tax policy because it affects people’s decisions to contribute to the funding of public goods, a basic goal of taxation.  For…

This article was written by guest author SpearIt.  SpearIt is an Associate Professor of Law at St. Louis University School of Law.   This article was also published by the Society of American Law Teachers here. States which have legalized medical marijuana are at a critical juncture and may be forced to make some important decisions. In places such as Arizona and Colorado, doctors, dispensaries, and medical commissioners all face peril for performing their duties—duties which keep with state law, but may breach federal law. The future of this debate largely hinges on how hard states are willing to fight the federal government, or alternately, whether Congress can effectively intervene. This issue took an important turn in June when the Justice Department issued a memo to clarify an earlier memo issued…

This article was written by guest author Michael Rosman.  Mr. Rosman serves as General Counsel for the Center for Individual Rights. It is common among academics to deride the coherence of the Supreme Court’s various opinions explaining the doctrine of “standing” under Article III of the Constitution. Most of the criticism is quite well deserved. Indeed, I thought it difficult for the Court to do anything that would actually make standing doctrine more incoherent. But I underestimated the Court. For, in the recent decision of Camreta v. Greene, the Court managed to take the jumbled mess of doctrine that applies to standing for district courts, and duplicated it for appellate courts. Let’s start with what had been relatively clear about standing prior to Camreta. First, the version of standing that…

The 2011-2012 Arizona State Law Journal kicks off the year with fall orientation.  The staff of the Arizona State Law Journal wish to thank the following firms, in alphabetic order, for sponsoring events during the orientation. Ballard Spahr Bryan Cave Gammage & Burnham Osborn Maledon Polsinelli Shughart Snell & Wilmer Steptoe & Johnson Tiffany & Bosco

This article was written by guest author Ruth A. Moyer, a 2008 cum laude graduate of Temple Law School. She currently practices criminal defense law in Philadelphia. Additionally, she has written an article, “Why and How a Lower Federal Court’s Decision that a Search or Seizure Violated the Fourth Amendment Should Be Binding in a State Prosecution: Using ‘Good Sense’ and Suppressing Unnecessary Formalism,” which will appear in Vermont Law Review. The January 2011 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Harrington v. Richter[i] ostensibly reaffirms the federalist principle that federal habeas courts should defer to state court adjudications of federal constitutional claims. As a more transcendent matter, however, Richter may ironically weaken an important justification for such deference. Pursuant to the federal habeas corpus writ, 28 U.S.C. § 2254,[ii] a state prisoner may challenge…

This article was written by guest author, Dr. J.C. Oleson. Dr. Oleson is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Sociology, University of Auckland. Prior to joining the University of Auckland in June of 2010, Dr. Oleson served as Chief Counsel to the Criminal Law Policy Staff of the United States Federal Courts. His full-length article on risk assessment in sentencing is forthcoming in the November 2011 issue of the SMU Law Review. The imposition of a criminal sentence is an excruciatingly difficult task, requiring sentencing judges to carefully balance different (and frequently competing) theories of punishment. In some jurisdictions, judges enjoy nearly unfettered discretion; in others, judges impose initial sentences but parole boards make the final determinations about when prisoners are ready for release; in other jurisdictions, judicial authority is…

This article was written by guest authors Jon Reidy, a Houston-based litigator; Michael J. Stephan, Law Clerk on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; and Guha Krishnamurthi, Law Clerk on the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. They are all graduates of The University of Texas School of Law, class of 2010. It is a well-known maxim that a lawyer shall not advise his client to violate the law.[i]  At the same time, the ground reality is that lawyers often tell their clients to engage in conduct that, at least technically, violates the law.[ii]  These lawyers likely characterize such communication not as advising their clients to engage in illegal conduct, but rather as merely informing their clients as to the consequences of such…

Guest author Tat Chee Tsui wrote this article. Mr. Tsui received his LL.M. from the University of California, Berkeley in 2010. First, it is appropriate to disclose that I was a student of Professor John Yoo at Berkeley Law School. However I believe it would not have any effect on my point of view below if I provide sufficient grounds. Professor Yoo was the Deputy Assistant Attorney General for former President George Bush. During his tenure, he made certain arguments (the so-called “Torture Memo” [1]) regarding the Guantánamo Bay detention camp. Professor Yoo has been criticized by the general public for this. Some professors and students at UC Berkeley, as well as people outside the school, urged Professor Christopher Edley, Jr., The Dean of Berkeley Law School, to remove Yoo…