Tunick, Mark

In the United States, driving with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of at least .08% is regarded as one of the most serious offenses threatening road safety; meanwhile, driving while using a cell phone (CUD) is considered to be significantly less serious. Whether or not an accident occurs, the BAC driver may face punishment, including fines, license revocation, jail time, probation, and more, while the CUD driver merely faces fines and points against their license at most. Both offenses risk harm to others, but only the BAC driver's offense gets taken seriously. I argue that assuming both are equally culpable and risk equivalent harm, both drivers should face equal punishment, and punishment should not depend on the driver causing an accident because punishment should not rely on moral luck.

Through normative considerations of how we ought to advocate for and represent children in dependency court, I will argue that we should use a multidisciplinary approach as opposed to a best interests or child’s wishes approach. Best interests believes that a child’s advocacy should be based upon what is in their best interests, regardless of what the child wants. Child’s wishes holds that a child’s advocacy should be centered around the child’s desired case outcome. In both models, advocates can be lay people or attorneys. In a multidisciplinary model, attorneys are appointed to the child to provide legal representation in conjunction with a lay advocate. Advocates should inform the court of the child’s wishes but ultimately advocate for their best interests regardless of the child’s wants.

As nations grow more diverse in religious beliefs, the debate intensifies over what, if any, public religious displays governments should allow. Some argue that the separation of church and state does not hinder the state and religious institutions from coexisting peacefully, thereby allowing the public display of some religious symbols. In contrast, others firmly believe in preventing overlap between the two and that public displays of religion are inappropriate. I argue that in democratic republic nations with laws upholding the separation of church and state, the government should not allow religious displays on public, government-owned land by examining John Rawls’ theory of liberal pluralism and applying its principles to case studies from the United States and Italy, countries that recognize the separation of church and state.

The ‘loot box’ has become a prevalent monetization method in the gaming industry where users receive a randomly selected in-game reward after paying a fee. The items in these boxes can range from cosmetic items to valuable tools that help players gain a competitive advantage. This mechanism is akin to gambling because players can utilize in-game trading platforms or third-party platforms to trade in-game items for actual currency. This thesis will argue that the elements of chance, purchase, and reward involved with this mechanism exploit the same neurological reward pathways associated with gambling in a way that leaves audiences of adolescents, pathological gamblers, and individuals with anxiety more at risk of impulsive choice and maladaptive behaviors such as Problem Gambling (PG) and Internet Gaming Disorder (IGD). Because of the risks associated with this mechanism, the federal government should implement stricter regulations to warn and protect at-risk and underage players.

In an age when information can be easily accessed online, it is vital that society prepares to create countermeasures against misinformation. A lack of preparation allows echo chambers to fester and metastasize across social media websites for malicious vested interests. This paper aims to investigate Internet “echo chamber” culture and its effect on information disorder, hate speech, and violent radicalization. I argue that echo chambers expedite the rise of fake news, disorders of information, and hate speech, and promote violent radicalization of targeted groups primarily on social media. An issue I address is whether censorship of echo chamber rhetoric will cause more negative than positive effects within social media communities. Information can easily be exploited which calls for an emphasis on education - specifically around critical thinking skills and freedom of expression to counteract the negative effects of echo chambers.

Kaplow and Shavell, two scholars of law and economics, defend the utilitarian approach to punishment. They try to find the most efficient way to deter crime using a mathematical formula. According to their efficiency formula, the ideal sanction is the expected utility of the crime divided by the probability of conviction. This calculation could be effective in deterring crime, but it often leads to disproportionate punishments. I argue that a retributivist approach is a better option for a society as it uses proportional punishment with an underlying principle of punishing for justice. Even in the United States, cruel and unusual punishments are prohibited and that includes those that are disproportionate. This shows that on a practical basis, using a proportional punishment model that is often expressed in a retributivist philosophy can be effective.

Nathaniel Brazill, when 13, fatally shot one of his schoolteachers. Brazill was tried as an adult and sentenced to 28 years in prison without the possibility of parole. Such harsh sentences for such young offenders seem drastic and unfair, therefore I argue that the juvenile justice system should take not a punitive but a rehabilitative approach to minors. I first discuss different theories of why society punishes and whether they apply to the way juveniles are punished today. Drawing on research in psychology, I detail key cognitive differences between minors and adults to argue that juveniles have no place in adult correctional facilities as they are not designed to cater to the special needs of growing adolescents and expose them to harsher conditions than are found in juvenile facilities. Finally, I propose an alternative strategy that focuses more on prevention or the rehabilitation of convicted juveniles rather than punishing them.

On March 30th, 1981, John Hinckley tried to assassinate President Ronald Reagan using a .22 caliber revolver. As a result, he wounded Reagan, Secret Service Agent Tim McCarthy, police officer Thomas Delahanty, and White House Press Secretary James Brady (who was left permanently disabled and died in 2014 from his gunshot injuries). Hinckley did so to grab the attention of Jodie Foster from the film Taxi Driver. Hinckley was found not guilty by reason of insanity and placed into psychiatric care. I argue that Hinkley should be found guilty but insane under the retributive theory of punishment. After discussing Hinckley’s background leading up to the attempted assassination of Reagan, I explain two ethical theories of punishment (utilitarianism and retributivism). Then, I address how they would rule in Hinckley’s case. Lastly, I will defend the retributive theory, and argue that it would support a guilty but insane verdict.

The recent United States Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. ___ (2022), written by Justice Clarence Thomas, established that states enacting restrictions on the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms must now demonstrate that their restrictions are “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation”. The notion that the Supreme Court should defer to historical sentiments and the perceived original intent of the framers of the Constitution is known as originalism and is becoming increasingly prevalent in the decisions of the Court. Originalism fails in that it requires U.S. Supreme Court justices to rely on biased amicus curiae briefs and an incomplete understanding of history when rendering their decisions. I will argue that Justice Thomas’s appeal to historical understandings in NYSRPA v. Bruen is not only a flawed theory of constitutional interpretation, but also historically inaccurate.

Each president of the United States is afforded a right to withhold sensitive information from other branches of the U.S. government in order to maintain confidential communication within the executive branch. Many presidents have invoked this executive privilege. However, this right is not absolute; the Supreme Court has set some restrictions on executive privilege. After examining former President Donald Trump’s invocation of executive privilege in keeping sensitive documents at his home in Mar-a-Lago after his presidential term expired and reviewing the history of executive privilege, its origin and its previous uses and limits, I argue that executive privilege can have more limits following the Trump administration; however, the current limits will be sufficient to prevent former President Trump from misusing executive privilege in this case.