Rachel Sharma – Legal Research Club | The University of Alabama

New Rules: A Breach of Faith

August 3rd, 2020
in Capstone Commentary

by Rachel Sharma

In the beginning of May of 2020, Betsy DeVos, Secretary of Education, issued new rules about Title IX regulations of sexual misconduct. These regulations are set to take effect on August 14^th of this year. These new changes also apply heavily to college students and allow those accused and accusers of sexual assault, harassment, dating violence, domestic violence and stalking to have more due process protections.[1] Title IX states: “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”[2] The Title IX offices at universities and colleges will face a major change in protocol as most of these rules apply to their work.[3] These changes will not be favorable to anyone they should protect. The rules furthered by Secretary DeVos will change the enforcement of Title IX to combat sexual harassment. While it is a positive change for due process to apply to more people, the other alterations to this policy made by DeVos hinder and hurt the legal system when applied to these crimes in the education system.

Insanity

August 3rd, 2020
in Capstone Commentary

by Rachel Sharma

The insanity defense has a long history in many different countries; however, in the United States, it holds water through the 8^th Amendment of the Constitution: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”[1] The insanity defense fits under the umbrella of “cruel and unusual punishment”. Due to the fact that those who use the insanity defense successfully are seen as not knowing what they were doing or not understanding the moral implications of their actions, it would be “cruel and unusual” to give them the same punishments as those who do not suffer from these mental illnesses.

17 For Life

August 3rd, 2020
in Capstone Commentary

by Rachel Sharma

In the case of Miller v. Alabama, fourteen-year-old Evan Miller was tried and convicted of capital murder during the course of an arson in 2004. Because of the crime itself, Miller was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. However, Miller filed a motion for a new trial on the grounds that sentencing a fourteen-year-old to life in prison without the possibility of parole was against the 8^th amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment. The trial court, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals, and the Alabama Supreme Court had all denied this motion, until it reached the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court sided with Miller and stated that the sentencing of life without the possibility of parole for juvenile homicide offenders were against the protections in the 8^th amendment of the Constitution against cruel and unusual punishments. Children were ruled constitutionally different than adults, and while this type of punishment is legal for adults, it would be disproportionate for children. From this ruling, Miller v. Alabama, another case came out.

The Reason Station

August 3rd, 2020
in Capstone Commentary

by Rachel Sharma

In the city of Warren, Michigan, the city hall atrium played host to different booths that “may be reserved for most types of functions or activities”.[1] One of these activities is known as the “Prayer Station”, set up by the Tabernacle Pentecostal ministry.[2] This booth has been in affect from 2009 to the present. Volunteers who run the booth offer to pray with passersby, distribute religious pamphlets, and discuss their religious beliefs with those who approach. Douglas Marshall, a citizen of Warren, wanted to set up, what he called, a “reason station” to educate the people of his town about atheism because he did not agree with the views of the Tabernacle ministry.[3] He also feels that his beliefs in atheism hold the same place in his life that a belief in God would traditionally hold. Marshall’s “reason station” would be similar to the prayer station with only a difference of material separating them: Marshall’s booth would discuss philosophical arguments about atheism instead of religion.

The First Amendment, Abridged

August 3rd, 2020
in Capstone Commentary

by Rachel Sharma

When the First Amendment was created in the constitution, it did not have the same meaning it has today. The definition of this law today has been shaped and morphed by justices and judges that wrote opinions and decided cases pertaining to it. The history of cases relating to the First Amendment from World War I to the end of the 1960s shows the development of the meaning and restrictions of the amendment by the Supreme Court. Specifically, Schenck v. United States, Whitney v. California, Dennis v. United States, NAACP v. Alabama, and Brandenburg v. Ohio. Without an understanding of these historical shifts, one cannot see the First Amendment as what it is: law that protects the rights of everyone to speak.

Effective Counsel and the Sixth Amendment

January 27th, 2020
in Capstone Commentary

by Rachel Sharma

A public defender’s office exists in every city and state in America. These attorneys are appointed to represent criminal defendants who cannot afford to pay for their own, private legal counsel [1]. While these attorneys have heavy caseloads, they are not provided the resources to give each case its due care and thus cannot provide adequate counsel to those they represent. The lack of resources of public defenders amounts to a violation of the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which guarantees a right to have the assistance of counsel.

Privacy or Trespass: The Fight Over the Fourth Amendment

January 27th, 2020
in Capstone Commentary

by Rachel Sharma

The Supreme Court of the United States, in its attempts to interpret the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, has struggled with one overall question: what is the best reasoning to protect people from unreasonable searches and seizures? Earlier case law concerning the Fourth Amendment focused on the property rights of private citizens and their freedom against trespass. However, in 1967, the decision in Katz v. United States changed the Court’s focus from property rights to a right to privacy when considering possible Fourth Amendment violations. Justice Harlan’s concurrence introduced the idea of a “reasonable expectation of privacy”.[1] From this moment forward, the Fourth Amendment could be interpreted as protecting against trespass, “unauthorized intrusion” onto or in property, or as protecting privacy, what a reasonable person would believe is private.[2] Privacy is a stronger rationale than trespass as it provides more comprehensive protection under the Fourth Amendment as technology progresses. This is exemplified in the case United States v. Jones.

Tag: Rachel Sharma

Tag: Rachel Sharma

New Rules: A Breach of Faith

Insanity

17 For Life

The Reason Station

The First Amendment, Abridged

Effective Counsel and the Sixth Amendment

Privacy or Trespass: The Fight Over the Fourth Amendment