University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review最新文献

{"title":"A Penny for Your Thoughts: Free Speech and Paying Fines with Coins","authors":"P. C. Alexander","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3036079","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3036079","url":null,"abstract":"In October, 2016, the city of Springfield, Illinois encroached on the First Amendment rights of its citizens and hardly anyone noticed! The City Council approved an ordinance that significantly limits the payment of debts owed to the city with coins. Specifically, the new law provides that “Cash payments [to the City] may be limited to no more than $20 in coinage of which not more than $5 may be in pennies. Overpayments will be applied to any existing debt if applicable.” Municipalities may be inconvenienced when citizens use coins to pay their fines or taxes, but legislation to prevent citizens from doing so runs afoul of the U.S. Constitution. This essay is a reminder of how easily First Amendment rights can be forgotten.","PeriodicalId":144785,"journal":{"name":"University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review","volume":"414 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123050251","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Gender-Selective Service: The History and Future of Women and the Draft","authors":"B. Farrington","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2916789","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2916789","url":null,"abstract":"On December 1, 2016, President Obama became the first President since Jimmy Carter (and the second sitting President ever) to publically support requiring women to register for the draft: “As old barriers for military service are being removed, the administration supports — as a logical next step — women registering for the Selective Service.” Of course, that support was largely symbolic; at the time his administration announced this support, President Obama had fifty days left in office, and the 2016 Senate provision requiring women to register for selective service had already died in the House. \u0000To be sure, the debate feels merely symbolic altogether. The United States has not drafted a man into service since 1972, and the military has been entirely volunteer since the Vietnam War. Comprising only those enlisted by their own volition, the U.S. Military remains the strongest in the world. Even so, the U.S. Government has, at least for the time being, decided to keep selective service in its back pocket, should the situation arise. \u0000But the debate itself is important to anchor the discussion surrounding the role of women in the U.S. armed services, particularly following the 2016 election. While Secretary of Defense Panetta officially lifted the ban on women in combat in 2013, the GOP’s 2016 official platform sought “to exempt women from ‘direct ground combat units and infantry battalions.’” Republicans in Congress kept step with the spirit of that policy; the Senate passed National Defense Authorization Act (“NDAA”) included a provision for an all-gender draft, but the provision was removed by the time the bill made it to the floor of the Republican-controlled House. \u0000At many crucial points in our nation’s history, “in fundamental issues of social fairness, the military has led the country in doing what is right.” But not so with the role of women in the military. This essay explores the progress of women in uniform compared to their civilian counterparts and notes that the strides women in the military made — while incredible, and rightfully lauded — were met with greater resistance. As the Supreme Court was recognizing the need for increased scrutiny in gender discrimination cases, women in uniform were being denied access to most rates and billets in their respective service. Just as women finally seemed to be making headway in gaining leadership positions, the United States sought to increase the size of the military and prepared for any number of real world scenarios that could escalate to World War III, but the executive and legislative branches disagreed on the best way to do so. President Carter reinstated the draft with a provision to include women, but Congress elected to authorize the funds required to register only men. \u0000It wasn’t just that Rostker v. Goldberg ruled that women could not be required to register for the draft. It was the Court’s unwavering deference to the findings of Congress despite the established intermediate scru","PeriodicalId":144785,"journal":{"name":"University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review","volume":"25 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134570964","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"On Engagement: Learning to Pay Attention","authors":"R. Baker, Daniel P. Brown","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2269726","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2269726","url":null,"abstract":"In an age of electronic and mental distraction, the ability to pay attention is a fundamental legal skill increasingly important for law students and the lawyers and judges they will become, not only for professional effectiveness, but also to avoid error resulting from distraction. Far from being immutable, engaged attention can be learned. More specifically, with an understanding of how the attention system of the brain works, carefully designed mental practice can over time enhance an individual’s capacity for focused attention, not only psychologically, but also apparently gradually altering the physical structure within the brain itself. The result can be an improved ability for law students to focus attention — to stay calmly on what is intended, without being distracted by irrelevant thought or sense experience — avoiding wasting scarce time and energy otherwise lost to internal or external distraction. Ironically, learning this attentional skill requires temporarily quieting the active process of elaborated thought that law students, lawyers, and judges pride themselves on having developed as part of their legal education. In honing this skill, however, a collateral benefit of this practice is also an enhanced ability to be self-aware, hopefully providing law students, lawyers, and judges an increased capacity to respond, rather than just react, to legal problems and the human thoughts and emotions that arise with them.","PeriodicalId":144785,"journal":{"name":"University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review","volume":"13 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125227021","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The (Un?)Constitutionality of Compelling Non-Immunized Testimony in Deceptive Trade Practices Investigations Conducted by the Attorney General of the State of Arkansas","authors":"T. Cain","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2476110","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2476110","url":null,"abstract":"The Attorney General of the State of Arkansas has the statutory authority to investigate allegations of violations of Arkansas's prohibition on deceptive trade practices. Under this authority, the Attorney General can conduct investigations and file civil enforcement lawsuits. In conducting an investigation, the Attorney General can compel the target of the investigation to produce documents and give a deposition. A violation of Arkansas's prohibition on deceptive trade practices is a civil offense and a crime. Arkansas's' Attorney General, however, does not have the authority to prosecute criminal cases, nor can that office offer a person immunity from a criminal prosecution. Thus, the Attorney General can compel the target of a deceptive trade practices act investigation to produce testimonial evidence that can be used against that target in later criminal prosecution. Because a violation of Arkansas's ban on deceptive trade practices is a criminal offense, and because the Attorney General lacks the authority to grant a person immunity from a criminal prosecution, the Attorney General's authority to compel the target of a deceptive trade practices investigation to produce non-immunized testimonial evidence violates the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. This paper explains why that is so, and offers recommendations on how the Arkansas General Assembly can cure the Fifth Amendment problem without adversely impacting the Attorney General's authority to investigate and put an end to deceptive trade practices.","PeriodicalId":144785,"journal":{"name":"University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review","volume":"18 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-08-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116825737","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Leveling Up to Immersive Dispute Resolution (IDR) in 3-D Virtual Worlds: Learning and Employing Key IDR Skills to Resolve In-World Developer-Participant Conflicts","authors":"Lucille Ponte","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1984748","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1984748","url":null,"abstract":"As technology improves, bandwidth expands and devices proliferate, hundreds of millions of people are engaging with ever-more realistic and complex three-dimensional (3-D) immersive environments for up to thirty hours per week. The growing variety of online 3-D spaces allows individuals to try on new identities as avatars and to interact, explore and shape either reality- or fantasy-based online worlds. In some of these virtual worlds, the emphasis is on developing personal relationships through social networking while others revolve primarily around achieving competitive game objectives. Participants may engage in a laundry list of mundane or whimsical activities from decorating your virtual home and chatting with fellow avatars to slaying mythical monsters or accomplishing quests in a hero’s journey. In a review of forty-five 3-D environments, one activity typically missing within the contours of the virtual world is an effective, in-world conflict resolution process to handle developer (or owner)-participant (or player) conflicts within the contours of the virtual world. Most of these virtual environments require adversarial conflict resolution either traditional courts or arbitration to process disputes between game developers and members. A few sites’ terms of use refer vaguely to “non-appearance based” conflict resolution options without further explanation of the nature of these processes. In other instances, developers can unilaterally take action against players through a variety of self-help remedies which have led to further court challenges. Incongruously, these virtual realities often teach some of the key skills necessary for collaborative conflict resolution methods outside of traditional litigation, including strategic analysis of one’s own and third party interests, understanding other’s perspectives through shifting online identities, balancing collaborative and competitive interactions with other parties, and exploring creative solutions to achieve objectives. Yet these virtual spaces seldom offer any meaningful opportunity for these skills learned in-world to be applied using the existing 3-D infrastructure to resolve these disagreements. This article calls for a new conflict resolution approach; the utilization of “immersive dispute resolution (IDR)” to leverage both the communication and graphical technological advancements in 3-D virtual worlds and the collaborative and strategic thinking skills virtual participants readily acquire in these digital experiences. In this paper, Part I will discuss research on learning in virtual worlds with a special emphasis on the key collaborative conflict resolution skills garnered through exploration, engagement and play in virtual environments. Part II examines current dispute resolution processes in forty-five 3-D worlds which emphasize adversarial methods and illustrate a failure to leverage the 3-D immersive technologies or the collaborative skills learned in these immersive environm","PeriodicalId":144785,"journal":{"name":"University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review","volume":"115 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-01-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123975607","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"No Paradise to Regain: Comments on Russell G. Pearce and Eli Wald, The Obligation of Lawyers to Heal Civic Culture: Confronting the Ordeal of Incivility in the Practice of Law","authors":"Kenneth S. Gallant","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1852857","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1852857","url":null,"abstract":"This piece responds to Russell G. Pearce and Eli Wald, The Obligation of Lawyers to Heal Civic Culture: Confronting the Ordeal of Incivility in the Practice of Law (presented at the 2011 Altheimer Symposium, UALR-Bowen School of Law). It agrees with their view that arguments from \"relational self-interest\" (viewing self interest as necessarily connected to the interests of others) can address issues of incivility in the American politics and the practice of law in ways that other arguments cannot. It disagrees with them on a few specific points: 1. The so-called Ordeal of Incivility in American politics, culture and law practice is not particularly a new thing; 2. Claims that society as a whole used to be more civil ignore that the state of society at these earlier times excluded large segments of society from civic participation; 3.Claims that the practice of law has recently become less civil ignore the fact that most of the tools of incivility (except discovery abuse) are old--but this piece admits that the fragmentation of specialties such as torts and criminal law into plaintiff (or prosecution) and defense bars does make seeing both sides of issues much more difficult, and 4.any definition of civility in the practice of law must allow for vigorous cross-examination and closing argument (which would be uncivil if done outside of the courtroom context, and even in that context appear uncivil to non-lawyers) and must allow litigators to argue for legal positions that many people in society might consider uncivil and disruptive.","PeriodicalId":144785,"journal":{"name":"University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review","volume":"53 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-05-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126610534","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Rank Strangers to Me: Shaffer and Cochran's Friendship Model of Moral Counseling in the Law Office","authors":"Jack L. Sammons","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1352658","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1352658","url":null,"abstract":"This is my argument against a model for law office moral counseling based on friendship and moral commonalities. Reading Shaffer and Cochran's Lawyers, Clients, and Moral Responsibility, led me to the conclusion that we would be far better off thinking of our clients as, in the words of the gospel song, \"rank strangers.\" And we would be better off relating to these strangers not as if we were in a traditional friendship with them, but as the rhetoricians that I believe our lawyering tradition teaches us to be. Whether I have our tradition's lesson right or not, and I only invite the reader to consider this possibility here, I think any heuristic model for moral counseling in the law office has to start with an interpretation of the story of which we lawyers are a part. For this is where we are likely to find our most justified moral resources for counseling. Shaffer and Cochran, because they accepted a hostile academic critique of the practice, one that separates role morality from personal morality in defense of a false integrity, failed to do this and, in so failing, were not able to provide an adequate heuristic model for moral counseling in the law office.","PeriodicalId":144785,"journal":{"name":"University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review","volume":"74 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1995-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128135094","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Crime and Punishment in Eighteenth-Century England","authors":"Jones, B. William","doi":"10.4324/9781315001975","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315001975","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":144785,"journal":{"name":"University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review","volume":"50 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124804726","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Judge Henry Clay Caldwell","authors":"R. Arnold, G. Freeman","doi":"10.17077/0003-4827.3431","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17077/0003-4827.3431","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":144785,"journal":{"name":"University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125122959","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Facts of a Case","authors":"I. Younger","doi":"10.1093/oxfordjournals.jhered.a105266","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jhered.a105266","url":null,"abstract":"This is one of the greatest American political speeches. At the time it was considered the definitive analysis of the New Deal. Al Smith was the 1928 Democrat Presidential nominee, former governor of New York State and the leader of the Democrat Party until Roosevelt and the Communist wing took over in 1932. Smith was the person who gave Roosevelt his second chance in politics and therefore was responsible for FDR becoming President.","PeriodicalId":144785,"journal":{"name":"University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review","volume":"8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129120461","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}