Abstract
This paper relates that in the United States, consensual searches are made by law enforcement based on the individual giving consent for the search of their property. The paper discusses several aspects of federal law that are difficult to perceive as constitutional and identifies the situations when a search can be stopped at the person's request. The paper shows how consent, though seemingly simple, is a complex and highly subjective term in and of itself. The paper also looks at the attainment of consent from an individual in writing.

From the Paper
"In the United States, consensual searches are made by law enforcement based on the individual giving consent for the search of their property. The most frequently occurring searches in America are those without a warrant that are based solely on this consent (Moenssens, 2005). The elements of conducting a lawful search, such as probable cause or a warrant, are not necessary if the person who's self or property is being searched (Holcomb, 2003). Thus, the person gives up their rights afforded to them by the Fourth Amendment voluntarily giving the law enforcement personnel permission to conduct a search. There is also an equal right to refuse giving consent (Moenssens, 2005). Even under certain circumstances, the person is able to revoke their consent after it has been given during any point of the officers' search (Holcomb, 2005). Federal law mandates that during a trial, the prosecution must be able to sufficiently prove that consent was given freely without the person being coerced into giving it (FindLaw, n.d.)."

Tags:reasonable, suspicion, privacy, writing, permission

Abstract
This paper argues that prostitution should be decriminalized. The paper first examines and analyzes the arguments both for and against decriminalization of prostitution and then makes an argument in favor of decriminalizing prostitution by suggesting that it is a victimless crime. The paper concludes that prostitution should be decriminalized and that the enormous sums allocated to prosecuting prostitutes and associated criminals could then instead be better used to rehabilitate those individuals and help them build better lives.

From the Paper
"Thus the argument over whether prostitution should remain illegal or whether it should be decriminalized or made lawful, focuses principally on ethical and realistic considerations. Those opposed to legalized prostitution tend to underscore the horrors associated with the profession. They point to the trafficking in women and children, and the physical, sexual, and economic abuse of these same individuals. Prostitutes are thought to engage in a profession so reprehensible that no person would possibly choose to participate in it unless forced to do so by the most extremely adverse of circumstances. Law enforcement has failed to make much of a dent in prostitution despite an enormous amount of time, effort, and money. In fact, high-ranking officials, such as Governor Eliot Spitzer of New York have made their names breaking up prostitution rings while at the same time patronizing prostitutes themselves. The conflict reveals the very real conflict between desire and reality. Prostitution if it is decriminalized and kept apart from other obviously criminal activity is a consensual and victimless act."

Tags:trafficking, victim, abuse, sex

Abstract
This paper explains that the "Bowers vs. Hardwick" decision meant that engaging in homosexual acts between consenting adults, even in the privacy of their homes, could be considered a criminal offence; the exercise of such law by certain states did not constitute a violation of one's fundamental rights or liberty under the Due Process Clause. The author points out that the decision in "Bowers vs. Hardwick" conflicts with several other previous and similar right-of-privacy decisions of the Court, including "Griswold vs. Connecticut" (1965). The paper relates that "Bowers vs. Hardwick" was overruled by the courts 16 years later.

From the Paper
"Briefly, the facts of Bowers v Hardwick reveal that Michael Hardwick was a bartender in a gay bar in Atlanta, Georgia. In 1982, a houseguest of Hardwick unknowingly let a police officer enter Hardwick's home. The officer went to the bedroom where Hardwick was engaged in oral sex with his partner. The men were arrested and charged with violating the Georgia statute that criminalizes sodomy. Charges were later dropped, but Hardwick brought the case forward in the Federal District Court with the purpose of having the sodomy law declared unconstitutional. The court ruled in favor of the defendants for the claimant's failure to state a claim. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the decision on the grounds that the Georgia sodomy statute violated the respondent's (Hardwick's) fundamental rights. The Supreme Court held that the Georgia statute was constitutional and reversed."

Tags:proscriptions, right-of-privacy, griswold, blackman, connecticut

Abstract
This paper takes a look at rape and law, and what is considered consented, and /or non-consented intercourse? The author discusses views from the feminist movement with regards to what should be considered rape, and what is sexual autonomy. The paper uses several scenarios for debatable examples, and focuses a good deal on the court system.

From the Paper
"We as a people are presented with challenging issues in our lives that people face on the daily basis. Our courtrooms are filled with attorneys and judges that make rulings that not only affect the law, but also can establish changes on the decisions and choices that men and women make in their intimate lives. What is considered rape? When an authority figure such as a doctor, or police officer violate their oath and begin to prey on the emotionally handicap or use their respected position for personal satisfaction, they have crossed a line. The line that will be focused on is rape. In the courts we see men that have been charged with the crime of rape. The defense will always seem to go with the argument that "she consented" or "she led me to believe she wanted it." Unfortunately, it is the victim that has to prove her case."

Tags:victim, authority, crime, law, feminist, doctor, evidence, abuse

Abstract
The paper reveals that any person born on US soil or in US airspace is considered a United States citizen, and this has resulted in terrorists being considered US citizens based on birthright citizenship. The paper considers the various arguments for and against birthright citizenship and proposes consensual citizenship as a solution to the issue. The paper explains that through consensual citizenship, the children have the right to decide if they wish to become citizens of America or not and this also protects the children's rights without rewarding the parents, who may be in the country illegally.

From the Paper
"Yaser Esam Hamdi was born in Louisiana in 1980. He and his family returned to Saudi Arabia for the next twenty years, where Yaser was raised. Yaser joined the Taliban and fought America in Afghanistan. Captured in a battle, Yaser was sent to prison in Cuba. Fortunately for Yaser, because he was born on American soil he was considered an American citizen. He transferred to a prison in the United States and was able to begin a legal case to try and gain his freedom. How fortunate it is for Yaser Hamdi, that America has birthright citizenship, so he could benefit from his rights while fighting his "countrymen" (Eastman 169). Should all persons born in the United States automatically be citizens? Or is there a better way of determining citizenship for immigrants?"

Tags:illegal, immigrants, consensual, citizenship

Abstract
This paper argues that mandatory mediation is an unnecessary part of the Australian legal system. The paper describes the continuing debate amongst legal professionals as to just how effective the mediation process is when it is compelled upon parties, rather than entered into voluntarily. It suggests that mandatory mediation not only destroys the consensual nature of the mediation process, but it also does not guarantee the same level of natural justice, as found in the court system.

Table of Contents:
Introduction
Deterioration of the Consensual Nature of Mediation
The Course of Natural Justice
A Litigant's Right to Trial
Who Should Pay?
Conclusion

From the Paper
"As a form of ADR, it is undeniable that mediation can have positive ramifications for not only the parties involved, but also the courts. The success of mediation is often attributed to its consensual nature. However, by mandating mediation, its consensual nature is lost, lowering the potential for a successful outcome. The power of the courts to enforce mandatory mediation infringes the right of a litigant to trial and delays the progression of a case through the courts. This is in addition to the increased financial burden placed on parties if they are compelled to mediate, which can be particularly disadvantageous to poorer litigants. As compared to litigation through the courts, mediation gives little guarantee that natural justice will be served. These factors, combined with the erosion of the consensual nature of mediation, suggest that mandatory mediation is an unnecessary part of the Australian court system."

Tags:legislation, justice, consensual, courts

Abstract
This paper explains that most religious and conservative people believe that marriage was created for the purpose of procreation; whereas, proponents of gay marriages believe that the U.S. Constitution provides for a strict separation of the church and the state and as such religious arguments do not have a legitimate place in the debate and that the Fourteenth Amendment protects the right of private consensual sex and as such the prohibition of gay marriages is a violation of such rights. The author points out that the gay marriage issue came to the forefront of national debate in 1996 when several Hawaiian gay couples sued for the right to marry legally, which resulted in the passage of "The Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)" in 1996. The paper relates that, in May 2005, a U.S. Federal District Judge struck down sweeping provisions of the Nebraska constitution that defined marriage as only between a man and a woman and banned same-sex civil unions, domestic partnerships and other similar relationships as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Table of Contents
Marriage, Gay Marriage and Same Sex Unions
The Controversy
The Constitutional Debate
The Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)
State Laws Recognizing Same Sex Unions
Conservatives Propose Constitutional Amendment
Federal Judge strikes down Nebraska Gay Marriage Ban
Conclusion

From the Paper
"The passage of DOMA did not deter gay-right activists in their campaign for the legal recognition of gay marriages and in 2000, Vermont became the first state to allow gay partners to join in a civil union with the same rights enjoyed by married heterosexual couples under state law. Maine, Hawaii, California, New Jersey, and Connecticut have also enacted laws that give some degree of rights to gay civil unions and partnerships since then. On November 18, 2003, in Goodridge v.Department of Public Health, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial ruled that: "barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution." Implementing the Court's decision, Massachusetts made same sex marriage legal in the state on May 17, 2004; it is thus far the only state to do so. Most other states have enacted constitutional provisions that define marriage as a union of one man and one woman."

Tags:private-consensual, doma, amendment, equal-protection, proposal

Abstract
This paper examines three primary reasons for supporting same-sex marriage: protection for consensual sex and privacy, its consistency with traditional marriage, and the fact that it promotes monogamy and stability.

From the Paper
"Same-sex marriage is a matter of tremendous controversy in the United States. Gay and lesbian individuals support same-sex marriage, while conservative Christians and other conservative religious groups do not. The primary arguments against same-sex marriage are first that homosexuality is wrong and therefore same-sex marriage is wrong, and second that marriage is intended to be between members of the opposite sex. This line of reasoning overlooks the many reasons that same-sex marriage is worthy of support, however. Three of the most significant reasons include; The need to..."

Tags:same-sex marriage, homosexuality, monogamy, consensual sex, privacy, stability, traditional marriage

Abstract
This paper critiques the three basic enquiry methods, described in the paper, which are the simple mode, including inductive consensual and analytic-deductive methods, the complex mode, including the multiple realities method, and the innovative mode, including the unbounded systems thinking (UST) method. The author points out that the rationale behind the PEST analysis is that there must be a fit between the capabilities of the company and the external environment if the company is to survive. The paper uses HP company as the example for analysis and the project of the future.

Table of Contents:
Introduction
Task 1 - Modes of Enquiry
Critique of Modes of Enquiry
Inductive-Consensual
Analytic-Deductive
Multiple Realities
Unbounded System Thinking, UST
Task 2 - External Environments
Company Introduction
PEST Analysis
Political
Economic
Socio-Cultural
Technological Environment
Task 3 - Impact on IS Strategy
Enterprise Virtualization
High-end Printing 16
Mobility
Acquisitions
Lay-Offs
Ethical Issues
Task 4 - The Next Five Years

From the Paper
"By concentrating on the three major business and aligning them with the IS strategy, HP ensures that the needs and requirements of growing technological trends will be met. In addition to the technology factors, the social factors in terms of lay-offs will have to be considered since human resources are always an important factor in IS strategy and design. Further, acquisition of other companies or technology entities to feel the IS niche is a viable option to safeguard their status as a technology leader."

Tags:delphi, hp, mobility, pest, lay-off

Abstract
This paper studies the problematic age of legal consent in the United States in general and Maryland specifically. It analyzes the importance of maturity in making this decision and argues that maturity and reason is not necessarily decided by age. The author sees that the law seems to divert focus to age rather than to consent. It gives an example of a story about minors having consensual sex but not necessarily willingly. It concludes that children who are immature should be protected from rash decisions in order to make sure they don't get emotionally and physically scarred.

From the Paper
"Here's something you probably didn't know, boys and girls! According to the "Legal Age of Consent Website," the legal age of consent in the state of Maryland is fifteen. In layperson's terms this means that before the age of fifteen, even if you want to say "yes, yes, yes," a la Meg Ryan in "When Harry Met Sally," certain rules and restrictions may apply. This is reasonable, correct? After all, you are minors. You all have certain special legal protections and privileges (Such as making sure your legal guardian gives you bread, McDonald's milkshakes, and board. Such as the fact mall security noticed those platform shoes you just happened to walk out of Delia's with won't be a part of your permanent record). Why shouldn't the law also reserve an interest in protecting you from your own potential lapses in judgment so you can better become a happy and healthy adult? The image of a fifteen-year-old-girl dating a college student probably not only seems like a huge lapse to your parents and to the world at large but to many of your own minds as well."

Tags:legal, age, consent, 15, Maryland, minors, sexual, law, juvenile, offense, emotional, physical, children