Test scores) with debate scholarships. The Spicer Debate Forum competes in two year-long policy debate formats: ndt and nfa-ld. We’ve national semis or finals in both in the last decade.


Download 316.92 Kb.
NameTest scores) with debate scholarships. The Spicer Debate Forum competes in two year-long policy debate formats: ndt and nfa-ld. We’ve national semis or finals in both in the last decade.
page1/11
A typeTest
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11

About MSDI & Missouri State U..


For twenty years, the Missouri State Debate Institute has offered an excellent educational experience in the middle of the high school topic. MSDI is distinct from other camps in six ways. First, our skills focus assures that a typical 2-week debater gets nearly 80 speeches, including over 20 debates. Second, we emphasize the largest cases on topic, with students getting both aff and neg rounds on each. Third, our senior faculty are comparable with top lab leaders in any camp. Fourth, MSDI students can earn highly transferable college credit in public speaking for a minimal cost. Fifth, we respect variance in home debate circuits – our goal is to improve line by line debating in ways that will help students no matter who judges in their home circuit. Finally, our price is below any comparable camp and far below most camps. Our 2016 information will be available shortly at: http://debate.missouristate.edu/camp.htm.

Missouri State University is a large comprehensive university (enrollment over 24k), with nearly any major you might want. The university has excellent academic scholarship support – most debaters combine academic “entitlement” scholarships (guaranteed based on GPA/test scores) with debate scholarships. The Spicer Debate Forum competes in two year-long policy debate formats: NDT and NFA-LD. We’ve national semis or finals in both in the last decade. Our debaters have an average GPA over 3.5, a 97% graduation rate, and 70% complete law/grad school afterward. Our program is a high-impact academic experience with an exceptional alumni network. Please contact Dr. Eric Morris for more information (EricMorris@MissouriState.edu).

http://debate.missouristate.edu/

http://www.missouristate.edu/FinancialAid/scholarships/

DNA Case Side

Stock Issues

Inherency

DNA legislation already exists on a large national scale


Duncan Carling, 2008 J.D. Candidate @ Univ of California, Hastings College of the Law

31 Hastings Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 487 (Lexis, Acc. 6-29-2015) //RH

Like many government functions in the United States, the national DNA database is a combination of state and federal programs. All 50 states now have their own DNA legislation, and each one maintains a state database in accordance with their state laws, which often vary. The FBI has developed DNA comparison software called CODIS (Combined DNA Identification System), which they license to the states. Each state uses CODIS to upload DNA profiles both to their own state database and the national database. n21 CODIS therefore provides a hierarchical system: profiles originate at the state level, and then move up to the national index. n22 This allows the state agencies to work within their own statutory guidelines for administration and maintain their own database, but also make comparisons against a national database of offenders. n23 The FBI is responsible for adding federal offenders to the database, in accordance with federal law. While every state is participating in this program, the use and effectiveness of the programs vary significantly from state to state. California has the largest state database, with 955,525 offender profiles, and has generated over 5,000 "hits" so far. n24 Virginia, which was the first state to develop a database, has 258,816 profiles. n25 Mississippi, on the other hand, has only 3,600 profiles in its database and has only aided eight investigations. n26 Often low utilization is a [*492] result of financial restraints, rather than lack of effective legislation. Louisiana, for example, has one of the broadest statutory mandates for collecting samples, but has only aided 586 investigations, n27 due to lack of available resources. n28 The situation in the United Kingdom is very different. The United Kingdom was the first nation to implement a DNA program, establishing the National DNA Database (NDNAD) in 1995. n29 The NDNAD is operated by the Forensic Science Service, a government-owned company that provides forensic services to the police departments in England and Wales. n30 There was no specific legislation that set up the NDNAD; instead, a series of amendments have been passed to the existing Police & Criminal Evidence Act. The first of these amendments, passed in 1994, allowed DNA samples to be collected and stored like fingerprints, n31 and the subsequent amendments have progressively broadened this power of the police. The most recent amendment, passed in 2003, allows police to collect a sample from anyone arrested for a recordable offense, regardless of whether or not they are charged. n32

States don’t want to pursue familial searching for multiple reasons


Duncan Carling, 2008 J.D. Candidate @ Univ of California, Hastings College of the Law

31 Hastings Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 487 (Lexis, Acc. 6-29-2015) //RH

This example is one of a kind, however. Most states are not pursuing familial searching right now, despite the absence of any explicit prohibition against it. There may be a variety of reasons for this. Familial searching often requires substantial resources, because [*498] a partial match may or may not be a relative of the target. Investigators must first determine if the person is a relative, and then investigate any connections between his family members and the crime. This can be an expensive, and fruitless, process. But familial searching can in some situations be helpful, depending on the genetic profiles involved and the nature of the investigation. The fact that this method goes almost entirely unused in the United States right now suggests that cost is not the only barrier, and that the Fourth Amendment is a potential barrier as well. The collection of DNA samples implicates the Fourth Amendment because the blood extraction constitutes a search. n77 Generally, the Fourth Amendment requires that a search be supported by some reasonable suspicion that an individual has committed a crime. n78 But courts have also found many situations that allow for a "suspicionless search." Some of these apply to exempted areas, such as airports and border crossings, and some of them qualify as “special needs." n79 Examples of special needs have been highway sobriety check points n80 and random, suspicionless drug testing. n81 But the ultimate issue with any warrantless search is whether it is "reasonable," because the Constitution only protects citizens against unreasonable searches. n82 And the reasonableness of a search is determined by balancing the state interest involved against the degree of intrusion on the citizen's privacy. n83 The U.S. courts of appeals are unanimous that DNA collection statutes are constitutional, but they are split as to whether the issue falls under special needs analysis or the traditional balancing test. The Second, Seventh, and Tenth Circuits apply a balancing test only after finding the statute serves some special government need. n84 The Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits apply the traditional [*499] balancing test without finding a special need. n85 Despite these divergent analytic approaches, the constitutionality of DNA collection is always ultimately a balance between the state interest and the privacy interest. Common considerations that courts weigh in the balance are the minimally invasive nature of collecting blood samples, n86 the offender's reduced expectation of privacy, n87 the strong state interest in public safety, n88 and the exceptional reliability of DNA evidence for identification. n89 The issue of whether familial searching would alter that balance has never come before a U.S. court, but it seems possible that it could affect the constitutionality of a DNA database program. Some courts have identified the offender’s reduced expectation of privacy as one of the factors in the balancing test, but a familial search begins to implicate the privacy rights of the relative, and the constitutional significance of that is unknown right now. Some states may therefore be reluctant to pursue familial searching because doing so could upset the constitutional status of their investigation.

Solvency

DNA databases including CODIS might succumb to function creep


Mary McCarthy, 2011 J.D. Candidate @ Notre Dame Law School

86 Notre Dame L. Rev. 381 (Lexis, Acc. 6-29-2015) //RH

It is clear that DNA databases are increasing in size and function, but it is not clear whether this is resulting from a database "creep" n239 or is instead the inevitable result of using DNA profiles in criminal investigations. Opponents of DNA collection from arrestees and partial match searches argue that such changes are examples of a dangerous database "creep," with the government using a database for purposes other than those for which it was created. n240 Critics of DNA database expansions worry that "this trend of rapid expansion in size and function [of DNA databases] heightens existing concerns that these massive amounts of aggregated data could be misused." n241 In particular, the main concern is over "function creep," that "databases created for one discrete purpose, despite the initial promises of their creators, eventually take on new functions and purposes." n242 These critics argue that "[a] pattern of 'function creep' [has] already emerged with regard to criminal DNA databases." n243 These critics argue that additions of arrestees and noncriminal individuals to DNA databases "represent a radical shift in the purpose and intent of these databases." n244 Partial match familial searching has been cited as a form of "function creep" "where DNA analysis and database information is beginning to be used in new ways to create suspects when none are generated through a 'cold hit.'" n245 In particular, these critics argue that concerns about "function creep" are "heightened" by the lack of statutes requiring destruction of the biological samples after testing is completed and should raise concerns about inappropriate uses of stored DNA. n246

Maryland proves despite ethic problems, familial searching is inevitable


Jessica D. Gabel, 2013, Associate Professor of Law, Georgia State University College of Law, University of Baltimore Law Review, “INDECENT EXPOSURE: GENES ARE MORE THAN A BRAND NAME LABEL IN THE DNA DATABASE DEBATE”, 42 U. Balt. L. Rev. 561 (Lexis, Acc. 6-29-2015) // LO

Maryland also seemed poised to be on the forefront of ethical considerations with its wholesale prohibition on familial DNA searches. Section 2-506(d) specifically prohibits the "search of the statewide DNA data base for the purpose of identification of an offender in connection with a crime for which the offender may be a biological relative of the individual from whom the DNA sample" was taken. n177 Familial searching is a database process by which investigators move past looking for a perfect match between samples and instead seek out partial matches between crime scene DNA profiles and the offender/arrestee DNA index. n178 By looking for the imperfect match, the search may identify in the database a relative of the target suspect (sometimes referred to as the "pivot"), who is not in the index. n179 An interview with the pivot may then provide enough information to ultimately lead investigators to the target. n180 While some states - California n181 and Colorado n182 - have active familial search policies in place, Maryland specifically declined to participate in the practice. n183 In a previous article, I speculated that the reason for Maryland's ban on familial searches was more likely [*585] the product of "political pressure than constitutional misgivings or scientific uncertainty." n184 I predicted - despite ethical misgivings - that familial searching practices were unavoidable "crime fighting tools of the future ... here to stay in some form or another." n185 It seems that Maryland seriously considered surrendering to the addictive lure of familial DNA searches.
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11

Share in:

Related:

Test scores) with debate scholarships. The Spicer Debate Forum competes in two year-long policy debate formats: ndt and nfa-ld. We’ve national semis or finals in both in the last decade. iconTest scores) with debate scholarships. The Spicer Debate Forum competes...

Test scores) with debate scholarships. The Spicer Debate Forum competes in two year-long policy debate formats: ndt and nfa-ld. We’ve national semis or finals in both in the last decade. iconTest scores) with debate scholarships. The Spicer Debate Forum competes...

Test scores) with debate scholarships. The Spicer Debate Forum competes in two year-long policy debate formats: ndt and nfa-ld. We’ve national semis or finals in both in the last decade. iconElcome to the eleventh year of Big Sky Debate! These three volumes...

Test scores) with debate scholarships. The Spicer Debate Forum competes in two year-long policy debate formats: ndt and nfa-ld. We’ve national semis or finals in both in the last decade. iconCapitol debate

Test scores) with debate scholarships. The Spicer Debate Forum competes in two year-long policy debate formats: ndt and nfa-ld. We’ve national semis or finals in both in the last decade. iconMillennial Speech & Debate

Test scores) with debate scholarships. The Spicer Debate Forum competes in two year-long policy debate formats: ndt and nfa-ld. We’ve national semis or finals in both in the last decade. iconThe Rate Debate Slowing

Test scores) with debate scholarships. The Spicer Debate Forum competes in two year-long policy debate formats: ndt and nfa-ld. We’ve national semis or finals in both in the last decade. iconStandardized Testing Debate

Test scores) with debate scholarships. The Spicer Debate Forum competes in two year-long policy debate formats: ndt and nfa-ld. We’ve national semis or finals in both in the last decade. iconGonzaga Debate Institute 2011

Test scores) with debate scholarships. The Spicer Debate Forum competes in two year-long policy debate formats: ndt and nfa-ld. We’ve national semis or finals in both in the last decade. iconGonzaga Debate Institute 2011

Test scores) with debate scholarships. The Spicer Debate Forum competes in two year-long policy debate formats: ndt and nfa-ld. We’ve national semis or finals in both in the last decade. iconGonzaga Debate Institute 2010




forms and shapes


When copying material provide a link © 2017
contacts
filling-form.info
search