Ex-Prisoners and the Transformation of Self through Higher Education

This study explores how experiences of higher education among ex-prisoner’s impact upon their path to desistance. It examines their initial catalysts for change and how education enabled them to re-evaluate their sense of selves and provide them with new identities. Through the use of 24 face-to-face semi-structured interviews examining the experiences of ex-prisoners who are studying for degrees, have graduated and in some cases gained successful academic positions, the participants were asked to talk about their life experiences including their childhoods, offending, prison, desistance, employment and the reasons behind why they chose to enter higher education. Their catalysts for change ranged from their experiences of prison where they encountered existential crises created by the pains of imprisonment; how others viewed them; the strengthening of social bonds; to the belief and trust afforded by others being prepared to give them a second chance. Beyond prison, they experienced prolonged periods of liminality where they became trapped in limbo between two social worlds caused by stigma, labelling and rejection. But their unfaltering resilience, persistence and belief and hope for a better future eventually enabled them to develop new identities which were further transformed by external influences as they made their transitions into ‘conventional society’. Some preferred to reject their past identities, while others merged their past and new identities to become successful in their chosen career paths. Some have remained in academe where they continue to use their past experiences to inform their teaching and research while others have become counselling professionals viewing themselves as ‘wounded healers’ by helping others with substance and alcohol issues and homelessness. But all of them used higher education as their conduit to aspire towards self-betterment, a renewed self-belief and self-concept which enabled them to transform their lives

What Is Outrageous Government Conduct? The Washington State Supreme Court Knows It When It Sees It: \u3cem\u3eState v. Lively\u3c/em\u3e

For the first time ever, the Supreme Court of Washington in State v. Lively overturned a criminal conviction because of outrageous government conduct. This decision employed a rarely-used, and even more infrequently successful, defense to achieve an apparently just result. Indeed, courts and scholars disagree on whether the defense, based on the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution, actually exists and, if it does, how it applies to the facts of a given case. The U.S. Supreme Court has neither expressly and conclusively acknowledged nor disavowed the defense and has never employed it to overturn a criminal conviction. The existence of the outrageous government conduct defense has been acknowledged by most federal and state courts. Two federal circuits, however, have expressly repudiated it. Thus, a conflict in interpreting the U.S. Constitution\u27s Due Process Clause exists, and the U.S. Supreme Court is the only place to resolve it. Part I of this Note will discuss the background of the outrageous government conduct defense; Part II will examine the facts of the Lively case; Part III will analyze the court\u27s decision in Lively; and Part IV will discuss the policy considerations which precipitated the outcome. This Note concludes that the outrageous government conduct defense should continue to be recognized. Courts doing so should employ a totality of circumstances analysis and consider relevant public policy issues to determine whether a defendant\u27s due process rights were violated

Examining the Chronic Effects of Indirect and Direct Cannabinoid Receptor Agonists on Dopamine Transmission in the Nucleus Accumbens of Mice

A major problem with current anxiolytic medications is abuse liability; thus, new pharmaceutical targets are being explored. Cannabinergic and vanilloidergic signaling is of interest in the modulation of anxiety through cannabinoid type 1 receptor (CB1R) activation and transient vanilloid type 1 channel (TRPV1) inhibition. Arachidonoyl serotonin (AA-5-HT), a dual fatty acid amide hydrolase (FAAH) and TRPV1 inhibitor, and arachidonyl-2-chloro-ethylamide (ACEA), a direct CB1R agonist, are drugs of interest in modulating these two systems. The current study explored the addictive potential of chronic AA-5-HT or ACEA administration in the open field (OF), during in vivo fixed potential amperometry (FPA), during conditioned place preference (CPP), and during saccharin preference. AA-5-HT did not alter locomotor activity in the OF, dopamine efflux in the NAc, CPP, and saccharin preference. ACEA altered dopamine dynamics in the NAc, but did not alter locomotor activity in the OF, CPP, or saccharin preference. These results suggest these drugs present little addictive potential

Causes and explanation of ''breakthrough phenomenon'' when LEM cooling system sublimator is fed with chlorinated feedwater

Comparison of chlorine or iodine use as feedwater bactericides in lunar excursion module cooling system sublimato

What Is Outrageous Government Conduct? The Washington State Supreme Court Knows It When It Sees It: \u3cem\u3eState v. Lively\u3c/em\u3e

For the first time ever, the Supreme Court of Washington in State v. Lively overturned a criminal conviction because of outrageous government conduct. This decision employed a rarely-used, and even more infrequently successful, defense to achieve an apparently just result. Indeed, courts and scholars disagree on whether the defense, based on the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution, actually exists and, if it does, how it applies to the facts of a given case. The U.S. Supreme Court has neither expressly and conclusively acknowledged nor disavowed the defense and has never employed it to overturn a criminal conviction. The existence of the outrageous government conduct defense has been acknowledged by most federal and state courts. Two federal circuits, however, have expressly repudiated it. Thus, a conflict in interpreting the U.S. Constitution\u27s Due Process Clause exists, and the U.S. Supreme Court is the only place to resolve it. Part I of this Note will discuss the background of the outrageous government conduct defense; Part II will examine the facts of the Lively case; Part III will analyze the court\u27s decision in Lively; and Part IV will discuss the policy considerations which precipitated the outcome. This Note concludes that the outrageous government conduct defense should continue to be recognized. Courts doing so should employ a totality of circumstances analysis and consider relevant public policy issues to determine whether a defendant\u27s due process rights were violated