Arizona’s struggle with the opioid crisis reflects a failure of drug policy. This failure stems from decades of mimicking federal narcotic criminalization legislation. Arizona’s deference on narcotic policy was driven by a fear of addicts that was intentionally inflated by federal agents. Further, the federal prioritization of state uniformity of narcotic policy spread and entrenched the consequences of creating an illegal narcotics market. Arizona adopted these uniform policies enthusiastically. The state’s continued adoption of federal policy— exemplified by five pieces of legislation spanning between 1931 and 1979— show a continued theme of fear of addicts and prioritization of criminalization for the sake of uniformity. Criminalization and demonization of addicts are the main drivers of the modern opioid crisis. In this way, Arizona is culpable and is thus obligated to adopt an alternate narcotic policy approach that prioritizes evidence, compassion, and individual rights.

This research project analyzes women’s dynamic pathways to pregnancy prevention and termination in Arizona. Two levels of analysis guide the study: The first is a cultural analysis of the socio-legal conditions that shape the channels to birth control and abortion. During this historical moment, I analyze the fight over increasing (and calls for more) legal constraints against contraception and abortion, coupled with decreasing individual access to reproductive health care information and services. This dissertation includes an examination of the struggle over reproductive health on the ground and in the legal arena, and real pushbacks against these constraints as well. The second is an analysis of how women seek out contraception or abortion within the US socio-legal landscape. The study qualitatively examines narratives from 33 women in the greater Phoenix, Arizona area, a region emblematic of the political contest over the legal regulation of women’s reproductive health currently unfolding nationally. Ultimately, the state is implicated in the various resources and barriers—people, places, processes and policies—that inform women’s pregnancy prevention. These experiences can illuminate the ways that reproductive health care is shaped by intersecting and sometimes competing ideologies, and how women encounter them in their daily lives. The study theorizes the embodiment of women’s local encounters with the state within a cultural context of contested law and policy reform.

In recent years the state of Arizona passed a series of laws affecting undocumented immigrants, including Proposition 300 in 2006 outlawing in-state tuition for undocumented youth. However, there has also been a reaction from these youth who refused to be relegated to the shadows and are demanding rights. Using mixed ethnographic methods, this dissertation research analyzes how undocumented Mexican youth in Arizona have experienced liminality after the passage of Proposition 300 as well as their ability to utilize their increased marginalization in order to build community amongst themselves and fight for basic rights--a process known as cultural citizenship. These immigrant youth are of the 1.5 generation, who are brought to the United States at a young age, grow up in the country and share characteristics with both first and second- generation immigrants. Even though undocumented 1.5 generation immigrants are raised and acculturated within this country and treated the same as other children while in the public school system, they have been denied basic rights upon approaching adulthood because of their illegality. This includes limiting access to affordable higher education as well as public services and legal work. Consequently, they are unable to fully incorporate into U.S. society and they end up transitioning into illegality after leaving school. This is especially true in Arizona, a state that has passed some of the strictest anti-immigrant laws in the country aiming to deter undocumented immigrants from staying in the state. However, I argue that this increased marginalization has had an unintended consequence of creating a space that allowed for these youth to come together and form a community. I further posit that this community provides valuable social capital and access to resources and information that mitigates the possibility of downward assimilation. Moreover, this community offers its members a safety net that allows them to publically claim their undocumented status in order to fight for their right to have a pathway towards citizenship. As a result, they have been able to gain some victories, but are still fighting for their ultimate goal to become citizens.

For the death penalty to be justified, it must be reserved for the worst of the worst. In his 2011 study of Connecticut's death penalty system, however, John Donohue found that arbitrariness and discrimination are defining features. Donohue's finding that non-white defendants whose victims were white are six times more likely to receive the death penalty indicates that race is more a predictor of a death sentence than the egregiousness of the crime. An analysis of capital sentencing outcomes in Maricopa County, Arizona reveals that the race of the victim is not related to the likelihood of receiving a death sentence, but the race of the defendant is. Use of Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA), logistic regression, and an egregiousness calculation are employed to analyze capital sentencing trial outcomes in Maricopa County from 2009 through 2011. This triangulated approach is applied to test three theoretically-derived models - the Donohue model, the Illinois Commission model, and the Functional model. The findings indicate that during the given time period in Maricopa County, the race of the defendant was statistically significant in cases with low to mid-levels of egregiousness, but was no longer significant in the most egregious cases. The results also reveal that the most egregious cases, typically indicated by the presence of a prior conviction and multiple victims, are nearly five times more likely to result in an outcome of death. While the results of this study are suggestive only, because of the small sample size and the relatively brief duration of time studied, the conclusions presented aim to provoke further inquiry into states' death penalty systems to address Donohue's allegation of unconstitutional application nationwide. Through a drastic reduction of death-eligibility factors, implementation of a transparent plea bargaining protocol in which the presence of certain aggravating factors preempts the possibility of a plea, and equal funding for prosecutor and defense offices, the death penalty in this country could begin to target the worst of the worst.