Treating sexual offenders with learning disabilities in the community: a critical review

This study offers a critical review of a treatment group for sexual offenders with learning disabilities. The participants were diverted from criminal proceedings due to their level of cognitive functioning and attended a 7-month treatment program comprising of four main components: sex education, cognitive distortions, offending cycle, and relapse prevention. A number of psychometric assessments were administered immediately before and after intervention. Although no significant differences were found in attitudes toward sexual offending following treatment, the trend was for improvements in sex knowledge and honesty of sexual interest. Improvements in socialization skills (leisure time and interpersonal skills) were significant. No further incidents of sexual offending have been reported during a 12-month follow-up. A number of explanations for the nonsignificant improvement in attitudes are considered and recommendations for future treatment evaluation studies are made. The development of specific questionnaires and treatment programs for sexual offenders with learning disabilities is discussed.     

The Morality of Divestment

Divestment from companies that produce or heavily utilize fossil fuels has become one of the biggest issues in the contemporary moral debate surrounding climate change. Universities and other institutions are being asked to divest themselves of their fossil fuel–related investments. In this article I argue that, while the case for divestment is morally strong, not all of the arguments used to support divestment are equally strong. Moreover, which of these arguments is employed matters a great deal for the strength of the conclusions regarding divestment. There are two major groups of arguments: what I call positive arguments for divestment, which stem from the claim that divestment is a response to general duties to take action to prevent dangerous climate change, and what I call negative arguments, which stem from a duty not to cause harm. In this article I will briefly characterize what divestment means and to whom it applies. I will then look at negative and positive duty accounts of the duty to divest before looking at the standard objections to both. Objections have tended to cohere around the claims that divesting is inconsistent, useless and/or harmful, or should be abandoned for better options to avoid dangerous climate change.     

Hans Kelsen's Doctrine of Imputation

First, the author examines the traditional doctrine of imputation. A look at the traditional doctrine is useful for establishing a point of departure in comparing Kelsen's doctrines of central and peripheral imputation. Second, the author turns to central imputation. Here Kelsen's doctrine follows the traditional doctrine in attributing liability or responsibility to the subject. Kelsen's legal subject, however, has been depersonalized and thus requires radical qualification. Third, the author takes up peripheral imputation, which is the main focus of the paper. It is argued that with respect to the basic form of the law, exhibited by the linking of legal condition with legal consequence, peripheral imputation counts as an austere doctrine, shorn as it is of all references to legal personality or the legal subject. If Kelsen's reconstructed legal norms are empowerments, then the austere doctrine of peripheral imputation captures the rudiments of their form, exactly what would be expected if peripheral imputation does indeed serve as the category of legal cognition. Finally, the author develops the puzzle surrounding the legal "ought" in this context. Although Kelsen talks at one point as though the legal "ought" were the peculiarly legal category, the author submits that this is not the best reading of Kelsen's texts.     

State Executive Orders: Nuance in Restrictions,Revealing Suspensions,and Decisions to Enforce

In the absence of a large-scale federal response to the COVID-19 pandemic, state and local elected officials have enacted executive orders that include restrictions on public liberties as well as the suspension of rules and regulations. While these restrictive policy actions have received extensive media attention, the suspensions, including regulatory rollbacks, waivers, and extensions, are lesser known. This Viewpoint essay offers insight from a working database that captures the nuance and variation across restrictions, suspensions, and enforcement mechanisms being utilized at the state level.