Feminism and the Gender Recognition Act 2004

This paper argues, first, that the legal construction of transsexualism is a matter of interest, not only to members of the trans community, but to all students of gender, including feminists. The paper then proceeds to explain and analyse, using feminist perspectives, key aspects of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 in the light of the recent caselaw concerning the rights of trans persons. The 2004 Act, it is argued, is a conservative move, which attempts to deny the threat transsexualism poses to the binary system of gender, by instigating a system to formally ‘recognise’ only men and or women. However, the way in which the Act constructs the public/private divide and the mind/body relation carries potential for legal recognition of subject positions which may in a variety of ways be ‘beyond’ the binary system that is currently orthodox. The paper can as such be read as a case study in the legal (re)construction of gender, the gender/sex relation, and the widespread tendency to construct gender conservatively.     

Psychopathy, treatment change, and recidivism in high-risk, high-need sexual offenders

The present study investigated 154 consecutive admissions to the Regional Treatment Center (Ontario) Sex Offender Treatment Program with reference to psychopathy and outcome. Ratings of treatment behavior, as well as clinical judgments as to whether risk was reduced, were coded based on treatment reports. With reference to Psychopathy Checklist-revised (PCL-R) scores, survival analyses indicated that high scorers recidivated at significantly higher rates than low scorers. However, offenders who received high PCL-R scores and lower scores on measures of treatment behavior recidivated at the same rate as low scorers on the PCL-R. Furthermore, among high PCL-R offenders, those rated as lower risk at post treatment in fact reoffended at a lower rate than those whose risk was rated as unchanged, although this difference failed to reach significance. Findings are discussed in light of the clinical and research literature.     

Quantifying distributive justice: An approach to environmental and risk-related public policy

The most fundamental philosophical objection to cost-benefit analysis is that it fails to account for the distinction between more-necessary and less-necessary benefits. For example, it provides no way to avoid trading off a few cancer deaths in exchange for a more cost-effective but also more hazardous technology which provides cheaper paper or plastic products for the many. Since unjust distribution of benefits and burdens results primarily from the failure to prefer more-necessary goods (such as health and safety) over less-necessary ones (such as cheaper plastic razors), we shall see that a correct calculation of the rate at which marginal utilities diminish in value (as they become less necessary to their users) can determine degrees of necessity and thus the most just possible distribution of benefits and burdens. One way to measure the rate of diminishing marginal utility is provided by the wealth effect in occupational risk studies. Wealthier workers will not assume the same risk in exchange for a given salary increment (which to them is not very necessary) as poorer workers would assume for that same salary increment (which to them is more necessary). It is therefore possible to construct a mathematical model for the effect of necessity/non-necessity on quantitative decision principles for environmental and risk-related public policy, thus making such decisions more distributively just than traditional cost-benefit analysis would allow.