Rechtliche Einordnung von Grünbrücken bei Aus- und Neubauten sowie bestehenden Bundesfernstraßen

Natur und Recht - Angesichts der enormen Zerschneidungswirkung von Bundesfernstraßen werden Grünbrücken in der Bundesrepublik vermehrt errichtet, sodass sich die Frage der...     

Previous judicial detection and paedophilic sexual interest partially predict psychological distress in a non-forensic sample of help-seeking men feeling inclined to sexually offend against children

Little is known about overall psychological distress in paedophiles who are not formally involved with the criminal justice system. Since knowledge in this context could help to optimise intervention efforts, this study aimed to examine the association between distress as measured with the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI) and preference- and offence-related variables in a sample of N?=?455 men self-reporting sexual interest in children, of whom 402 were diagnosed as paedophiles. Results showed that 59% reported clinically relevant levels of distress, with paedophiles being significantly more distressed than teleiophiles. A regression analysis revealed that a paedophilic preference and prior detection were relevant predictors for distress. However, past offending behaviour had no impact and the major part of variance could not be explained. The results suggest that paedophilia is associated with distress, but other factors influence whether a paedophilic man is distressed on a clinically significant level.     

Verhandeln statt Argumentieren oder Verhandeln durch Argumentieren? Eine empirische Analyse auf der Basis der Sprechakttheorie

In a recent debate in German political science the terms ?bargaining and arguing“ have been construed as semantic opposites in the same dichotomous way as the terms ?strategic action and communicative action“ and ?game theory and discourse theory“. This paper rejects the notion of these dichotomies and presents a new theoretical approach to distinguish bargaining and arguing as modes of communicative resolution of conflicts. On the basis of speech act theory a method for the empirical analysis of bargaining and arguing processes is developed and demonstrated with an example of interest conflict resolution by mediation. Three conclusions can be drawn: First, in empirical processes of communicative conflict resolution, in almost all cases both arguing and bargaining will be present. Second, within the context of an interest conflict, arguing is not an alternative to bargaining, but a means for bargaining. Third, in the example in question a sequential structure could be observed: The resolution of disagreements over facts and values by arguing took place before the resolution of interest conflict by bargaining.     

Beyond evidence versus truthiness: toward a symmetrical approach to knowledge and ignorance in policy studies

Policy Sciences - Current political developments in established liberal democracies in both Europe and North America have fundamentally called into question the normative relations between truth,...