Juvenile recidivism and length of stay

Official data maintained by the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice of 16,779 juveniles released from commitment programs to the community or aftercare between July 1, 1998 and June 30, 2000 were examined in this study. No consistent relationship between length of confinement and recidivism was found. The effects of length of stay were mediated based on the risk level of the commitment facility and gender. The length of confinement was only significant for juveniles released from high-risk facilities and male offenders. More research must be conducted to further examine the positive and negative impact of confinement on juvenile re-offending. Future research must include in its analysis the effect of program quality and treatment. Both factors may significantly mediate the relationship between confinement and recidivism.     

Flawed attacks on contemporary human rights: Laudan,Sunstein, and the cost-benefit state

After giving a brief account of human rights, the paper investigates five contemporary attacks on them. All of the attacks come from two contemporary proponents of the cost-benefit state, attorney Cass Sunstein and philosopher Larry Laudan. These attacks may be called, respectively, the rationality, objectivity, permission, voluntariness, and comparativism claims. Laudan's and Sunstein's rationality claim (RC) ist that only policy decisions passing cost-benefit tests are rational. Their objectivity presupposition (OP) is that only acute, deterministic threats to life are objective. Sunstein’s permission claim (PC) is that regulators are merely permitted, 3 not required, to take distributive and human rights concerns into account. Sunstein’s 3 voluntariness claim (VC) is that the consent of potential victims is not relevant to government regulations about risks and benefits. Laudan’s comparativism claim 3 (CC) is that there are no rules of thumb, no precomparative norms like human rights, for assessing theory choice in policy science. The paper analyzes each of these claims, shows how they undercut human rights, and argues that each of them errs.     

Retail medical clinics: increasing access to low cost medical care amongst a developing legal environment

Retail medical clinics are an innovation in health care with the potential to increase access to low-cost basic health care services while changing the delivery model for routine, non-urgent medical care. However, the few states that attempted to directly regulate retail medical clinics have been met with criticism by the FTC due to the proposed legislations' anticompetitive undertones. The relationship between retail medical clinics and the host stores or pharmacies that house them has the potential to spark fraud and abuse concerns. Retail medical clinics must abide by state-specific regulation on scope of practice of the various mid-level practitioners who work for the clinics, particularly to minimize exposure to litigation and keep within the clinics' intended purpose of a supplement to primary care physician offices. The author concludes that the consumer benefits of cost and convenience, combined with the potential for growth and expanded consumer base from a retailers' perspective, make the legal challenge inherent in running a retail medical clinic well worth the effort.