SEARCHING OF THE INDUSTRIAL ZONE TERRITORY WITH IN THE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION

В статье анализируются вопросы правового регулирования и организации обыска на территории производственной зоны исправительных учреждений. Охарактеризована нормативно-правовая регламентация режимного и процессуального обысков, показаны их сходные черты. Указаны специфические особенности пенитенциарной среды, предопределяющие тактическое и организационное своеобразие проведения обыска, правовая природа режимного обыска, особенности его проведения, порядок хранения изъятых объектов. Исследованы правовые аспекты привлечения специалиста к проведению обыска, вопросы организации деятельности наиболее востребованного на практике носителя специальных знаний - специалиста-криминалиста. Выделены основные направления деятельности специалиста в ходе обыска: применение технико-криминалистических средств; помощь в фиксации хода и результатов следственного действия; разъяснение свойств и особенностей обнаруженных объектов. Отдельно выделен ряд факторов, существенно снижающих эффективность режимных обысков на территории производственных зон исправительных учреждений: нарушение периодичности проведения обысковых мероприятий; поверхностный, формальный поиск запрещенных предметов; неэффективное использование либо отсутствие технических средств поиска. The article analyzes the issues of legal regulation and organization of search on the territory of the industrial zone of correctional institutions. The article describes the legal regulation of regime and procedural searches and shows their similarities. The specific features of the penitentiary environment that determine the tactical and organizational originality of the search, the legal nature of the regime search, the specifics of its conduct, the order of storage of seized objects are specified. The legal aspects of attracting a specialist to conduct a search, as well as the organization of the activities of the most popular carrier of special knowledge in practice - a criminalist. The main directions of the specialist's activity during the search are highlighted: the use of technical and forensic tools; assistance in fixing the course and results of the investigative action; explanation of the properties and features of the discovered objects. A number of factors that significantly reduce the effectiveness of regime searches on the territory of industrial zones of correctional institutions are singled out separately: violation of the frequency of search activities; superficial, formal search for prohibited items; inefficient use or lack of technical search tools.

The End of Histories? Review Essay of Alexander Rosenberg’s How History Gets Things Wrong: the Neuroscience of Our Addiction to Stories

Alex Rosenberg’s latest book purports to establish that narrative history cannot have any epistemic value. Rosenberg argues not for the replacement of narrative history by something more science-like, but rather the end of histories understood as an account of human doings under a certain description. This review critiques three of his main arguments: 1) narrative history must root its explanations in folk psychology, 2) there are no beliefs nor desires guiding human action, and 3) historical narratives are morally and ethically pernicious. Rosenberg’s book reprises themes about action explanation he first rehearsed 40 years ago, albeit with neuroscience rather than sociobiology now “preempting” explanations that trade on folk psychological notions. Although Rosenberg’s argument strategy has not altered, the review develops a number of reasons as to why his approach now lacks any plausibility as a strategy for explaining histories, much less a successful one.

Beginnings of an Account

This chapter discusses the argument of Sections 5-18 of G.E.M. Anscombe’s Intention. It begins by considering Anscombe’s reasons for defining the concept of intentional action according to “a certain sense of the question ‘Why?’”. Following this, the chapter considers Anscombe’s discussion of several ways that this question can be refused application, each of which leads her to introduce a necessary condition of intentional action. Important concepts that are discussed in this chapter include those of knowledge without observation, mental causality, motive, and the relation between causes and reasons for acting. Anscombe’s account of these matters is contrasted in several places with that of Gilbert Ryle, and it is argued, contrary to Donald Davidson, that Anscombe was not in fact an “anti-causalist” about action explanation. The chapter also considers the possibility of doing something intentionally but “for no reason”, or for reasons that one cannot easily identify or express.

Against Internalism-Parity

An alternative argument is provided for rejecting internalism-parity. It is claimed that, from the perspective of internalism-based moral error theorists, categorical reasons for action are more problematic than categorical reasons for belief. This is because there are considerably stronger arguments for thinking that one’s reasons for action are constitutively dependent on one’s desires than for thinking that one’s reasons for belief are constitutively dependent on one’s desires. Three such arguments are considered: from action-explanation, from reasoning, and from paradigmatic-ascriptions. It is claimed that the first of these three arguments clearly does not apply to reasons for belief as to reasons for action. The applicability of the second and third arguments is harder to ascertain.

The Extended Luck Problem

Chapter 4 continues critical discussion of the cross-world or present luck problem regarding obligation. It assesses various responses to this problem, including responses by teleological theorists about action explanation, agent causalists, and event causalists. It evaluates the view that so-called non-action-centered varieties of libertarianism (as opposed to action-centered varieties) bypass this objection. It discusses why the phenomenon of “tracing” with respect to obligation—the freedom of an action that is obligatory may be inherited from a previously performed free action—is not promising. It argues, finally, that this sort of luck objection is far reaching. It affects non-moral varieties of obligation, such as prudential obligation, and extends to best-from-one’s-own-point-of-view judgments that play a vital role in our practical deliberations.

Factors Determining the Provision of Psychosocial Services for Oncological Patients and Their Loved Ones in Lithuania

It is acknowledged by various organizations, experts, and researchers around the world that meeting psychological and social needs is an important factor in cancer treatment. However, there is a shortage of psychosocial care supply for cancer patients and their family members in Lithuania. The aim of this study is to discern the causes of this insufficient supply. In order to find out the possible causes, Jon Elster’s action explanation framework was used. According to the framework, it is possible to deduce these factors: institutional constraints, economical (resources and labor supply) constraints, social preferences, and political preferences. Qualitative research (expert interviews) and secondary data analysis research methods were employed to gather the required data. A data analysis shows that the there are no institutional constraints for the provision of psychosocial care. However, there is a lack of public resources dedicated for the provision of psychosocial care. As a consequence, the main providers of psychosocial care for cancer patients and their family members are NGOs, which heavily depend on volunteer labor force. There is a contradiction in the point of view toward the professionalization of psychosocial care provision. It is the natural position of medical professionals that the provision of psychosocial care should be in the hands of professionals. On the other side, NGOs disagree with such a perspective. The need for psychosocial care is verbalized by experts and professionals; however, the general public prefers medical treatment. Thus, it is understandable why the public resources allocated to the provision of psychosocial care are so scarce. It is also evident that the political parties are not interested in psychosocial care, as it was shown by our analysis of their political programs.

Can Normic Laws Save Hempel’s Model of Historical Explanation? a Critique of Schurz’ Approach

I critically discuss Gerhard Schurz’ improved version of Hempel’s covering law model as the model appropriate for human action explanation in the historical sciences. Schurz takes so-called “normic laws” as the best means to save Hempel’s covering law model from the objection that there are no strict laws in historiography. I criticize Schurz approach in two respects: 1) Schurz falsely takes Dray’s account of historical explanations to be a normic law account. 2) Human action explanation in terms of goals and means-ends-beliefs are not based on normic laws at all, for the explanandum (the action) in an explanation follows from the volitional and doxastic premises (the explanans) alone. To show this, I argue that there is a conceptual connection between volition and action, rooted in our actual usage of volitional concepts. Ultimately, a difference in principle between the methods of explanation in science and historiography has to be acknowledged.