Probation officer Nichols is in charge of Jim. Jim was sentenced to three years of imprisonment for drug trafficking. However, because Jim had no past records of criminal activity, he was granted probation. He also had an excellent work record. The terms of his probation were specific. He was to live within a restricted area, was required to maintain employment at a grocery store, and was not allowed to leave town for the term of his probation. He was also required to complete 300 hours of community service during his probation period.
Unfortunately, Jim was unable to restrict his activities during his probation period, and on two occasions while he was under the effect of drugs he attempted to solicit acts of prostitution at a bar. His probation officer wants to revoke Jim’s probation.
- What theories might underlie Nichols’ decision to revoke Jim’s probation?
- What would Nichols’ goals be and what kind of information should he make sure he has before he makes a decision?
- How likely would it be for Nichols to make a rational decision in the situation above? Why?
- What would the limits of rationality be for Nichols? Why?
refugee’s right to healthcare in the United States is somewhat more ambiguous and tenuous than in Germany. The U.S. is one of eighty-six countries with constitutions that do not specifically grant citizens or the general populous any guaranteed right to health care (Wheeler). Though availability of healthcare in the U.S. was substantially increased with the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the policy did little to increase coverage for the approximately 11.3 undocumented immigrants residing in the United States as of 2016, explicitly specifying that an undocumented immigrant “shall not be treated as a qualified individual and may not be covered under a qualified health plan in the individual market that is offered through an Exchange” (Sommers). Medicaid, the predominant coverage resource for low-income citizens, and Medicare, which provides health coverage for elderly adults, both almost entirely bar undocumented immigrants from participation. The sole federal health program available to undocumented immigrants in America is Emergency Medicaid, which provides coverage only in emergency departments and acute care in inpatient settings; this program also features significant requirements that bar participation (Sommers). Thus, the most protective policy offered by the federal government which fully covers undocumented immigrants is the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), which requires hospitals to provide care to an individual with an “emergency medical condition” with no consideration given to immigration or insurance status (Sommers). Consequently, there is no domestic legal right to medical treatment for refugees except in the event of a medical emergency. Beyond legal and ethical obligations, it is worth noting that members of the medical community have endorsed expanding the amount of coverage and services available for migrant populations. In Germany, numerous doctors, the Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians, and the German Medical Association have all criticized the German Asylum Seekers Benefits Act, arguing that strict interpretation precludes individuals with chronic medical conditions such as disabilities, cardiac issues, or diabetes from receiving adequate ca>GET ANSWER