What punishment expresses

In this article, I consider the question of what punishment expresses and propose a way of approaching the question that overcomes problems in both psychosocial and philosophical expressivist traditions. The problem in both traditions is, I suggest, the need for an adequate moral – neither moralizing nor reductive – psychology, and I argue that Melanie Klein’s work offers such a moral psychology. I offer a reconstruction of Klein’s central claims and begin to sketch some of its potential implications for an expressive account of punishment. I outline a Kleinian interpretation of modern punishment’s expression as of an essentially persecutory nature but also include depressive realizations that have generally proved too difficult for liberal modernity to work through successfully, and the recent ‘persecutory turn’ is a defence against such realizations. I conclude by considering the wider philosophical significance of a Kleinian account for the expressivist theory of punishment

Kinematic study of a reconstructed hip in paediatric oncology

In 1997, a large portion of the femur of a four-year-old child affected by a Ewing's sarcoma was reconstructed with an innovative technique that used a massive bone allograft, in conjunction with a vascularised fibula autograft that was directly articulated within the acetabulum. The aim of the present study was to assess the kinematic behaviour of the reconstructed hip during flexion, once the acute remodelling process observed after the operation had ceased. A few additional CT slices of the hip joint region, in a flexed position, were taken at month 33 of the follow-up. The helical axes relative to the neutral-flexion motor action were estimated: their relative positions, with respect to the anatomical femoral heads, were compared, and the translation of the anatomical head centres was estimated. The angles spanned by the two femurs were almost equal, as were the translations along the respective helical axis. The main difference between the two femurs was the distance between the estimated femoral head centres and the relative helical axes. This resulted in a non-negligible translation of 2.9 mm of the fibula head inside the acetabulum during flexion, significantly higher than the 0.5 mm found for the intact contralateral femur. The results showed that, although the transplanted fibula grew and remodelled during the follow up, the action of the reconstructed hip joint still cannot be described as a ball-and-socket