Argentina's Got 'Em by the Balls

Before beginning this commentary, it is important to note that the “chemical castration” is a drug given to reduce sexual desire; this is not the equivalent of a castration in the literal sense. However, this still brings up a controversial issue when addressing what the purpose of a criminal justice system is – solely doling out punishments for crimes committed, or is there an additional component of rehabilitation? Furthermore, is there and should there be an element of choice (proposition, as opposed to imposition/coercion) for convicted rapists regarding a treatment which is ineffective once the regimen is stopped? The reporter in the video states that those who do not volunteer to undergo this type of treatment will not have the same access to appealing for sentence reductions; there are currently 11 convicted offenders who have opted for this treatment in return for reduced sentences.

In the video clip, Mendoza Governor Celso Jaque states that the chemical and psychological treatment enables those convicted to be able to be reintroduced to society. However, with the risks that Enrique da Rosa highlights, the treatment’s effectiveness is relative and fails to be comprehensive enough to address significant factors contributing to why a rapist commits a rape or sexual assault.

While this report addresses a province in Argentina, “the practice in Mendoza follows measures adopted in several European countries and eight U.S. states: California, Florida, Georgia, Montana, Oregon, Wisconsin, Louisiana and Iowa.” In any of these cases, if there is a lack of access to the same legal channels for those who opt out of the treatment as those who select the treatment have, then this sentencing option is more of a coercive measure and should not be described as an elective procedure. Additionally, the information presented by CNN in this segment totally overlooks the problematic situation of the effects on an innocent person who was convicted and then chooses this procedure in order to reduce his or her sentence. How reversible is the process?

All in all, the imposition of this treatment upon prisoners seems to go beyond both concepts of what the purpose of the criminal justice system is. If prisons are seen solely as places of punishment for crimes committed, then time spent in prison would be sufficient. If the criminal justice system is seen as integrating punishment and rehabilitation, then a treatment that is highly relative with an unknown degree of its effects on an individual’s health is not the best course of action. While a holistic approach to addressing root causes of crimes is appreciated, these courses of action must be sensitive to all individuals’ rights as well as be much more certain than this procedure.

Love That Dirty Water

Two recent Supreme Court decisions have called into question the EPA's jurisdiction to regulate certain waterways under the Clean Water Act. The act gives the EPA jurisdiction over "navigable waters," which has been interpreted fairly broadly in the past. Now, the Court has suggested that the term does not refer to "waterways that are entirely within one state, creeks that sometimes go dry, and lakes unconnected to larger water systems."

The EPA is now hesitant to prosecute, shelving or discontinuing 1500 major cases over the past four years.

Furthermore, these waterways that are now questionably outside the EPA's jurisdiction provide drinking water for over a third of all Americans. Granted, drinking water is treated before it is distributed, but it should be the responsibility of the polluter to clean up the water, not the public utility.

You can read more here.

The Politics of Language (of Global Warming)

So I'm not going to talk about health-care reform. Everybody else is talking about it, and I'm not very knowledgeable about what's in the bill to begin with.

Instead, I'm going to take you back to a little over a month ago when the East Coast was covered with the white, fluffy stuff - no, not purebred, Persian cats - in the great "Snowpocalypse."

Conservatives were thrilled. Quoth Sean Hannity, "It’s the most severe winter storm in years, which would seem to contradict Al Gore’s hysterical global warming theories." And then there's this:

Jim Inhofe (R-OK) is a funny, funny man.

This flies in the face of both logic AND science. First, it doesn't make sense to draw conclusions about a broad (in space and in time) pattern based on a single event. Second, even if you could reach a larger conclusion based on this event, it is not clear that "global warming is a hoax" would be that conclusion. Because of increased moisture in the air, more severe snowstorms are exactly what you would expect from global warming. (h/t)

But part of the problem lies in the term "global warming" itself. A relatively cool summer may be partly behind the public's decreased belief in global warming. Of course, the average temperature will not monotonically increase year after year; there will be some natural variation. However, someone might infer from the phrase "global warming" that it would, and they'll change their opinion with the weather forecast.

But what is the alternative? "Climate change," the heir apparent, is simultaneously clearer (This is a trend in climate, not weather.) and vaguer. (How is it changing?) This vagueness may be an advantage: an increase in severe snowstorms would be more compatible with "climate change." However, neither imply a sense of danger or urgency. But "climate chaos" or "global weirding" both sound silly, and I doubt either will catch on. "Global warming" or "climate change" is the phrase that we are stuck with.