Showing posts with label Crime. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Crime. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 30, 2010

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.

Tuesday, October 7, 2008

New Precedent Could Lead to Release of More Prisoners from Gitmo

A new precedent could release more prisoners from Guantanamo Bay, and it only took 7 years to realize that you actually can't carry out a racially and prejudiced policy of holding people indefinitely and without charges, torturing them in the meanwhile. Please check out the article in its entirety from the Associated Press below.

Judge: Let Chinese Muslims from Guantanamo into US

By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - A federal judge ordered the Bush administration Tuesday to immediately free 17 Chinese Muslims from Guantanamo Bay into the United States, rebuking the government in a landmark decision that could set the stage for the release of dozens other prisoners in Cuba.

U.S. District Judge Ricardo M. Urbina said it would be wrong for the government to continue holding the detainees, known as Uighurs (WEE'-gurz), who have been jailed for nearly seven years, since they are no longer considered enemy combatants. Over the objections of government lawyers who called them a security risk, Urbina ordered their release in Washington D.C. by Friday.

"Because the Constitution prohibits indefinite detentions without cause, the continued detention is unlawful," Urbina said in a ruling that brought cheers and applause from a standing-room only courtroom filled with dozens of Uighurs and human rights activists.

He also ordered a hearing for next week to decide where the Uighurs should be permanently settled. Until then, members of the Uighur community in the D.C. area have offered to take them in and will help care for them.

Justice Department attorney John C. O'Quinn said the government would consider whether to appeal the decision. O'Quinn's request to delay the decision pending a possible appeal was denied Tuesday by Urbina, who said the detainees had waited long enough.

At issue is the scope of a federal judge's power to order the release of a Guantanamo prisoner, who was unlawfully detained by the U.S. but who cannot be sent back to his homeland. The Uighurs, who are Turkic-speaking Muslims in western China, have been cleared for release from Guantanamo since 2004 and ordinarily they would be sent home.

But the Uighurs cannot be sent back to China where they are considered terrorists and could be tortured, and the Bush administration says no country is willing to accept them. Albania accepted five Uighur detainees in 2006 but has since balked on taking others due partly to fears of repercussions with China.

Urbina's decision also has broader implications for the future of the Guantanamo prison, which the Bush administration has said it would like to shut down after "working with other countries to take people back under the right circumstances." A federal judge is set later this month to hold hearings on other Guantanamo prisoners challenging their detention as so-called enemy combatants.

About 20 percent of about 250 detainees who remain at the military prison fear torture or persecution if they return to their home countries, according to the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights, raising similar questions as to where they should go if other countries refuse to take them. The U.S. has long maintained they should stay at Guantanamo.

"How many times does the Bush administration need to be told that detainees are entitled to essential rights? All the remaining detainees in Guantanamo Bay must be either charged and tried or released immediately," said Larry Cox, executive director of Amnesty International USA.

On Tuesday, the Bush administration argued a federal judge did not have the power to order the release of a foreign-born detainee into the U.S., saying would undercut immigration laws that dictate how foreigners are brought into the country. Until a country accepts the Uighurs, they would stay in special housing that includes TVs, air-conditioning and recreational activities such as soccer, tennis and volleyball, government attorneys said.

O'Quinn also said federal judges had no power to order the detainees' release and should defer to the executive branch, who he said would be in a better position in light of the delicate relations with China. In Beijing Tuesday, before Urbina's ruling, the government demanded that all Uighurs held at Guantanamo be repatriated to China.

"The court should be circumspect because of the potential for interference with foreign relations," O'Quinn said.

Sabin Willett, an attorney for the Uighurs, countered: "I've never heard anyone argue our relations with other nations are a basis for holding someone."

The Uighurs have been at Guantanamo Bay, a naval prison in Cuba, since the U.S. military took custody of them in Pakistan and Afghanistan in 2001.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang said before Tuesday's court hearing that the Uighurs are suspected of being members of the East Turkestan Islamic Movement, which the United States lists as a terrorist organization.

"China has urged the U.S. to repatriate these Chinese terrorist suspects to China on many occasions. We hope the U.S. will take our position seriously and repatriate these persons to China sooner rather than later," he said.

A spokesman at the Chinese Embassy in Washington did not immediately respond to a request for comment about Urbina's order.

Uighurs are from Xinjiang — an isolated region that borders Afghanistan, Pakistan and six Central Asian nations — and say they have been repressed by the Chinese government. China has long said that insurgents are leading an Islamic separatist movement in Xinjiang.

Rebia Kadeer, president of the World Uighur Congress, called the decision a victory for oppressed Uighurs in China.

"This is our destiny. This our people's win. This concerns our freedom. China accuses us of being terrorists, but we are not," she said through a translator as other Uighurs in the courtroom cried for joy.

____________________

As the saying goes, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. All in all a great ruling by the federal judge and hopefully, the United States can work out an arrangement where the detainees will no longer face the daily threat and reality of torture at the hands of any country.