Chemical Castration Law

Posted on by
Reply

Castration has been a form of punishment meted out on sexual offenders for all of history, but as the 20th century dawned, enlightened minds determined that physical castration was cruel and unusual punishment.  The first chemical castration occurred around the mid-20th century.  Since then, chemical castration law and the drugs used to that effect have evolved and changed over the years.

Chemical castration involves the use of hormone altering drugs that diminish the libido, sexual fantasies, and the desire for sexual deviancy.  These drugs have been proven effective in clinical trials.  Unlike castration, chemical castration is not permanent and is therefore technically not castration at all, but does produce the desired effect of keeping society protected, while keeping repeat sexual offenders out of jail.

The American Civil Liberties Union heads up the list of entities that oppose chemical castration laws.  They assert that chemical castration is also cruel and unusual punishment, and while the libido-reducing effects may not be permanent, other physical conditions can occur.  While it is true that the hormone-altering drugs used in chemical castrations can cause weight-gain, loss of bone density and gynecomastia, one wonders if these “punishments” are really cruel in the light of the horrible atrocities committed by sex offenders in acts of rape and pedophilia.

Another outrageous censure against chemical castration is the idea that the treatment violates the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to offer “equal protection” under the law.  By some unusual means of logic, these critics have determined that the fact that chemical castration affects more men than women is something that the authors of the Fourteenth Amendment would have had in mind when they wrote it.  Never mind that 99% of all sex crimes are committed by males.  When accounting for all the facts, and weighing the crime with the punishment, chemical castration really doesn’t seem like a bad rap for repeat sex offenders.

The Family and Medical Leave Act

Posted on by
Reply

Before 1993, companies granted leave to their employees as they saw fit.  Most larger corporations granted a certain amount of medical leave and six to eight weeks of maternity leave as fringe benefits to attract the most eligible job applicants.  Then came President Bill Clinton and his agenda-topping Family and Medical Leave Act. 

The Family and Medical Leave Act, which took effect in 1993, forced companies with 50 or more employees to allow workers to take up to 12 weeks of job-protected leave for reasons such as the birth, adoption, or foster-care placement of a child, serious illness of self, spouse, parent or child, and even up to 26 weeks of leave related to the serious injury or illness of a parent, spouse, child, or next-of-kin in the military.

While the Family and Medical Leave Act gave peace of mind to workers nationwide, company owners received only heartburn, especially after states such as Minnesota, Vermont and Washington used the Family and Medical Leave Act as a spring board.  The problem with many laws like the Family and Medical Leave Act is that they set precedences and leave the door wide open for more and more legislation.  Liberal states took the liberty, based on the Family and Medical Leave Act, to lower company size of those affected by the law from 50 to as low as 10.  Some states expanded eligibility to grandparents, grandchildren, in-laws and domestic partners, while others tacked on additional occassions eligible for legal employee absences.

Now that the Family and Medical Leave Act is fully entrenched into America’s list of entitlements, grasping hands are clamoring for more.  As the Family and Medical Leave Act currently stands, employers are required to save a position for the worker for the 12- or 26-week period, and they are required to continue to pay the employer’s contribution on any health insurance the employee was receiving prior to his leave, but they are not required to pay the worker’s salary while they are absent from work.  If lobbyists have their way, however, companies may soon have to grant extensive paid leaves of absence. 

These types of requirements on American business adversely affect the economy when companies have to curtail productivity because they either can’t afford to hire more workers because of all the government regulations, or the workers they do hire don’t have to work because the government gives them a free pass.  Another unexpected economic outcome of the Family and Medical Leave Act is that, since women’s roles have not changed as much as some would like to think – that is, they are still the primary caretakers of both children and aging parents - laws like the Family and Medical Leave Act make women more expensive to hire.

The Pros and Cons of the Insanity Defense

Posted on by
1

The insanity defense is not a modern creation, but has been around at least since Greek and Roman times.  However, in our modern day legal environment, many are beginning to debate the pros and cons of the insanity defense. 

If a person is declared “not guilty by reason of insanity”, they are excused from incarceration because it was deemed that at the time they committed the crime, they were unable to realize that what they were doing was wrong, they were unable to appreciate why it was wrong, or they were unable to stop themselves even if they did know or think it was wrong.

The insanity defense is now coming under fire because it seems too easy to escape justice by claiming insanity.  I mean, would we really consider anyone who commits a heinous murder, mutilation, torture or rape sane?  But the insanity defense all boils down to mens rea, or criminal intent.

Some legal thinkers would like to replace the insanity defense all together with a law to prove mental defect or mistaken belief.  Testimony from qualified witnesses may be used to point to previous instances of a defendant’s delusional episodes.  It is a lot more difficult, in an insanity defense,  to prove that someone was NOT insane.

One other problem with the insanity plea is the “irresistible impulse” clause.  This is a case where a defendant might claim that he was aware his crime was wrong, but he was unable to stop himself from committing it.  This type of defense could be potentially overused and abused.

Indeed, there is a potential for abuse of the insanity defense, but as of yet in America very few defendants get excused by reason of insanity.  In fact, many are convicted despite documented proof of suffering from such verifiable mental illnesses as schizophrenia and manic depression.  This is because most American jury members still hold to the values of personal responsibility and retribution.

Software Piracy

Posted on by
Reply

Software piracy is a term that refers to the illegal copying and/or selling of software.  Like books, music and movies, computer software is considered intellectual property and is protected under the copyright laws of most countries.  Softlifting, OEM-unbundling, and counterfeiting are just a few of the several ways that software piracy can be effected.

Most of us have probably benefited from a CD burned from a friend’s iTunes playlist.  Like music piracy, softlifting is simply sharing computer software with friends, family or colleagues.  It seems harmless, but is no less illegal.  It is doubtful whether any of the average cases of softlifting have been prosecuted, but a company who buys software intended for one to three computers and installs it on 100 may be subject to some stiff penalties for pirating software.

OEM-unbundling is another type of software piracy.  OEM stands for “original equipment manufacturer”.  One example of OEM-bundling is when a computer comes with Microsoft Office already installed or in a separate package in the box.  If the retailer or end user tries to sell or distribute the software separately, he would be guilty of software piracy.

Though plenty of folks have at least thought about installing their roommate’s software onto their own laptop, there is a flip side to software piracy.  The consumer may become the victim when he unwittingly purchases counterfeit software.  Perhaps paying as much, or nearly as much, for the counterfeit software as he would have for the real thing, the consumer may find viruses or bugs in his new software that may cause his entire system to crash.  Not only that, he will be ineligible for any support, upgrades or training from the original manufacturer.

In an effort to protect consumers and themselves from the negative effects of software piracy, many software companies attempt to educate consumers to look for a Certificate of Authenticity – or COD – on any software they may be about to purchase.  The COD amounts to a sticker on the box, pictures of which can be found on the Internet.  Other deterrents to software piracy are jail time for convicted pirates or stiff fines for each instance of piracy up to a maximum of $150,000 per instance in the United States.

The Fight Against Money Laundering

Posted on by
Reply

For as many ways as there are to obtain ill-gotten gain, there must be as many more to clean up that dirty money.  Money obtained from all kinds of evils like drugs, arms trade and prostitution rings, and even white-collar crimes like embezzlement, has to be hidden in order for criminals to avoid prosecution and taxes, while they’re at it.  This process is known as money laundering. 

Money laundering can be accomplished in a number of ways with varying layers of complications.  Money is deposited in off-shore banks, deposited along with legal cash obtained from a cash intensive business, or hidden behind trusts or shell companies.  Legal gambling outlets like casinos provide a prime outlet for money laundering when criminals buy chips, play awhile, and then cash in their chips.  The money can then be claimed as gambling winnings.

Aside from empowering criminal rings, how does money laundering hurt the rest of us?  One way is by destroying the business reputations of banking institutions that accept dirty money.  If strong legal entities shun these houses of ill-repute, the banks may fail and the innocent individual depositor is the victim.

On a world-wide scale, however, it is the economy that is hurt the most by money laundering.  Huge influxes of cash money crossing over the borders of nations causes instability in the demand for cash, and in interest and exchange rates.  These result in high inflation, where again, the innocent individual attempting to feed a family is the one who suffers.

Since money laundering is a world-wide problem, government agencies around the world have teamed up in the fight against money laundering.  The United Nations has decreed money laundering to be illegal and in 1989, the G-7 instituted the Financial Action Task Force, which now has 34 member jurisdictions around the world.  And with dirty money funding global terrorist activities, individual countries have ramped up their anti-money laundering programs with renewed vigor.

DNA Fingerprinting and Forensic Science

Posted on by
Reply

DNA fingerprinting and forensic science are fascinating topics as evidenced by the many successful television shows and movies that feature forensic investigations.   “CSI” – in various big cities in the United States, “NCIS”, and a host of shows featuring pathologists as the main characters, such as “Bones” and “Body of Proof”, keep us glued to the set as we watch the characters set to work in the crime lab.  We can’t wait to find out how DNA fingerprinting and forensic science will be used to catch the criminal.

The really exciting thing is that DNA fingerprinting and forensic science are used in real life, too, not only to catch criminals, but also to set innocent people free.  The Innocence Project is an organization dedicated to freeing people who were wrongly convicted of a crime before DNA evidence was used in criminal investigations.

DNA fingerprinting and forensic science are also used in other applications such as matching donors and recipients for organ transplants, establishing paternity and other family relationships, and even verifying the authenticity of valuable products like caviar and wine.

Though DNA fingerprinting and forensic science have many viable uses, there are some ethical components to consider.  Ethicists warn that DNA evidence should never be used to predict the propensity an individual has for criminal behavior or susceptibility to disease.  Just think of the implications this could have on a person’s ability to get a job or to obtain insurance.

Gattaca, a not-too-futuristic movie made 15 years ago, highlights how society could “advance”, based on DNA fingerprinting and forensic science, in a history-repeating scenario a la India’s caste system.  Individuals are categorized based on their genetic profiles at birth.  Gattaca’s protagonist was able to overcome being genetically profiled as suitable for only menial labor by the use of his sharp mind, but the rest of us might not be so lucky if Big Brother some day decides that our DNA is our destiny.

 

Legal Issues in Affirmative Action Law

Posted on by
1

The problem with instituting any new law into a government that has already gotten too big, is that once it’s on the books it takes a literal act of Congress to remove it.  Case in point – affirmative action.  In 1961, as the country writhed and undulated under the strain of all kinds of civil rights issues, President John F. Kennedy signed into effect Executive Order 10925 which established what would become the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.  This was the beginning of the affirmative action push.  And so it was very much needed at the time.  Racial, religious and gender discrimination abounded in a country experiencing coming-of-age growing pains.

Half a century later, many regard affirmative action laws as an unnecessary 10:00 p.m. curfew on a nation that has grown up.  America has outgrown her need for such strict guidance from the nanny state.  Though there will always be fringe elements of racial bigotry, misogyny, or religious intolerance, by and large America has grown into a country that values employees, students, and club members by their own personal merit and not by “race, gender, religion or national origin”.  America has outgrown her need for affirmative action laws.

Besides that, quota-based hiring and college acceptance guidelines based on affirmative action laws, have resulted in reverse discrimination cases.  In these cases, members of a majority group have felt discriminated against when they have lost jobs or a spot in a university to a less-qualified member of a minority group. 

Quota systems are technically illegal, but may be hard to circumvent when corporations must prove they are adhering to affirmative action laws.  The bottom line is that, though we live in an imperfect world, employers and college admission staffs must turn a blind eye to race, gender, religion and national origin and must, as affirmative action laws and moral obligation demand, provide opportunity to those who most qualify based on individual merit.

Eminent Domain Issues

Posted on by
Reply

Eminent domain refers to that right of the government to take property away from a private owner.  As current law states, eminent domain is to be exercised only in cases where the property will be used by the public at large, for example, state or national parks, highways, bridges, schools, etc.  The private owner must be compensated by the government for any property seized under eminent domain.  This law is backed up by none other than the Bill of Rights, in Amendment V; by the philosophy of John Locke; and most recently by an executive order of George W. Bush adding to the constitutional wording that eminent domain is not to be used for the purpose of “giving economic advantage to private parties”.

President Bush’s executive order was issued in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in Kelo vs. New London.   In this case, the Court upheld the city of New London, Connecticut’s, “right” to take Susette Kelo’s land and home, along with those of her neighbors in order to hand it over to a private firm for redeveloping.  This reverse Robin Hood scenario was approved by the Court under the auspices that economic development and tax income for the city constituted “public use”.

The outcome of this horrible abuse of government power?  The re-developer who obtained the stolen land in the name of eminent domain was never able to raise the funds necessary to do the mysterious unspecified re-development project.  The once lovely waterfront land is now a city dump.

Citizens in a free world should be concerned about any government’s abuse of eminent domain, because not only do eminent domain laws govern real property, but also personal property, contract rights, patents, trade secrets and copyrights.  John Locke’s philosophy was that right of ownership in property was vested according to the labor expended to create value in that property.  The United States Constitution upholds that right.  Citizens should be ever vigilant against the government’s abuse of eminent domain or any other power.

 

Arizona Immigration Laws

Posted on by
Reply

Arizona immigration laws have taken a lot of flack since April of 2010 when Governor Jan Brewer signed into effect America’s “toughest bill on illegal immigration“.  How tough is it?  This horrifying legislation states that immigrants must carry documentation affirming their legal right to be in Arizona or risk being detained.  Outrageous.  Or not.

Opponents of Arizona immigration laws say that it opens law enforcement officials to the opportunity of racial profiling.  Alabama, who adopted similar immigration laws, has recently been embarrassed by law enforcement officers hassling the execs of car makers with plants in their state.  Critics of the Arizona immigration law use words like “Nazi” to describe the way they perceive Arizona’s tactics.  And recently, the Supreme Court has challenged Arizona’s right to even make such laws.  They say that only the federal government has the right to control immigration.

Supporters of Arizona’s immigration laws say that’s just it.  The federal government doesn’t control immigration and it’s left up to the states to support illegal aliens who have no jobs and no money but get free healthcare, welfare, food stamps, housing and education all on the state’s – and ultimately the taxpayer’s - bill.

It seems that most people who advocate loose immigration laws would like to have completely open borders and no immigration laws whatsoever.  What they forget is that immigration laws were instituted for a number of purposes, like public health, safety, employment, and national security.  But what is the point of having laws if no one is going to enforce them?

Arizona immigration laws are an attempt to do just that.  Arizonans and most Americans realize that immigration is a good thing.  We need workers of certain skill levels at certain times.  We gladly open our arms to as many refugees as possible who are fleeing horrible circumstances in other countries.  However, immigration needs to be monitored.

Perhaps, if the federal government would do its job in protecting our borders, desperate measures like Arizona’s immigration laws would not have to be taken.  When the Supreme Court brings this case to docket, many eyes will be watching as the ruling on Arizona’s immigration laws will affect all 49 other states as well.

 

Cameras in the Courtroom

Posted on by
Reply

The case for cameras in the courtroom is a good one.  Trouble is, the case against cameras in the courtroom is a good one, too, so it’s a good thing that in most states, presiding judges have the discretion of allowing, prohibiting or restricting the use of cameras and other media devices in the courtroom.

Court procedures are supposed to be public.  From reading books like To Kill a Mockingbird, we can imagine a time when everybody in town had the time to crowd into the courthouse and watch the proceedings of the latest scandal.  These days, trials whose outcomes may greatly affect us take place in other states or countries.  In cases like these, cameras in the courtroom keep the public informed.

The controversy erupts, however, over the effects that cameras in the courtroom may have on the outcome of trials.  If the trial is liable to stir up public opinion, the jury or judge may feel compelled to adjust their decisions according to the public bent.  Trials of this category that come to mind are the O.J. Simpson trial, the Clinton-Lewinsky affair, and any trial where a judge may be hearing a controversial topic, such as gay marriage.

Other instances when cameras in the courtroom are just not a good idea are when juveniles or rape victims are involved, or on ocassions when a witness may feel intimidated if there are cameras in the courtroom.

Like most controversial subjects, there are pros and cons to having cameras in the courtroom.  However, the judge’s use of his best discernment when making decisions regarding cameras in the courtroom protects trial outcomes while keeping courts as public as possible.