Digenis.org

Cool. Google has just released a new tool called Google Patent Search. It currently searches through over 7 million patents; so far, it seems much better than the US Patent and Trademark Office’s search feature.

According to an October 19th US State Department press briefing, the US Board on Geographic Names has decided to change the official US English spelling of the Ukrainian capital from Kiev (pronounced Ke-yev) to Kyiv (pronounced Keev). The new version reflects the Ukrainian transliteration of the name, while the old spelling came from the Russian transliteration.

The population of Ukraine is split in two, with half of its citizens being Russian-speakers and half being Ukrainian-speakers. Of course, it would seem that the State Department has now taken sides…

Many people see this as a US tactic to woo Ukraine further to the West, the direction that President Viktor Yuschenko has been taking the country since he came to power after the 2004 Orange Revolution. Call it what you like, but supporters say that the US is just coming in line with the spelling standards of international organizations like the UN and NATO.

State Department spokesman Tom Casey says, “…I don’t think this decision has anything reflective in it.” But if we’re putting all politics aside, what about the scores of other cities with English spellings far off from their native pronunciations? Why is Myanmar still referred to as Burma in the US? Will Moscow ever become Moskva? Will Munich become Munchen?

Though Kyiv will now be used on all maps produced in the United States, it would seem that not everyone is ready to board the ship just yet. According to this article in the International Herald, the Associated Press will continue to spell the Ukrainian capital as Kiev.

I suppose only time will tell if this change will stick.

It’s not often that I delve into issues of crime and punishment on my blog, but the recent not guilty verdict in the Andrea Yates retrial has got me thinking about the insanity defense. First of all, let me make it clear that this is not a post about capital punishment; this entry is solely to express my feelings that the insanity plea at the stage of conviction is morally suspect.

I realize that much of my readership is out of the United States, so let me give you a little background here. In 2001 Andrea Yates killed all five of her children by drowning them in the bathtub. She confessed to the crime and was found guilty in a 2002 trial. In 2005, the Texas Court of Appeals reversed the convictions due to false testimony of a psychiatrist hired by the prosecution. So, the case headed back to the courts.

Now, I have no doubt that Yates’ mental condition was diminished. She attempted suicide twice and had been admitted to a psychiatric hospital four times. The diagnosis of schizophrenia was probably right on. Add to that postpartum depression and dealing with 5 very young children and I’m sure her condition was one far beyond what I can comprehend.

But at what point can we say that one’s mental condition changes the criminality of acts they commit? I would argue that it should never have that effect.

I’m certainly not arguing that we should completely disregard mental illness in such cases. All I’m saying is that it should not be part of the conviction stage, but rather only part of the sentencing stage. What does that mean? Well, one’s mental illness does not remove their culpability from a crime, but it may mean that they are in need of treatment rather than punishment. The point here is that we at no time declare these criminals ‘not guilty’ of their crimes.

I guess one of the biggest flaws with the insanity defense is this: Who defines insane? We could also argue that there are some crimes that could only be committed by an insane person.

Andrea Yates was declared not guilty of the crimes of which she confessed. Regardless of the verdict, she’ll be receiving court-supervised psychiatric care, which is exactly what she is in desperate need of; in that sense, justice was served and this sick person is getting help.

Still, it says a lot about the moral objectivity embraced by our justice system when moral judgments concerning things like murder can no longer be made, and that worries me.