FlowVoid

I think it's more childish to assume that word usage will not evolve over time.

Regardless, "blasted" has been used in this way for most of our lives. Perhaps you're just now noticing it?

From Jun 13, 1997:

City union leaders blasted an administration-backed proposed charter change Thursday that would strip the Civil Service Commission of most of its powers.

From Sep 23, 1992:

Vice President Dan Quayle, broadening his attack on Hollywood, Tuesday blasted the recording industry for producing rap music that he said had led to violence.

From 1981:

During the campaign, Roosevelt blasted Hoover for spending and taxing too much, boosting the national debt, choking off trade, and putting millions on the dole.

You didn't realize that regulators criticized others as part of their legal duties?

In English, words have multiple meanings and the intended meaning must be inferred by context. For example, you referred to regulators "dealing", and your audience is expected to understand that you aren't discussing card games.

"Blasted" is used correctly in the title. It is a synonym for "criticized", derived from a Middle English term that means "blowing air" (see also "blast furnace").

Examples:

Federal transit regulators blasted the MBTA Friday for violating an order prohibiting the use of lone workers on tracks put in place last week

Jennifer Belveal and John Birmingham with the firm of Foley & Lardner describe the justification for terminating the contract as "flimsy" and blast the university for launching an investigation into what they call "the personal relationship between Tucker and a one-time vendor" "despite no justification to do so."

It's not just American, retribution is a component of sentencing in most developed countries. No adult justice system is purely rehabilitative.

Most Germans have easy access to a kitchen knife, especially if they are at home. And those can readily be used to kill someone.

The goal of the justice system is partly rehabilitative and partly retributive. This is true throughout "the developed world".

People can be sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole in the UK, Italy, Austria, and the Netherlands among other places. That sentence is incompatible with a purely rehabilitative justice system.

Depends on the country, of course. Some European countries are actually more permissive than the US.

For example, in the US you must have a reasonable fear of great bodily harm to use deadly force. Reasonable means an average person would feel the same way.

But in the UK, any actual fear of great bodily harm justifies deadly force, even if it is not reasonable, ie even if an average person would not have that fear.

Furthermore unlike most US states there is no duty to retreat before using deadly force in the UK, France, Spain or Sweden. This means you can immediately use deadly force when threatened, you don't need to reserve it as a "last option."

There are certainly countries that strongly focus on rehabilitating prisoners, which is admirable.

But even in countries like Norway, which is a good example of the above, prisoners are not automatically released once they are rehabilitated or no longer deemed a threat. They must always serve a certain fraction of their sentence regardless, which demonstrates that at least part of the original sentence was punitive in nature.

Laws vary by country and state, but some European countries are actually more permissive than the US in the matter of self defense.

For example, Germany allows you to use deadly force to protect mere property, this is not allowed in many US states.

The federal government won't sue for sexual harassment, the employee would have to file a lawsuit herself.

Most European countries allow the use of force in self defense.