Silly Congress
I am sorry about the illness of Rep. William Natcher, the esteemed Kentucky congressman who has spent his last 40 years in Washington, but the action of the House of Representatives in suspending all legislative activity for one day to allow the congressman to hold onto his unbroken voting record is silly behavior. What kind of a sports club is this?
Members of Congress really do belong to a club, an exclusive club, in which they make their own rules and receive many privileges denied to "ordinary" citizens.
The elitist attitude of many of our congressmen is fostered by the lack of a constitutional restraint on longevity in office. This feeling of "belonging" must be curtailed by enacting a constitutional amendment to limit their terms of office.
The power of the office holder in this day of instant communication and media "hype" and the high cost of running for office are almost insuperable burdens for aspiring candidates to overcome, and thus new blood becomes difficult to instill into the Congress.
As long as the president and many state governors have term limitations, then it seems only fair that the same rules apply to members of Congress.
Otto C. Beyer
Ellicott City
Guns and Laws
Michael Jankowski's letter (Feb. 27) regarding Peter Jay's Feb. 10 article must be addressed. The idea that firearm restrictions will deter criminals from obtaining or using them is as ridiculous as the notion that bank robbers pursued by police will obey posted speed limits.
Prohibition clearly demonstrated the folly of making statutory criminals out of the majority of a country's citizens. It is counter-productive, often opening new venues for criminal activity.
Prohibition made Al Capone a legend. Without it, he'd have been a nobody. Place adverse limits on firearms; you'll create another like him.
This has happened in a number of foreign countries. They think they've banned guns, but they've really just sent them underground, where criminal kingpins rule.
As to dismay over folks carrying personal defense arms, in every state where this occurs, crimes against persons diminish. Florida is an excellent example.
Since 1989, Floridians have easily obtained carry permits for firearms.
With firearms-carry by regular citizens widespread, car-jackers, along with other criminals, found that victimizing Florida residents was a high-risk occupation. Hence the emphasis Florida's criminals put on tourists, truly a soft touch compared to the locals.
As Thomas Paine said, "The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property." True then, true now.
Gun-banners should reconsider. In reality, they're promoting job safety for the criminal element. They don't need it, and we don't need to be at criminals' mercy simply because they ignore the law. Decent people deserve a fighting chance against those who would victimize them. The laws should be on our side, not in favor of the criminals.
Keith A. Batcher
Joppatowne
Stop the Hate
Children should grow up being taught about their roots and culture. But parents should be careful not to allow hate for others to enter into it.
Zelda Buccheri
Baltimore
Abolish Parole
To parole or not to parole, that seems to be the question in William Zorzi's report in The Sun Feb. 27, but most of the answers he provided support the current policies by reflecting the viewpoint of prisoner advocates and the Parole Commission.
Based on this information, he notes that the data is inconclusive about the impact of parole on reducing crime. That may be because he failed to relate critical data favoring the abolishment of parole.
No mention was made about the statistics and other documented data provided by Del. Ellen Sauerbrey, R-Baltimore County, to the House of Delegates Judiciary Committee in support of restricting parole for violent offenders.
The recidivism rates for youthful, violent offenders ages 17-22 are high, 64 percent within a six-year period, according to a U.S. Department of Justice study.
The strong correlation of age to recidivism is demonstrated by the 68 percent re-arrest rate for all parolees 18-24 years of age, compared to 40 percent for parolees age 45 and up.
Long prison sentences completely served by youthful, violent offenders will have what is known as the "incapacitation effect," that is preventing crime by keeping the offenders behind bars.
No mention was made about a Department of Justice report on recidivism that concluded many violent offenders entering prison would still have been in prison for a previous offense, if they had completely served their prior sentence. Within three years of their release, 60 percent of violent offenders were rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor.
No mention was made about the need for "truth in sentencing" and that the power of meting out penalties must return to its proper place, the courts. Parole in Maryland has stripped the judiciary of sentencing powers through early release practices and has denied victims the right to know the real time to be served.
No mention was made about the financial impact of violent crime to society. The National Institute of Justice states that a violent criminal can cost society up to $450,000 a year.
The article is replete with misleading data and faulty logic. Statistics are shown that reveal those who receive parole have lower recidivism rates than those who are on mandatory parole. The implication is that parole reduces recidivism.
To follow the line of thin king in Mr. Zorzi's article, the best idea would be to parole everyone as soon as possible.
No mention is made that those who are at first denied parole and ultimately receive mandatory parole are among the most dangerous and highest risk inmates. Could this fact account for the difference in recidivism rates?
Ironically, the best argument for abolishing parole lies in another section of the very same edition of the paper. In an article about the notorious Murray brothers drug gang, INS Agent Bob McGraw states, "The only thing the Murrays really feared was the federal court system . . . But federal time is real time. No parole. They understood that."
This quote says it all. Isn't is about time the criminals feared the system in Maryland?
Anne Furst McCloskey
Baltimore
The writer is chairperson, Maryland Coalition Against Crime.
Verdict on Waco
You have every right to state your opinion in your editorial columns. You do not have the right to state an opinion as a fact.
In your "Verdict on Waco" editorial (March 1) you make the statement that police action was justified because, "Crimes had been committed at the compound . . ."
Really?
When and where was the trial held relating to those "crimes"? Who were the defendants? What were the charges? What was the verdict?
If there was no trial, no verdict, on what did you base your statement, "Crimes had been committed at the compound . . ."?
Later in your editorial, you again present as fact that "the crimes involved" warranted police action against the entire membership that religious organization. What "crimes"?
You state that "the federal agents knew there was a cache of illegal semi-automatic weapons in the compound."
I thought the alleged reason they went to the compound was to serve a search warrant so they could determine if illegal weapons were being stored there.
And I use the words "illegal weapons" not "illegal semi-automatic weapons" as you did because, frankly, I don't think it's illegal to own "semi-automatic weapons."
And I must make one final comment to an opinion to which you are are entitled. You said, "The proper response even to an improper use of police power can never be gunfire."
Well, I guess the Jews in Nazi Germany felt that way, too. And look where it got them.
Richard T. Seymour
Baltimore