Judges appear inconsistent in sentences
My wife and I, along with others who have written letters, are shocked and puzzled by the strange sentencing of convicted criminals.
In the Oct. 5 Evening Sun, there is another case that is hard to believe.
The man in question was originally charged with first-degree murder but pleaded guilty to manslaughter and received a five-year suspended sentence.
At the time of his sentencing he was free on bail for charges of drug distribution, handgun violations and assaulting a police officer. The latest charges against him are for stealing a car and trying to run down an officer.
Can anyone tell us why a man who is out on bail for multiple charges, and then pleads guilty to manslaughter in another case, is given only five years probation?
No wonder criminals laugh at the law. Why was he not in prison?
Compare this with cases of life sentences for child molestation, where nobody is killed or physically injured.
The difference in sentencing is incredible. Are there no rules or guidelines? Why is a man with so many charges and convictions free to steal cars and assault police?
The public needs answers.
Andy Gardner
Westminster
Eroding rights
Mike Lane has portrayed Haitian and Somali gunmen who fought the U.S. armed forces as the National Rifle Association.
Quite the opposite is true. About half of the soldiers and Marines whom I've served with agree with the NRA, and many of the remainder believe the NRA does not go far enough to support the right to keep and bear arms. Less than a quarter would support some kind of gun control in America.
These brave men and women have taken an oath to support the Constitution and to defend not only the right to keep and bear arms, but also the First Amendment, which allows this paper to erode the rights of Americans.
Karl Hayhurst
Aberdeen Proving Ground
Voting for
After having a rat the size of a cocker spaniel attempt to move in with him, Jacques Kelly's equanimity regarding neighborhood conditions (as evinced by his Oct. 3 column) is remarkable.
That rat may have known something that Mr. Kelly seems unwilling to admit: When "For Sale" signs multiply, the tax base erodes. When the quality of life for humans declines, prospects for rats improve.
Mr. Kelly wants to believe that families are moving out of his neighborhood only because they are getting richer or they don't trust the schools.
But the surveys which preceded the drafting of enabling legislation for a Charles Village tax benefits district indicate other reasons -- "crime and grime."
Mr. Kelly will tackle crime by having policemen who spend too much time in neighborhood stores called on the carpet.
That's okay. But l'd also like to try the "safety team" in the proposed operations plan for the benefits district: trained professionals, providing 24-hour coverage, linking residents and workers with police, university and hospital security.
Mr. Kelly's column did not address grime.
The tax benefits district proposal includes an overall sanitation plan, including community education, rat eradication and beefed-up enforcement of housing and building codes.
Jacques Kelly frets that such a proposal implies that the mayor and City Council "have failed us so badly we need extraordinary corrective help."
Maybe it just means that we should exercise our democratic right and duty to help ourselves. With the tax benefits district we can do just that. That is why I am voting for it.
Jo Ann O. Robinson
Baltimore
Behold the terrible Taxosaurus Rex
The proposed tax district in Charles Village is of interest not only to the residents of that neighborhood but also to all residents of the city. What has been lacking up to this point is any real in-depth information about the plans for the district and how those plans came about.
To correct this situation, Intrepid Reporter did an exclusive interview late last week with the entity most responsible for the proposed district.
The following questions and answers are excerpted from this interview with Taxosaurus Rex and were related to me by Intrepid Reporter herself.
IR: Hello, Taxosaurus Rex. I don't think I've ever heard of you. Do you work for the city or for the interim committee for the proposed Charles Village Special Benefits District?
TR: No, I don't. In a sense, they work for me. In fact, any organization that levies taxes on its constituents works for me.
IR: So you feel that you can answer some questions for us about the proposed district?
TR: Sure. I can answer questions about anything from highway tolls to the lottery.
IR: Great! Tell me, how was the rate of 30 cents per $100 of assessed value arrived at?
TR: I'd like to say that it came from a careful analysis of what services were to be provided, careful costing of these services and then spreading the costs over the property base. I'd like to say that, but it's not quite true. The figure was arrived at because it looked like a number that we could get away with.
IR: So it was pulled out of a hat?
TR: Not exactly. It had to be a high enough number to generate some real money but low enough to still be marketed with the old "pennies a day" saw. It's kind of an art. We felt that 30 cents per $100 looked low enough, especially when compared with the already astronomical property taxes here, so it wouldn't even be noticed. Besides, we can always jack up the rate after we get our foot in the door.
IR: Aren't you afraid that the built-in provisions of the proposal might allow voters to get rid of the tax if you push too high?
TR: [chuckle] That's pretty funny. I'll bet you're one of those people who believed the government when it said that the federal income tax would be temporary. Have you ever heard of any tax (and after all, this is just a property surtax we're talking about, the "benefits" euphemism aside) that couldn't keep itself going and growing? Do you think I'm an amateur or something?
IR: Sorry. No offense intended.
TR: None taken. In fact, this tax has grown already, even before its enactment. I'm quite proud of that.
IR: What do you mean?
TR: You'll recall that the original estimate was for around $400,000 to be collected from property owners. At that time, the large non-profit organizations in the neighborhood had not yet committed anything.
IR: Go on.
TR: Well, now we have commitments in excess of $100,000 from these non-profits. You'd think that the surtax for the rest of the folks would go down by 25 percent then, wouldn't you? But guess what? We still want the original $400,000 from these people, too.
IR: So that would make the total over $500,000? Even though you said you needed only $400,000?
TR: It sure looks that way.
IR: Hmmm. How do you justify that to the people whom you want to pass the measure?
TR: We don't like to talk about it. If pressed, we can just say that more services will be provided, even though they weren't thought necessary at the outset. In fact, for all the slick literature we have printed up, and all the fancy T-shirts (I'll bet you'd like to know who paid for that stuff!), there is precious little real information published. What little we have let leak out is given in terms of percentages . . . you know, so many percent for this, so many percent for that . . . without mentioning specifics.
IR: Why is that?
TR: Because even though this looks like a lot of money to you, you have to realize that it's peanuts to me. If you look at what it will really buy, it's something like 15 extra people to help keep this entire huge district safe and clean, 24 hours a day. Not so impressive-sounding now, is it? Percentages sound more important anyway.
IR: Then why bother with it at all?
TR: Well, it's the sport of it. You see, the city used to do a very good job of keeping the streets safe and clean. Some people think they still do a good job, but there's money to be made in making people panic.
I'll bet you don't remember that there even used to be street sweepers here not too long ago. The residents have already paid for these services from the city. Our idea is to charge people twice for these services.
And when we do a poor job, the city will get blamed. Think about it: guaranteed income, zero accountability.
If it works out the way I believe it will, we ought to be able to charge people double for all city services soon. Or maybe triple! I'm thinking about a block-by-block surtax somewhere down the road.
IR: So basically you're interested in going after any dollar you can get your teeth on?
TR: You're slow, but you've finally got it. Taxosaurus Rex is known for his appetite, if nothing else. Hey, would you look at the time! I've gotta go.
IR: What's up?
TR: It seems a candidate for governor is talking tax cut. I'm sure she doesn't mean it, but just in case, I have to be ready. I have a reputation to uphold.
IR: Well, thank you for your time.
TR: It has been my pleasure.
James R. Martino
Baltimore