Little Minds
I recognize that consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, but don't you think it a little bit extraordinary that you support the mandatory retirement of judges at age 70 after endorsing an 81-year-old candidate for the Maryland state comptroller?
Is the governor's office or comptroller's office less demanding or burdensome than that of a judge?
The constitutional amendment to change the mandatory retirement at age 70 for Maryland's judges is wrapped in safeguards protecting against the continued service of those who are no longer able to discharge their duties properly.
It should be approved by Maryland's voters on Nov. 8.
Henry R. Wolfe
Baltimore
Simply Nonsense
In his Oct. 21 Opinion * Commentary piece, Parris Glendening makes the Reaganesque boast that he "cut spending and decreased the size of government" during his tenure as Prince George's County executive.
Nothing could be farther from the truth. According to the U.S. Census Bureau's publication, County Government Finances, per capita spending in Prince George's County increased by 99 percent in real dollars between 1983 -- Mr. Glendening's first year in office -- and 1991 -- the latest year for which census data are available.
This is nearly double the rate of growth of spending in "ultra-liberal" Montgomery County during the same period.
According to Census Bureau data, the per capita tax burden in Prince George's County rose 33 percent in real dollars during the 1983-91 period, also faster than any other Maryland county for which census data are published
Mr. Glendening is the county executive of the most liberal county in Maryland, as measured by the percentage vote for Bill Clinton in 1992 (62 percent), and his taxing and spending record show it.
His contrary statement in The Sun, accompanied by no supporting data, is simply nonsense.
Thomas J. DiLorenzo
Baltimore
The writer is professor of economics, Loyola College.
Great Teacher
It was no surprise whatsoever to read in The Sun Oct. 26 that Professor Stephen Vicchio had been honored with the Maryland Professor of the Year award.
In addition to his full-time duties at the College of Notre Dame, Professor Vicchio has spent many of the last 15 years teaching evening graduate-level courses at the Ecumenical Institute of St. Mary's Seminary & University.
At the "E.I.," as elsewhere in the region, Steve is known for his ability to make students of all backgrounds think deeply about the most profound matters of human life -- about God, love, suffering, living and dying.
It is with great pride that the Ecumenical Institute joins the Carnegie Foundation and the College of Notre Dame in recognizing the gifts of an inspiring thinker and teacher.
Michael J. Gorman
Baltimore
The writer is acting dean of the Ecumenical Institute of St. Mary's Seminary & University.
Why So Defensive?
George Will's warmed-over column (Oct. 13) attacking Anita Hill is so tendentious that one suspects that, deep inside, even he has doubts about Clarence Thomas.
Surely he knows that the fact that the "Long Dong Silver" and "pubic hair" remarks to which Hill testified were previously used in a court case and a novel is no evidence against Hill, because Thomas as well as Hill could have read the court case and the novel. Yet Will cites this fact anyway in his attack on Hill.
Surely Will is aware, although he conveniently does not mention, that Hill reported her story to several people soon after it occurred.
Finally, when Will concludes that "for whatever reason, she did not tell the truth," surely he appreciates that it is significant that there was no apparent reason for Hill to lie, and every reason for Thomas to.
In light of the fact that Thomas won confirmation to the Supreme Court, one wonders why his defenders remain so defensive.
Henry Cohen
Baltimore
Help for Estonia
Robert A. Erlandson writes in "Md. Guard helping to rebuild Estonia" (Oct. 19) that "Maryland Guard units . . . have been advising Estonians on matters as far-ranging as setting up border patrols, dealing with nuclear power plant accidents and fighting elements of organized crime."
Question: After they are done in Estonia, do you think they could advise the good old U.S. how to do that?
H. Randall Miller Jr.
Baltimore
In Defense of Judge Cahill
The furor following Judge Robert Cahill's sentencing of a man who killed his unfaithful spouse in a drunken rage seem to have been taken as an opportunity by the media, political candidates and women's rights organizations.
Without first-hand knowledge of the facts of the case, everyone from radio commentator Allan Prell to Attorney General J. Joseph Curran hit the airwaves with righteous indignation and condemnation.
Judge Cahill was denounced, defamed and vilified without investigation by people advancing their own interests.
It is unbelievable that Joe Curran broadcast his opinions over WBAL radio criticizing the Baltimore County state's attorney and Judge Cahill while admitting he knew nothing more than the sketchy accounts of the case that had appeared in the newspaper.
Such an obvious attempt by a political candidate to take advantage of an opportunity for publicity may be acceptable. But for the attorney general of the State of Maryland to criticize a prosecutor's office and a sitting judge without having in-depth knowledge of the case is inexcusable.
Given his obvious lack of knowledge of the criminal justice system and his equally obvious intellectual limitations, Allan Prell's uninformed response may be attributed to his desire to inflame and thereby expand his listening audience. But what can be said in defense of Joe Curran?
We have already created such a media feeding frenzy in this country that countless qualified people have turned their backs on political office and government service. Joe Curran seems to be intent on making judgeships equally unattractive.
Judge Cahill has nothing to do with downgrading the charge against Mr. Peacock from first degree murder to voluntary manslaughter. That decision was made by the prosecutors handling the case.
Given the excellent reputation of the office of the state's attorney for Baltimore County, there was almost certainly a solid reason for that decision.
Mr. Peacock's defense attorney, David Irwin, is no slouch. If the state's case carried an inherent weakness, going for first-degree murder against an attorney of Mr. Irwin's ability may well have resulted in acquittal.
No attorney, let alone the attorney general, should publicly criticize the prosecutor's charging decision without knowing the factors considered in reaching that decision.
Judge Cahill was presented with a case where the prosecutor was unwilling to risk going for a murder conviction.
The judge had to sentence a 31-year-old man who had no prior criminal record and who had acted in a drunken passion. No one has suggested Mr. Peacock represents a threat of future violence.
Judge Cahill could have taken an easier course and sentenced Kenneth Lee Peacock to the three-year term suggested by the guidelines . . . Judge Cahill exercised the sentencing discretion given him by the laws of the State of Maryland.
Unfortunately, while doing so he made comments on the record, in the context of that particular case, that left him open for attack on general feminist issues.
A close reading of the judge's comments as printed by The Sun on Oct. 21 shows that Judge Cahill gave thoughtful consideration to all the circumstances of the case and made the decision he thought best.
Those who have known Judge Cahill for decades, know him as an honest, dedicated and caring individual. He was a superb trial lawyer who worked with tireless and brilliant devotion to his clients and the cause of justice. Now he is being cast as a 'D dictatorial and insensitive bigot.
Had Mrs. Peacock killed her husband under similar circumstances, and had she appeared before Judge Cahill under the same charge, he would have given her the same sentence.
Women's rights organizations most probably would have hailed him as a hero. After all, these same organizations applaud acquittals for murder when wives and girlfriends kill abusive partners and then successfully utilize the battered spouse defense . . .
Richard C. B. Woods
Baltimore