Car Theft Isn't Funny
Nothing precipitates a family crisis faster than a car that won't start. Nothing, that is, except a car that is not there.
The private disaster of a stolen car was multiplied in this state in 1994 by 38,251.
Dels. James Campbell, Samuel Rosenberg and Maggie McIntosh and Sen. Barbara Hoffman, all from the 42nd District, are sponsoring legislation to address car theft by raising the maximum penalty from a $100 fine and four years in prison to a $1,000 fine and 6 years in prison.
It won't work. Anecdotal evidence is overwhelming that car theft carries no sentence whatsoever in actual practice.
The thief is asked to appear in court, the victim is required to, the thief doesn't show up and this process is repeated twice more before it is dropped.
The victim has lost time from work and probably wages three times. His insurance and his deductible have been increased.
Some victims have had their cars stolen more than once and their insurance dropped. If the car is recovered, as many are, the average damage is $5,000. Meanwhile, the thief, well aware of the odds against being punished, regards the whole system as a joke.
K? It isn't funny. Raising the maximum penalty would not alter
this attitude one whit. In practice, the maximum penalty is rarely, if ever used, imposes no obligation on a judge and does not address the problem in any concrete way. Not spending six years in prison is no worse than not spending four years in prison.
House Bill 497 is just another ineffective, unrealistic Band-Aid which gives the impression of doing something about car theft but has no substance . . .
The extreme reluctance on the part of elected officials to address this problem in a substantial way stems from a focus on sociology not criminology, a sympathy for the so-called deprived person, not the real victim, and a failure to understand the relationship between crime and punishment.
In areas of the country where punishment has increased, car theft is down . . .
Thieves do not need more to laugh at. Maryland's 38,000 car theft victims -- and those in waiting -- should insist that this bill be amended to include a minimum, not maximum, mandatory jail sentence for all car thieves of any age, a removal of the plea bargaining option and a reparation clause that would require thieves to repay the victims for costs incurred . . .
'Elizabeth Ward Nottrodt
Baltimore
Shining Example
An article in The Sun Feb. 9 told of Baltimore's declining population and of the flight of the middle class from the city; we have not yet absorbed the blow of USF&G;'s move from downtown to Mount Washington, but day after day we read of new threats to the well-being of Baltimore.
In the midst of much of this bad news, please consider that the Maryland Institute stands as a shining example of success in town.
It owns $50 million of meticulously maintained real estate in one of the few middle class neighborhoods downtown.
It employs 250 people. Its 850 students contribute to the intellectual vibrancy of this cultural center of our city. As these young people circulate through the area, their presence acts as a deterrent to urban crime.
Against all financial odds, the institute is now attracting the very top rank of art students from the United States and abroad. Yet, like all colleges and, as we have learned, all organizations of any kind, it is fragile. It has to prove itself each year to a new crop of 17-year-olds deciding where to attend college.
Does the cultural elite of this city and does The Baltimore Sun really want to support a campaign whose only outcome would be to harm one of Baltimore's great remaining assets?
The legacy of the institute predates the legacy of the Lucas collection by 80 years. It would be nice to keep the collection in Baltimore. On the other hand, the lion's share of the collection is, by necessity, out of sight, and museum visitors would never know the difference if it disappeared.
In terms of the relative contributions to the well-being of the city by the Lucas collection and the institute, there is simply no comparison.
The institute needs to convert this asset to endowment in order to maintain its tenuous position at the top. It would appreciate having your support. Baltimore's cultural institutions need to help one another. Why strangle a healthy animal only to cry over its death?
heila K. Riggs
Baltimore
Insurance
Kristin Young's letter of Feb. 10 decrying proposed regulation of the insurance industry is a striking example of the steady stream of disinformation foisted upon the public by the insurance industry.
Ms. Young cites auto theft and insurance fraud as "major reasons for the high cost of auto insurance in Baltimore." Not long ago the insurance industry cited "outrageous" jury verdicts as the reason for these high premiums.
That campaign of disinformation poisoned the minds of prospective jurors, and as a result jury verdicts have declined significantly. Despite this decline, auto insurance premiums have increased.
This is because there never was any relationship between jury verdicts and premiums.
I agree with Ms. Young that regulation is not always the answer. Perhaps realizing this the insurance industry will stop trying to regulate the justice system by endorsing arbitrary caps on pain and suffering awards and punitive damages.
If the amount they can charge for premiums should not be regulated, the amount they can be called to pay in damages should likewise be free from regulation.
Leo Ryan, Jr.
Baltimore
Art for Students
As an alumnus of the Maryland Institute (Mt. Royal School of Painting, '79), I am outraged at the college's plan to sell the George A. Lucas Collection.
As an instructor of drawing and painting at the Johns Hopkins University, I can tell you that my students and I have used the Lucas collection at the Baltimore Museum of Art every semester for nearly 15 years.
Both a window into the now-vanished world of 19th century France and a reflection of a cultured Baltimorean's taste in that world, the Lucas collection is, quite simply, irreplaceable.
Yet Robert Shelton, chairman of the institute's board of trustees, claims the collection's works of art are "of no significant value to us in terms of our mission, nor can they be."
Invoking "fiduciary responsibility," Mr. Shelton embodies Oscar Wilde's definition of a cynic: a man who knows the price of everything, and the value of nothing.
One can't help but wonder what, exactly, is the "mission" of an art college that would forever strip its students of one of the most exquisite collections in America?
Craig Hankin
Baltimore
The writer is director of the Homewood Art Workshops at the Johns Hopkins University.
O. J. and B.B.A.
Has anyone noticed? There were routinely more lawyers in court daily for the O. J. Simpson case than senators on the floor of the Senate for debate on the Balanced Budget Amendment to the fundamental law of the land.
Quentin D. Davis
Aberdeen
$3 Bill
We read and hear a lot about Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America" these days.
According to the dictionary a contract is an agreement between parties to perform certain acts.
It is not a lop-sided pronouncement from on high which heavily favors a portion of the contracting parties at the severe expense of the other parties.
If you read between the lines of the so-called contract, it calls for destroying a major portion of the electorate for the acts of being poor, young and helpless, old and infirm, less educated, less able physically or mentally to perform the normal functions and responsibilities of life.
At the same time the "contract" favors certain heavily subsidized industries, favored resource industries such as oil, mining, timber and agribusiness and favored contributors to such political powers as House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Rep. Dick Armey, Sen. Alfonse D'Amato and Sen. Bob Dole -- among others.
These favored industries and interests are untouchable, even by the line-item veto. These favors cost the American taxpayer tons of money.
In addition, the contract will foul even more our polluted atmosphere and poison more of our drinking water, 40 percent of which is already unfit to drink. This is a contract? It's as phony as a $3 bill.
Ernest M. Stolberg
Baltimore