Humiliation shouldn't be a part of punishing criminals
Published August 24, 2004
Re: Shame on crooked executives, Aug. 18.
Attorney Benjamin Bycel suggests that a "humiliation" component added to the sentences of convicted corporate executives might give victims "who lost their jobs, savings and retirement some sense of justice." But revenge is bitter nourishment that poisons as it feeds. It has no place in any enlightened penal code and should not be confused with justice.
As to deterrent effect, obviously it would be negligible since most criminal acts are the product of impulse or calculation. In crimes of impulse there is insufficient time to ponder consequences, whereas in crimes of calculation, the performer's preparation will have convinced him or her that there is no possibility of discovery and/or apprehension. So, punishment threats are meaningless.
In sum, restitution, incarceration and re-education should remain as our focus in coping with criminal behavior. Adding a "humiliation" factor serves only to lower us to the criminal's level.
-- Ben Tutoli, St. Petersburg
Get clear on Kerry's position
Re: Kerry's quicksand, editorial, Aug. 19.
I do not find John Kerry's position on the Iraq debacle puzzling or incoherent as you indicate millions of his backers do. In fact, I find his use of the language exhilarating and unwavering.
For the vote on the $87-billion to fund part of the war effort, he was voting for it as long as it was coming from the tax breaks for the wealthy. But when he found it was not, then he voted against it. And he has never been for the war with Iraq but rather for the authority given to the commander in chief to be able to go to war in the event of a crisis that warranted such authority.
Yes, Sen. Kerry may have voted against the Persian Gulf War in 1991, a war to save the Bush family oil royalties in Kuwait, but he certainly did not vote for this present war in Iraq but rather to enable the president to do so in the event of a crisis, which never materialized. I find Sen. Kerry on solid ground, not quicksand as you imply.
-- Billy Cox, Clearwater
Focus on the Bush record
Re: Kerry's quicksand.
Let's put John Kerry's response that "he would have gone to war even if he had known what we know now" in perspective. It's fantasy, on the order of, "Would I have bought this house if I'd known it was in Evacuation Level 2 and the kids would be bused to Apalachicola High?" It's really just idle speculation. It may be significant idle speculation, but that's really all it is. We should remember that in October 2002, when he cast his vote, we were only one year past 9/11. Flags were still flying in everyone's yard.
So instead of concentrating on what Kerry might have done had he known about stuff he couldn't have known about because Bush was keeping it secret, let's look at the questions he raises for President Bush:
"Why did he rush to war without a plan to win the peace?" Kerry asks. "Why did he rush to war on faulty intelligence and not do the hard work necessary to give America the truth?" Bush's actions for the last four years aren't fantasy.
-- Travis Ann Sherman, St. Petersburg
Being consistently wrong is better?
The Aug. 19 editorial Kerry's quicksand was much ado about nothing. The basic theme was to bash Sen. John Kerry for his "yes" vote to give President Bush authority to invade Iraq. The editorial concluded: "President Bush has been wrong about Iraq, but at least he has been consistently wrong."
In effect, the editorial tells us it is okay to be wrong so long as one inflexibly remains wrong. President Bush and his supporters have fed the American people this line for three years.
-- William A. Crutchfield, New Port Richey
Income gap should be taken seriously
Re: Middle class hit on taxes and pay, Aug. 17.
One of the most neglected stories over the last 20 years is the increasing gap between the rich and poor in America. The issue's importance should weigh heavily on the shoulders, minds, and wallets of most Americans.
The cultural dimension of this problem is rooted in the "myth of rugged individualism," basically emphasizing the supposed superindividualist and independent attitude of wealthy people and, conversely, the lack of initiative among America's poor. As Americans, we are inundated by the idea that if you work hard enough, you'll make it. Poor people are ideologically accosted by elites for bringing poverty upon themselves via laziness and mooching off the state.
Truth be told, there are plenty of hardworking Americans who will never be even moderately well off or comfortable, while the vast majority of wealthy individuals in this country will stay wealthy almost despite themselves (e.g. the business dealings of George W. Bush).
-- Christopher Dean Lee, Tampa
Voters shouldn't be too trusting
Re: The right to vote comes with responsibilities, too, letter, Aug. 18.
The letter writer says that "if each voter will simply accept and fully comply with his or her responsibilities, seeking out help if necessary, the odds are heavily against a need for a paper trail."
I can only presume that the letter writer doesn't feel the need to receive monthly statements from banks or credit card companies, either, even though the same companies that make electronic voting machines also make ATMs.
And since these voting machines all use computer software to record votes, it is obvious that the letter writer fully trusts such computer software to be 100 percent accurate, 100 percent precise and 100 percent totally secure from hacking as well.
-- Charlie Crook, Tampa
Investigate voter intimidation
Re: Putting a fear factor in black vote, Aug. 18.
What is reported in Bob Herbert's column smacks to me of highly selective actions raising a clear specter of racially based intimidation of potential voters.
In the context of the 2000 election and continuing difficulties since then in ensuring the integrity and accuracy of vote counts in our state, these circumstances raise the question of whether partisan politics - certainly the perception, but also the reality as far as I am concerned - are playing a part in the actions Herbert reports on.
A failure to aggressively root out all obstacles to a free and fair election undermines Florida's reputation. Gov. Jeb Bush should launch an impartial and thorough investigation into this.
-- Frank Soder, Palm Harbor
There goes the language
In watching TV lately, I am struck by something: When did "children" become "kids" and "people" become "you guys"?
I heard Katie Couric on the Today show from Athens interviewing Olympic athletes. She constantly called them (men and/or women) "you guys." It didn't sound very professional. Our grammar and proper titles seem to be deteriorating very rapidly.
-- Dorothy E. Karkheck, Dunedin
[Last modified August 24, 2004, 00:09:22]
