Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

With jury selection, 'unbiased' often means uninformed

Re: Couey trial.

Anyone who has wondered at some of the more incomprehensible jury decisions in this country in the past several years should pay attention to what's happening in the trial of John Couey for the murder of Jessica Lunsford.

Throwing up his hands, the judge says an "unbiased" jury cannot be seated. The problem is that nearly everyone has knowledge about the little girl's murder. Well, who doesn't?

What the courts seem to want these days is a jury composed of people who don't have televisions and don't read newspapers. In fact, the court wants to seat people who apparently are hermits and live under rocks out in the woods.

So the next time a jury renders a verdict that causes you to wonder, "What were they thinking?" remember this is not a jury of your peers. It's a jury of the most ignorant and uninformed people in town.

George Lear, St. Petersburg

We mustn't ignore the past

Re: Jury won't hear of Couey's past crimes, July 7.

I am beginning to wonder whose side the powers that write the laws are on, when I look at how the laws so often protect the perpetrator and not the victim.

It is absolutely ridiculous that John Couey's past cannot be used in his trial. What we do in our past leads up to where we are in our lives today. The choices we make show what kind of character we have - or the lack of character.

What message does that send to our young people? What you do cannot be used against you in the future, so go ahead and steal, rob and kill?

What we have done shows what we are capable of. Couey is a sex offender; he has a history. It is when we ignore history that we are doomed to repeat it.

Kathy Zell, St. Petersburg

Cargo plane safety is improving

Re: Safety alert for cargo planes, editorial, July 14.

In discussing the supposed safety problems with small cargo air carriers, the Times overlooks one critical fact: Accidents for those carriers have declined dramatically over the last six years.

According to National Transportation Safety Board statistics, in 2000 small air cargo carriers experienced 46 accidents, 13 of which were fatal. By 2005, those numbers had plummeted to 26 and five, respectively. And through June of this year, accidents continued their downward trend, with 10 such accidents, four of which were fatal.

This continuing improvement in small air cargo airline safety is no accident. In our oversight of these carriers, the Federal Aviation Administration is placing greater emphasis on system safety concepts such as risk assessment and management, aeronautical decisionmaking and higher quality training, such as that provided in simulators. We have created a new organization in our Flight Standards Service that is specifically addressing issues with small operators, including small cargo airlines. Our goal, as always, is to develop policies and standards that will keep the accident rates for these small carriers headed in the right direction.

FAA regulations provide an extremely high level of safety for both cargo and passenger flights. We expect - and make sure - all air carriers operate that way. We believe the Times failed to ask the one basic question that should have come first: Is there a real problem? The proof to the contrary is right there in the numbers.

Geoffrey M. Basye, FAA assistant administrator for communications, Washington, D.C.

Election's 'single issue' is a big one

Re: The inquisition of Joe Lieberman, July 11.

David Brooks paints a picture of Joe Lieberman as a moderate Democrat who is being opposed on a single issue: the war in Iraq. He is missing something in his column. Sen. Lieberman had no problem in vilifying President Clinton for a personal indiscretion, but has yet to speak out in any manner against the present Oval Office resident.

Months before the initial bombing of Iraq, we were aware of the course that President Bush had set out on. We were also aware, after listening to weapons inspectors, that the WMD issue was bogus. I personally bet a friend before the invasion that nothing would be found in the way of WMDs. (He paid up reluctantly.) If I knew, surely Congress must have known. They weren't duped; they just lacked the guts to stand up to the administration. They failed to see, or chose to ignore, that removing Hussein had nothing to do with the "war on terror."

Another point that Brooks attempts to make is that the race between Lieberman and Ned Lamont is a single issue. Perhaps, but oh, what an issue it is. The lives of thousands of Americans and Iraqis are gone. Tens of thousands are horribly injured for life. The psychological damage to those who return home will be with them for the rest of their lives, hundreds of billions in national treasure has been squandered, and the reputation of this country is in shambles around the globe.

In this democracy, the people choose who they want to represent them, single issue or not. Mr. Lieberman stands with the neocons. He has the endorsement of such "moderates" as Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter. Let the people of Connecticut decide if this is the person they want to speak for them.

Thomas Maciocha, Tampa

Soldier deserves our support

Re: Soldier charged for refusing to deploy, July 6.

There is something demonstrably wrong here.

An American lieutenant who volunteered to defend his country and is willing to risk his life in Afghanistan fighting against the perpetrators of 9/11, but refuses to take part in the illegal war in Iraq which President Bush started for personal and material reasons, faces eight years in prison for his refusal. Meanwhile, those who avoided combat, like Vice President Cheney and Bush himself (whose cushy assignment was procured for him by his influential father to keep him out of Vietnam), are part of the hierarchy that is prosecuting him.

Lt. Ehren Watada is a true patriot who deserves respect and support from all thinking Americans. This is not just another court-martial; this goes to the very heart of the legality and morality of the carnage and destruction that Bush/Cheney/Rums-feld unleashed on Iraq, and it is to be hoped that the Times will consider further developments in the lieutenant's case worthy of front-page coverage, and not buried on the back page as this article was.

R. G. Wheeler, Lealman

It's our duty to give back

Re: Wounded Marine on a new mission, July 5.

We should all be anxious to give back in some way.

My two brothers served in and returned from World War II, my husband served in the U.S. Navy and my son Gene enlisted at the time of the Vietnam War, saying "It's my duty to serve my country" while others were going to Canada to avoid the draft. I myself became an RN during World War II but graduated too late - enlistments had closed. However, I did go directly to work at the U.S. Marine Hospital in Staten Island, N.Y., to do my part.

I would be honored to donate to Paws for Patriots with gratitude to Cpl. Michael Jernigan, who lost his eyesight in Iraq. It's organizations and people like these that make this country great, and it is our duty as Americans to give back to our soldiers who have given so much for us.

Willie Gammon, St. Petersburg

An image worth revisiting

Re: Welcome home, Da-da, July 10.

What a beautiful smile! What a beautiful picture!

Know what would be neat? Publish an annual update of that pose for the next several years.

R. Desautels, Spring Hill

[Last modified July 17, 2006, 05:58:37]