Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Mistake not worth 30 years

By LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Published December 14, 2006

Re: Warped justice ruins yet another man's life, Dec. 4 editorial

Congratulations for the excellent editorial. As a conservative Republican, law-and-order and even hard-nosed, I am outraged by Circuit Judge Ric Howard's grossly inappropriate sentences in each of the three cases described.

The sentencing in the case of William Thornton is the most egregious example of judicial bad judgment I have ever heard of. Thirty years in prison for an accident? That is shameful. For God's sake, it was an accident!

My understanding of the Thornton case is as follows:

- William Thornton was 17 years old, a good student with a part-time job and had never been in trouble before. He was not drinking or on drugs and it was not a hit and run.

- He topped a hill and skidded into an intersection that has since had a warning sign installed before the crest of the hill, indicating negligence by the county at the time of the accident because there was no sign.

- The driver of the other vehicle was legally drunk (0.1102, that's far above the legal limit of 0.0800), which may have prevented him from taking evasive action.

- Most important, weren't the deceased not killed by the impact, but died when they were thrown from their vehicle? And they illegally did not have their seat belts fastened, which would have protected them.

- Were the deceased too drunk to fasten their seat belts or did they deliberately violate the law by leaving them unbuckled? Wouldn't they have survived the accident if they had buckled up, as the law requires, and what would the sentence have been if they had lived? Surely not 30 years.

Is Thornton being excessively punished because of the negligence of the county and the deceased?

As a former criminal defense attorney, would Howard have thought that 30 years in prison was a fair sentence if Thornton had been his client?

What will the cost to the taxpayers be to lock up the three boys described in the editorial for a total of 50 years? Admittedly, they all should be punished, but wouldn't one year in prison with five years probation have been a more sensible sentence for each of them? This extra 47 years of prison time defies common sense and common decency. It is shamefully unfair to the sentence and the taxpayers.

Has anyone prepared a pardon application for Thornton? Can't Gov. Jeb Bush do the right thing and give him a full pardon before he leaves office?

As for Ric Howard, even though he has carefully stayed within the letter of the law, is he really suited to be a judge deciding matters of this magnitude? Is there any judicial oversight? How can unsuitable judges be removed from the bench?

Joe Bennet, Hernando Beach

A menu of options for insurance

Editor: I can't figure out why a relatively logical solution to the cries of pain about high homeowners insurance costs cannot be resolved though the use of a "Chinese menu" of homeowners' choices of budgeted selections.

What I advocate ought to have some chance of acceptance ( if not complete joy) by both the insurance providers and homeowners. All it requires is a bit of thought and evaluation on the part of both.

Here's how it could work: The big problem is hurricanes, and hurricanes cause basically five kinds of damage: Wind damage to shingles and peripherals, trees falling onto structures, flooding, sinkholes and catastrophic destruction.

My "Chinese menu" solution consists not only of selecting among those categories of damage, but also including a percentage of insurance to apply to each homeowner's coverage.

Each of the preceding categories could carry various levels of coverage, such as zero percent, 25 percent, 50 percent, etc., as selected by the insurer. Homeowners could select from what is offered. Those who have no fear of sinkholes might choose zero percent coverage for this category, with the other categories' percentages chosen via personal fear or confidence.

I can foresee two things in such a plan:

First, some homeowners might attempt to finagle the system. Second, the insurance companies will face a need to verify the details of the applicants' applications.

I really don't think this is unsolvable. The insurance companies might have to inspect the homeowners' premises as a condition of the acceptance of the policy.

A fee for such an inspection would be in order.

How can a homeowner object to a system that gives him the freedom to select only those risks he personally chooses at a rate of recompense that he also chooses?

How can an insurer object to having the ability to prescribe the rates at which it will pay for its own actuarially calculated obligations?

Robert W. Bryson, Spring Hill

Re: New form of bigotry hurts just the same, Andrew Skerritt column, Nov. 26

Discrimination wasn't discussed

As I read this commentary on "migrant workers," I noticed something interesting.

I am originally from Westchester County, N.Y. My grandparents on both sides were immigrants from Italy. I can't recall any stories about discrimination, although I'm sure they faced some ethnic animosity. But that was not a topic I heard about as a youth.

The thing I noticed in the column is that it failed to mention the fact that the majority of the Hispanics "immigrant workers" he referred to (if not virtually all), are here illegally.

My grandparents came through Ellis Island, where if any of the immigrants had even an eye infection, they were turned away. Entering this country at that time was considered a privilege, and my ancestors made it their business to assimilate. Sure, Italian was spoken in the home. But Grandpa served in World War I, learned English and adopted the Fourth of July as his birthday because he had no official record of his birth.

Our relatives who came to America did so through legal channels. Interestingly, Mr. Skerritt omitted that fact about these "workers."

Richard Marconi, Inverness

Citizens didn't dodge free market

Editor: Citizens Property Insurance Corp. was created by the Florida Legislature to fill the void when private companies fled the homeowners insurance market because of catastrophic losses stemming from hurricane and sinkhole losses. Citizens was designated as the insurer of last resort and, to use a metaphor, was portrayed as the cavalry riding to the rescue of the beleaguered homeowner.

That being the case, one would rationally conclude that free market principles no longer governed the sale of policies written by Citizens because it had no competition, due to the voluntary withdrawal of the free enterprise carriers from the market, and that Citizens would be afforded all of the latitude necessary to write cost-effective policies.

Paradoxically, however, Citizens was prevented from doing so because the insurance lobby influenced the Legislature to mandate that Citizens charge higher premiums than the AWOL private carriers would have hypothetically if they had remained in that market. Moreover, Citizens also is required to include the cost of reinsurance in its premiums, which, in reality, it didn't have the remotest intention of purchasing.

To be certain, Citizens doesn't feel the need to buy reinsurance from private companies because, like all public or quasipublic entities, it will merely shift its deficits over to its policyholders in the form of increased premiums in the event that it experiences hurricane and sinkhole losses of the magnitude experienced in 2004 and 2005.

And while the special session Jan. 16 seems to be oriented toward repealing the mandate that Citizens charge policyholders for reinsurance, the fact is that the ultimate solution requires more profound analysis and action.

In that respect, a truly meaningful comprehensive plan should encompass more stringent land development measures and building codes. It might also require tax money to subsidize the homeowners of this state under specific instances if the need should arise to prevent large-scale housing losses that would threaten the public health, safety and welfare - and thus consequentially imperil the overall economy of Florida.

Jack B. McPherson New Port Richey

Your voice counts

We welcome letters from readers for publication. To send a letter from your computer, go to www.tampabay.com/letters and fill in the required information. Type your letter in the space provided on the form, specify that you are writing the Citrus section of the newspaper, and then click "submit." You also may cut and paste a letter that you have prepared elsewhere in your computer.

If you prefer, you may fax your letter to (352) 860-7320, or mail it to Letters to the Editor, Citrus Times, 301 W Main St., Inverness, FL 34450.

All letters should be brief and must include the writer's name, city of residence, mailing address and telephone number. When possible, letters should include a handwritten signature. Addresses and telephone numbers will not be printed. The Times does not publish anonymous letters.

Letters may be edited for clarity, taste and length. We regret that not all letters can be printed.

[Last modified December 14, 2006, 06:33:29]