Letters To The Editor

WASHINGTON STATE

Deceit used in push for initiative

Re: “Initiative would require licensing of handgun owners,” Region, March 11.

Initiative 676 aims to further erode the rights of honest citizens to defend themselves. It is being sold using the twisted statistics so often cited by those who prey upon the uniformed with emotion instead of logic.

In the article, Tom Wales is quoted as saying that each day, 15 American children are killed by guns. Wales counts anyone under 20 as a child.

There are five times as many firearm-related deaths among young people ages 15 to 19 as there are among children under age 15. Firearm-related deaths account for only 1.9 percent of all deaths among children.

The National Center for Health Statistics reports that fatal firearm accidents account for less than 2 percent of all fatal accidents, and only .07 percent percent of all deaths in the United States.

According to the National Safety Council, there were 200 fatal firearm accidents among children in 1995. Other accidents involving children: motor vehicle, 2,900; fires, 1,050; drowning, 950; and choking on ingested object, 300.

If I-676 backers truly wish to save lives, they should devote their energies to having more honest citizens carry concealed weapons as permitted by Washington’s concealed weapons laws. These laws are working daily to save lives. States with right-to-carry laws such as ours have lower overall violent crime rates than do states without these laws. Total violent crime is 18 percent lower. Homicide is 21 percent lower. Robbery is 32 percent lower and aggravated assault is 11 percent lower. Dennis Vick Spokane

LAW AND JUSTICE

Wrong turn in ‘82 jamming prisons

Why are Washington prisons overcrowded? The 1982 Washington Legislature in adopting the “fixed” sentence system effectively abolished (in July 1984) the successful indeterminate parole system in use in 45 states.

Not one benefit the Sentencing Guidelines Commission predicted when it recommended adopting fixed sentencing has been realized.

This failed experiment has not only been costly for individual taxpayers but for all taxpaying corporations in the state and has delayed financing of other needed projects. It will be interesting to see if any legislator in the current session will advocate correcting the 1982 Legislature’s mistake.

Fourteen years’ experience with the fixed sentence, originally labeled an experiment by the The Spokesman-Review editorial board, has resulted in these costly problems:

Increased requests for jury trials.

Overcrowded jails.

Overloaded county prosecuting and public defender attorneys. Defendants released due to laws limiting time persons can be held without trial.

Criminal court calendars so crowded that civil cases are delayed.

Minimum time to be served by all offenders sentenced after July 1984 increased by two-thirds. Each month of increase requires 1,500 additional prison beds.

Highest prison population, per unit of population, in the United States. Since July 1984 when only several prisons were needed we have expanded to 16 prisons at a tremendous cost for the taxpayers.

Greatest increase in Department of Corrections cost in the nation.

No decrease in reported crimes or arrests. A. LaMont Smith, retired professor of criminology Spokane

Our retributive laws are working

The March 7 Spokesman-Review reported, “Study shows ‘three-strikes’ laws don’t reduce violent crime rates.”

The three strikes law does, in fact, work. It removes such offenders from society forever. That’s the intent of the law.

The death penalty does, in fact, work. It takes away the life of a person who has committed a heinous crime against society.

These laws are meant to punish. If in the process there happens to be a reduction in the crime rate, fine. But the intent is to severely punish those who don’t give a damn about our laws and our lives. Punishment must be severe and immediate.

Thanks to the likes of the American Civil Liberties Union and other whiners, ours is a marshmallow justice system. You can get a traffic ticket and whine to a judge to have it reduced by half. You can slaughter a person(s) and get nothing more than maybe 15 years in a not-so-tough prison system. From one extreme to the other, the punishment is similar. Not so tough.

If we were to get really tough on crime, it might really have the effect of reducing the number of people going through that revolving justice system door. Then, we might not need so many courtrooms. That would mean fewer judges at $90,000-plus ever year. Not to mention all their support staff.

Think these folks will ever support getting really tough on crime? George Britton Spokane

SPOKANE MATTERS

Update parks on the basis of use

I read with much interest the article concerning possible changes to the city’s charter.

Instead of finding more money to support the park system, why can’t we cut down the size of some of our little-used parks? I drive by Coeur d’Alene Park very often and there I see little or no activity. Several others seem to be largely open space. On the other hand, Manito Park is extremely popular, but still it has more land on the outskirts that is unused. That property, as in all areas, is very valuable and could be developed.

Returns from these developments would be kept in the Park Department, to be used only for maintenance and development of other parks.

Perhaps our charter states that these areas are sacred and that we can never change their boundaries. If the funds derived from the developments were used to develop other much-needed park areas, would that be feasible? This could even apply to our rapidly expanding suburbs.

If our laws are getting in the way, perhaps we should write some new laws.

Our founders could not possibly have known today’s concerns. Let’s not be tied to these things forever. Opal Martin Spokane

Don’t loot STA, emulate it

I fail to see Opinion editor John Webster’s logic in “STA should pay up” (Our View, March 4).

We have a publicly funded transportation company driving over public roads transporting the public. Asking STA to pay up is like asking the city’s waste management department to pay up because of the refuse or recycling trucks damaging the roads.

A city bus can carry anywhere from 40 to 70 passengers, depending on size. Imagine all the vehicles removed from our city streets thanks to the bus service. Not to mention cleaner air.

Why not go after the for-profit businesses in Spokane that drive on our streets? Heavy utility company trucks or the many semi-trucks. We could even ask the good paper to kick-in for damage its trucks do.

Better yet, why not send out an investigative reporter and find out how STA sets its priorities and manages its funds? You might be surprised how much money taxpayers are saved through interest savings on bus purchases, buildings and self-insurance. Then print your findings in an unbiased way.

Perhaps the folks in city government would read the story, learn a lesson in good management and set some reasonable priorities and repair the streets.

Stop looking for a money grab and a quick fix, and demand responsible government. Eugene La Liberte Liberty Lake

Ours is not a city of haters

On March 10, I read in the April Reader’s Digest a poll of the best cities for raising children. Spokane ranks No. 8. That makes me proud to be a citizen of this city.

Then, to read the hate letter written in response to Karen Boone’s thoughtful and inspiring column made me shudder. What a stark contrast! But then I realized that it’s not Spokane’s fault. Every community has its hatemongers and malcontents.

Boone, you are loved and accepted here. The overwhelming majority of Spokane’s citizens apologize to you. Victor Buksbazen Human Rights Commission, Spokane

Eugster deserves good word, respect

It seems that every time I read the name Steve Eugster, it’s in a negative context. I would like to lift up the positive.

I’m very thankful for heroes like Eugster. It’s not often a fellow citizen is willing to put his or her reputation and finances on the line for the common good. It’s not often one man will persistently challenge those with power and privilege, even when doing so provokes ridicule and scorn.

Whether or not one agrees with Eugster, in these times of shredded democracy we should applaud, encourage and listen to those few prophetic voices who dare to disagree with those who dominate our media and therefore public debate. Rev. Rich Lang Central United Methodist Church, Spokane

GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS

Fearmongers victimizing the elderly

A month ago, my father died at age 94. In the process of taking care of all the details which follow a death, I sorted through many years’ accumulation of documents, bank statements and paid bills. I found hundreds of pieces of junk mail for conservative Christian causes.

My father was a staunch, lifelong Republican. The mail was divided into two types, hate and fear. A typical hate letter from the Christian Action Network began “Savage, raging, perverted homosexuals are furiously invading our institutions, schools and homes.”

Equally insidious was the fear mail from groups such as American Federation of Senior Citizens, Emergency Social Security and Medicare Protection Campaign, Health Care Reform Task Force and the National Retirement Security Task Force.

To a letter, the message was that President Clinton and the liberals will take away-destroy-slash-deny-cannibalize your Medicare and Social Security. Send money now or you will be helpless and hopeless

My father had been sending money he could not afford to these organizations. A month before he died he said Clinton is going to take away our Social Security. I tried to convince him that was not true, but he wouldn’t listen.

Is there anything more despicable than using fear to con money from elderly people under the guise of being Christian? Janet Callen Coeur d’Alene

President’s statement suitably slick

The article on the Clinton defense of fund raising is headlined, “Clinton: There was no quid pro quo on contributions.”

Let’s look at what President Clinton is quoted as actually having said: “I don’t believe you can find any evidence of the fact that I had changed government policy solely because of a contribution.”

Did he say it didn’t happen? No. Did he say the evidence doesn’t exist? No.

Did he say you probably couldn’t find the evidence? Yes.

Was this a casual, ill-considered, off-the-cuff answer? Perhaps, but the article also says that Clinton spent the morning with aides and lawyers (he is one himself, as am I) reviewing possible questions.

Was the question of whether or not government policy was influenced by contributions one the president, his aides and lawyers thought might be asked? Was it a question to which an answer was carefully crafted? Is the Pope Catholic?

But it’s really worse than that. His own well-chosen words (or his lawyer’s) were that he had not changed government policy solely because of a contribution. He could have said, were it true, that no government policy was in any way influenced by a contribution. Few policies imaginable, however bad, are so lacking in any redeeming virtue, however slight, that it could not be said a contribution was not the sole reason the policy was adopted.

So what did Clinton really say about the influence of contributions on government policy? Very, very little. Paul J. Allison Spokane