Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: TUESDAY, August 24, 1993 TAG: 9310260301
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A4 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
Two defendants had their day in court on Aug. 4, but was justice done?
The two defendants were on trial in separate jurisdictions. One was operating her car in such a manner that her boyfriend was killed. Evidence showed both had been drinking before the accident. She was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter and sentenced to five years in prison, with all but 30 days suspended. She will serve only 30 days!
The second defendant was on trial for a petit larceny, a subsequent offense, for taking $6.98 worth of merchandise from a local drugstore. Keep in mind this was not done at gunpoint and no one's life was even threatened, much less lost. But nonetheless, 12 jurors, 12 witnesses, two attorneys, two bailiffs, one clerk and one judge spent almost two days in a circuit courtroom, supported at taxpayers' expense. Most importantly, the jury gave the defendant three years to serve.
No one needs to be reminded of the recent alcohol-related tragedies in our area and the subsequent outcry concerning habitual offenders who still drive. But in looking at the two cases and the outcomes, does anyone else see something wrong with this picture? Are we going to use the limited resources of the judicial system to better protect our lives on the highways of this commonwealth, or to make Roanoke a safer place to sell a toothbrush? Whatever happened to the punishment fitting the crime?
BONNIE W. APGAR
ROANOKE
Put up or shut up
ECONOMISTS rarely agree on anything, but they do seem to be in total accord on one subject. Our ever-growing, spiraling budget deficit is jeopardizing the economic future of this country.
It seems apparent that our government is incapable of exerting any form of fiscal responsibility. The American public is largely to blame. The average citizen feels a marked detachment from the deficit and thus places it low on his list of priorities. This feeling is conveyed to representatives in Congress, who become unwilling to cast a shadow over their political futures by cutting popular spending programs.
The Democrats at least seem willing to make a start, despite avid opposition by almost every Republican in Congress. The current budget package, while far from perfect, seems to be the first serious attempt in decades to slow the growth of the burgeoning deficit.
The Republicans criticize Clinton's budget for not containing enough spending cuts. But when asked by Clinton to submit their own cuts, they could not list a single specific cut that wasn't enumerated by the Democrats. They sought to avoid individual responsibility by advocating broad-based caps that have proved ineffective in the past. Clearly, they have no plan. It is time for them to either put up or shut up.
TIMOTHY N. TRIBBETT
BLACKSBURG
Elect Allen for a change
DEMOCRATS never change. The unparalleled growth of state and federal government is bankrupting this country. If we are ever going to control the size of government and control the portion of our income that goes to government, we must elect leaders who have a sincere desire to control government. Voting for Mary Sue Terry in November would continue the tax-and-spend policies of Robb and Wilder.
If voters sincerely want change in government with less taxes and less spending, they should vote for George Allen.
G. DAVID NIXON
ROANOKE
Taking the money and running
RECENTLY, Mary Sue Terry, in the course of her debate with George Allen, strongly repudiated President Bill Clinton's tax plan. Hooray for Mary Sue! Does this mean she will not support Sen. Chuck Robb's bid for re-election? Does this mean that Robb might not support her bid for the governor's mansion?
Ms. Terry proudly garnered contributions of $150,000 recently at a fund- raising event in her honor where Hillary Clinton and Tipper Gore were the main headliners. Now that Ms. Terry is opposed to Clinton, will she return that money?
I'm telling you, folks, it's not easy being in Democratic Party politics these days!
EDGAR A. HOWARD
ABINGDON
Rounding up the profits
I WOULD like to hear a response from the oil-and-gasoline retailers as to how they are going to implement the 4.3 cents per gallon federal gas tax just passed by Congress. I guarantee you it is not going to favor the consumer. Here's why:
At a station on Route 419, the price for a gallon of regular gas is 99.9 cents per gallon. If I add the 4.3 cents per gallon, the cost should be 104.2 cents. Right? Well, I`ll bet the price per gallon will not be 104.2 but will be 104.9. Guess who will benefit from the .7 cent per gallon? The gasoline retailer and the oil companies. Who gets stuck with the extra cost? We do. In effect, the cost of the gasoline tax to the consumer is not going to be 4.3 cents, but 5.0 cents per gallon.
RAYMOND L. RUSMISEL
ROANOKE
Injustice in America
REGARDING the case of the DeBoers losing 21/2-year-old Jessica to her birth parents:
It is one of the cruelest injustices that the American legal system has ever enacted. This is America? Inhuman, unsympathetic, unfeeling and whatever?
This is a case of a child's rights, not the biological parents' rights. Jessica cannot speak for herself as did Kimberly Mays, who is 14 years old. Jessica is too young, and a picture tells a thousand words.
Let's stop this cruelty!
MARION G. WARD
MONETA
by CNB