THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1997, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Friday, February 21, 1997 TAG: 9702211086
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A12 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Letter
LENGTH: 141 lines
Yet another ``what went wrong with Nauticus'' story and no mention of the Cousteau Society. Norfolk should have abandoned this idea after Monsieur Cousteau backed out and took with him its international recognition and validation. We might not be having this controversy today with a late-model Calypso parked in Nauticus' driveway.
I'm inclined to agree with Councilman Wright. Spin Nauticus off to Disney or Six Flags and let the entertainment experts come up with a novel theme. I'm sure we'll all be staggered by the forthcoming creativity of its new owners, Norfolk Public Works! Live demonstrations of low tide and the life cycle of a barnacle? Pet the jellyfish perhaps?
Please . . . no more IMAX and no more aquariums.
Thomas C. Brown
Norfolk, Feb. 11, 1997 SIMPSON TRIAL Jurors don't understand the function of verdicts
On the Feb. 10 ``Nightline,'' I heard a Simpson civil juror say the group decided to make the punitive-damages award so high because - in her own words - ``we wanted to send a message'' to everyone listening that ``we are not going to tolerate'' the brutal butchering and murder of an unarmed single mother and her houseguest.
This kind of talk strikes me as unadulterated lunacy. Since when has the tolerability of such conduct been an open question? Do the Ten Commandments - not to mention California's penal laws and its death penalty - not speak clearly enough on such matters? Or did she perhaps think she was striking a valuable blow for general deterrence by sending the ominous-sounding warning?
This ridiculous ``explanation'' shows how little trust we can safely place in jurors' ability to sensibly process such arguments about the supposed communicative function of verdicts. Judges and legislators should place far greater restrictions on the use of closing arguments by lawyers about ``sending a message,'' and reserve them for cases where they make some sort of logical sense - such as cases where the defendant tries to minimize the seriousness or immorality of his conduct, perhaps after admitting it, in some arguably gray area of law and morality.
But in a case involving a brutal murder, which the defendant denies committing, persuading jurors to base the size of their verdict on the intensity of their desire to ``send a message about the intolerability of murder'' will inevitably lead to results that are even more arbitrary and capricious than punitive damages already tend to be. I am reminded of a real-life criminal case in December 1994 when an Oklahoma jury forewoman explained that they had recommended that a convicted sex offender serve a prison term of 30,000 years - 300 centuries! - because they wanted to ``send a message to the offender that we are not going to tolerate it.''
Before handing a standard of judgment like that over to a jury, we might just as well tell them: ``Pick a verdict that will match the depth of your love for life, freedom, truth, justice and your mother.''
James Joseph Duane
Associate professor
Regent Law School
Virginia Beach, Feb. 11, 1997 PARENTAL RIGHTS Home schooling is not extremist
In your Feb. 2 article contrasting the differences between Virginia Lt. Gov. Donald S. Beyer Jr. and Attorney General James S. Gilmore III, it became obvious that Beyer considers home schoolers to be an extreme element in our society. Home-school support of the parental-rights amendment to the Virginia Constitution, according to Beyer, is a point for invalidating the amendment.
As a home-school father, I must express profound disagreement with the lieutenant governor's stated perspective. I am a good American, having recently completed an 11-year Navy career as a pilot flying over Hampton Roads, the Mediterranean Sea and northern Iraq. My family is good, it is strong and it is mainstream.
I would hope that the lieutenant governor's comments were only in the mold of typical Democrat demagoguery, so in vogue these days, and not reflective of his true views.
Dan Boelsche
Virginia Beach, Feb. 17, 1997 THE ARTS Museum aid request is too low
Your otherwise commendable editorial (Feb. 13) on state spending for local ``amenities'' observes that the proposed $150,000 in additional aid to the Chrysler Museum ``is modest beside the $7 million appropriated for the state's Virginia Museum of Fine Arts in Richmond.''
In contrast to the Virginia Museum aid, the Chrysler's request is not so much ``modest'' as ridiculous. Whether the indicated disparity is attributable to the General Assembly, the Hampton Roads legislative delegation or the museum itself, there is no excuse for tolerating such inequity of treatment between these two fine institutions.
This region for too long has been content to beg Richmond for ``modest'' requests rather than rage against being treated as a third-world country. Your editorial only contributes to the malaise by taking so mild a position.
Ross C. Reeves
Norfolk, Feb. 13, 1997 BLACK HISTORY It's more than rap, sports and protests
It was interesting to note the responses of students on how they thought Black History Month should be celebrated (TeenSpeak, Feb. 7). My input would be to enlighten the public about the history and contributions of African Americans.
Little recognition is given to Dr. Hale Williams, who performed the first successful open-heart surgery; Dr. Percy Julian, who created ways of synthesizing cortisone and a drug used in the treatment of glaucoma; and Dr. Charles Drew, who developed a process for processing and storing blood plasma.
When gas masks, fire extinguishers, mops and ironing boards are used, little thought is given to the inventor being African American. The traffic light can be attributed to an African-American inventor.
There is much more to the participation of African Americans than sports, rap music, marches and protests. As a final Black History project, I would assign everyone the task of learning not the words to ``We Shall Overcome,'' but the African anthem, ``Lift Every Voice And Sing.''
J. W. Boyd
Portsmouth, Feb. 14, 1997 EDUCATION A mixed message about drugs
The DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) program was made for adolescents. It teaches them the difficulties of peer pressure and the involvement of drugs and alcohol. It's taught me that if I ever found any illegal contraband, to take it to an authorized person.
In my opinion, it really doesn't look like it's being enforced when it comes down to Jaime Driggers' case. Why, his very own principal said, ``When he was readmitted to school, I told him that turning in the marijuana seeds was a good thing, but not to do it again.''
If you really think about it, shouldn't teachers and principals alike be required to take the DARE program? They obviously don't realize what is being taught.
From a 12-year-old's point of view, we're getting three different messages here:
A. If you find any illegal substance, turn it in.
B. It's illegal. Just let it sit there for someone else (suppose a young child?) to find and potentially use.
C. Just ignore it as if it's not there.
What's the point of trying to teach us right from wrong when we're getting mixed messages?
Courtney L. Garrenton
Age 12
Chesapeake, Feb. 18, 1997