August 19, 1989
I can understand that Stacey Toran's friends are upset by the report that Toran was drunk, but why not a comment from someone that, "He could have killed an innocent bystander!" To kill oneself is bad enough, to endanger others is inexcusable. JAMES T. HUMBERD La Quinta
May 26, 1985
This letter is in response to your editorial (May 17), addressing the terrible tragedy in Philadelphia. The failure of your editorial to focus on the most important issue is alarming. The fact that innocent children were killed by the police action was not mentioned. Since when is it appropriate for the police to jeopardize, not to mention cause the death of, children in a siege situation? The fact that the adults, who belong to the organization that was so abhored by the community, didn't seek to protect their children is no justification for the police to conduct themselves in a manner that further jeopardizes the lives of innocent children.
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
March 16, 1997
Robert B. McLaren, in his March 9 "Orange County Voices" column opposing the death penalty, presents the crux of the abolitionist case on four grounds: unfair application; the absence of a clear deterrent effect; the possibility an innocent person may be executed; and the glorification of acts of violence in the larger culture by example of the state's administration of the death penalty. My answer is we must keep the death penalty both to deprive the murderer of his life and protect the innocent from his depredations.
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
June 5, 1990
So now U.S. justice means--since it takes too long to find out if a defendant's actions warrant the death penalty--let's just "hang 'em" right away whether he's guilty or innocent ("Finding the Fair Interval Between Sentencing, Death," by Gerald F. Uelman, Opinion, May 27). The real issue to the dilemma seems to be how to shorten the eight years it usually takes between imposition of a death sentence and execution without sacrificing the innocent? Under the special committee's recommendations (appointed by Chief Justice William Rehnquist)
October 1, 2004
Re "The Enemy's Shock and Awe," Commentary, Sept. 28: Michael Keane is so right about our despicable, "gruesome," "implacable" and "barbaric" enemies who behead innocent and not-so-innocent participants in the Iraq conflagration. They are horrible human beings to subject us to their video perfidy in an effort to frighten us. Why can't they be more like we are? Why don't they spend billions of dollars on cruise missiles and aircraft carriers to launch them and billions more on bombers to rain terror on the cities and towns of their enemies?
October 1, 1989
Ellen Goodman's "Oil Slick Is Starting to Cover Barney and It Doesn't Scrub Off," (Op-Ed Page, Sept. 21) doesn't wash. Comparing Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Barney Frank to an innocent coastline smeared by a mean oil slick is nonsense. Barney Frank, who made a career out of moralistic preaching against ethical misbehavior among the Republicans, is not an innocent bystander. He solicited the troubled brew in which he now flounders. Frank has done a disservice to his constituents, to his party, to the House of Representatives, and to the cause of responsible government to which he claimed to be loyal for so many years.