Posted on 09/14/2006 9:59:46 AM PDT by njyaf
To the Editor:
In reviewing the Denver Post's ethics policy we came across this statement:
"When significant inaccuracies are committed by an editorial employee, or a pattern of errors in stories is detected, a department head or above should be informed of the problem immediately."
With your policy as our guide we are contacting you regarding a recent editorial published on Monday, September 11th, regarding crime in the City of Denver. In it you mock the valid concerns of those who correctly argue that Denver did not do as well as other major cities in combating crime during the last twelve years. In fact the murder rate increased in Denver while it dropped nearly everywhere else.
You claim that the public did not notice this increase. Well, perhaps among the people you associate with it went unnoticed, because a rise in violent crime works its way up from the bottom. Oh it will get to your level, but only after much pain is suffered by those below you. Perhaps you should listen better, or at any rate read the uniform crime reports published by the FBI.
You go on to aggressively defend the practice of plea bargaining. This is the practice in which offenders - even violent offenders - plead guilty to lesser charges to make more serious charges go away. In return for their guilty pleas they get less time - or even no time - in prison.
You ask your readers to accept that this is just "how the criminal justice system really works." You fret that "voters could come to believe that plea agreements are inherently bad," and argue that "to the contrary, the community often benefits" from plea bargains.
Here's a figure for you to think about. 15 murders a day. 15 murders are committed each day in the United States by convicted criminals under government supervision - on probation or parole or some other scheme that gets them out of jail and back into the community. This figure is from a National Center for Policy study.
It makes a prosecutor who brags about his conviction rate look pretty silly, doesn't it?
Another study, followed in the Boston Globe and conducted by the U.S. Justice Department, found that during a 17-month period criminals released "under supervision" murdered 13,200 people in the United States and committed more than 200,000 other violent crimes. Almost all of these human beings with lives and hopes and loved ones where murdered by criminals convicted through the use of the plea bargain.
Tell us again how this is a benefit to the community?
Sure it serves the prosecutor well enough. He can point to an inflated conviction rate and then go off to the voters and tell them what a great job he's doing for them. But what about the poor guy or gal who gets murdered? 13,200 of them - 17 months.
If 13,200 people died in a 17-month period from food poisoning because the nation's meat inspection system wasn't up to par - would you tell them that's just how the system works? Would you tell them to adjust to it and be afraid that they might think it "inherently bad"?
No, you'd get mad. You'd write about it and tell them to reform the system. But newspapers like yours seem to have a softer spot for murderers than they do for business.
You don't know how bad the system is until you look into the eyes of a victim robbed of justice in a plea bargain. There was this young mother with a beautiful baby. The baby's uncle minded the child and one day the uncle's friend visited. While the uncle ran to the store, the baby was sexually and physically assaulted - left with brain damage, blind, one leg with permanent nerve damage.
The cops did their job, he was caught and arrested. Then the lawyers stepped in, and in their game struck a plea bargain that dropped the sex charge (so he wouldn't experience the stigma of having to register as a sex offender) and left him eligible for parole after serving just two years in prison.
So now the young mother relives her pain attending hearings to fight to keep the man who destroyed her baby behind bars. But he'll get out by 2007. And in the meantime he gets an education and training and job placement.
For her, it's the sand pit. Her life is set. She will grow old caring for her wounded child and on her death bed she will worry about what will become of him when she's gone.
The lawyers, the prosecutors, the system - and the newspapers that defend it - have much to answer for.
Sincerely,
Jim Logue
Board of Directors
The Campaign for Victims of Crime
Three total posts on FR?
You might ask the mod to correct your gramatical error:
there should be a THEIR there.
If the editors have any sense of honest debate, they would publish it intact as an op-ed.
their, Their, THEIR!
LOL -- this is fun. Let me first correct my spelling error.
grammatical!
Well said!!
People who can't spell look like idoits.
Joking aside, that's an excellent letter.
BUMP
Good letter, but not all plea bargains are bad. Sometimes they're necessary.
I do not believe in plea bargining at all. If you can be proven to have committed the crime, then you should serve the full sentence for it. This plea-bargain is a cop out for the D.A., and is a total farce in a lot of cases. If the D.A. can't get a conviction, get another D.A. that can.
Never met a witness that couldn't be forced to testify. If the DA stays after it, they'll tell all when the time comes, or put them in jail until they do. Amazing things happen when you are looking at a year or two in the slammer for comtempt of court.
gramatical = grammatical? but who pays attention to spelling and grammar?
SEMPER FI
The problem is not getting them to testify. Of course you can get them to do that. The problem is that they are a bad witness. For example, your witness has a prior conviction for something involving dishonesty. Will the jury then not believe them? Also, child witnesses are particularly difficult. Sometimes, it is better to make a deal and get something than take the risk of losing and the defendant walking.
LOL
I like this little test:
http://www.okcupid.com/tests/take?testid=14457200288064322170
Most FReepers do extremely well.
Bump.
English Genius
You scored 100% Beginner, 100% Intermediate, 100% Advanced, and 93% Expert!
You did so extremely well, even I can't find a word to describe your excellence! You have the uncommon intelligence necessary to understand things that most people don't. You have an extensive vocabulary, and you're not afraid to use it properly! Way to go!
Thank you so much for taking my test. I hope you enjoyed it!
For the complete Answer Key, visit my blog: http://shortredhead78.blogspot.com/.
My test tracked 4 variables How you compared to other people your age and gender:
You scored higher than 57% on Beginner
You scored higher than 33% on Intermediate
You scored higher than 65% on Advanced
You scored higher than 77% on Expert
I know that someone did. My Dad was a grammar nazi. When we watch TV, he is constantly correcting someone's grammar. At the age of 56, I am noticing that my spelling is going to hell, and my sentence structure and syntax is eroding as well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.