Text Size:
A|
A|
A
Email
PrintState Supreme Court reform? How interesting
I read with interest Professor Bruce Ledewitz's Aug. 20 Forum piece ("For a New Order in the Court"), regarding his "platform for reform of the state Supreme Court."
According to published reports, Mr. Ledewitz has inferred that Chief Justice Ralph J. Cappy pressured Dean Donald Guter of the Duquesne Law School to cancel the statewide tour he had planned to present his "platform." I can personally attest that allegation is untrue. As one who attended a very pleasant luncheon with Dean Guter and Chief Justice Cappy, at which Mr. Ledewitz's program was discussed along with many topics, I can state unequivocally that there was no such pressure. Since Mr. Ledewitz did not attend this luncheon and the dean has confirmed that there was no pressure, I would hope that the professor would correct himself on this point.
I would also hope that when Mr. Ledewitz formally begins his campaign for the state Supreme Court, which despite his fervent denials can be the only explanation for his quest for publicity at any cost, he fully appreciates that integrity and a strong sense of fairness are quintessential qualities in any judge or judicial candidate.
JUDGE KATE FORD ELLIOTT
Downtown
New court rules on police actions are fair and transparent
As the chair of the Criminal Procedural Rules Committee of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, I am writing to correct the inaccuracies and misrepresentations made in your Aug. 20 editorial "Court as Dictator: Police Actions Curtailed by Obscure Edict."
The rule in question did not come as an obscure edict. Put into effect on Aug. 1, it came at the end of a fully public process in a public action by the Supreme Court.
Further, to suggest that any criminal rule would require a police officer to permit a dangerous or impaired person to be released and put back on the streets is preposterous.
Nothing could be more untrue. The rule allows for people charged with certain misdemeanors to be released after arrest, rather than held for arraignment. Before release, they are given a summons to appear in court.
The fundamental purpose of this rule -- as with all rule changes affecting criminal procedures -- was to improve the administration of justice. Release of nonviolent defendants in these relatively minor cases was recommended to the Supreme Court by our committee to alleviate unreasonable burdens on police and magisterial district judges.
The ability to issue a summons rather than taking an individual into custody enables police to get back on patrol promptly rather than spending extended time off the street waiting to testify at a preliminary arraignment.
It is important to emphasize that an arrest is still made in these cases, and carries exactly the same weight under the law as when a person is taken into custody. Police still have the full authority to take a person charged with a misdemeanor into custody if that individual poses a threat of harm or violence, or if there are grounds to believe he or she may not appear for court.
The Criminal Procedural Rules Committee -- currently a panel of 16 Pennsylvania prosecutors, defense lawyers and judges who serve without pay and advise the Supreme Court on ways to improve litigation procedures in criminal courts -- recommended this change. It was part of a package of rule changes which an ever-growing number of police departments and magisterial district judges have requested over the years.
The changes were publicized in the Pennsylvania Bulletin, the official publication vehicle for state governmental bodies and not "an obscure journal," as described in the editorial. Public comment was requested.
The changes also were published on the court's Web page and copies were distributed to the state District Attorneys Association, the Special Courts Judges Association of Pennsylvania, various legislators and other statewide organizations.
At the end of the process, the Supreme Court approved the changes. To suggest that the court acted as a "dictator" is preposterous.
NICHOLAS J. NASTASI
Attorney at law
Philadelphia
Not in this church
In response to the Aug. 20 letter ("Catholics Need to Have an Open Discussion About Female Priests") from two Catholic priests in the Diocese of Pittsburgh, whom I highly respect for the good priestly service they have offered to the people of Western Pennsylvania, clarification is needed, since much of what was said is erroneous and misleading.
First, the ordination of men to the priesthood has nothing to do with theology degrees, Scripture studies and the level of pastoral ministry exercised. The leadership of lay faithful in all aspects of society only enriches the community.
Second, the new ministries the priests refer to in their letter are not actually new. The aggiornamento or renewal Pope John XXIII spoke about in convening the Second Vatican Council was restoring the many institutions and ministries that had disappeared over the centuries. The church has never ordained women to the priesthood.
Third, I know of no church official who has ever intimidated those who want to see women ordained as priests, unless if by "intimidation" one means a clear defense of the teaching of the church. The role of the magisterium is to teach, protect and guard the apostolic tradition of the church. Correction is a part of teaching.
Fourth, the Common Ground Initiative the late Cardinal Bernadin supported was not to discuss how dissent can be lived in the church but rather to confirm what all Catholics believe. The cardinal was trying to unite dissidents to discuss where they did conform to church teaching, not to entertain their dissidence.
In conclusion, there is always legitimate discussion on how the church can do a better job teaching the faith and living out the Gospel mandate. When discussing the deposit of faith, believers are interested in how that faith can touch their lives and bring them closer to God. Dialogue should not consider how we change that deposit but, rather, how to apply it.
REV. JAMES A. WEHNER
Director of Priestly Formation
Diocese of Pittsburgh
Downtown
Too partisan
I was extremely disappointed to receive a piece of Democratic propaganda, funded by taxpayer dollars, in the mail recently from my congressman, Rep. Mike Doyle, D-Forest Hills. This glossy, seemingly expensive piece of literature blasted both President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress. What troubles me about the piece is that Rep. Doyle and other elected officials can get away with being so arrogantly partisan in literature that is paid for by their congressional budgets and deemed as "official business."
We live in a country in which many people truly could be described as moderate in their views. Although I am an elected Republican state committeeman and active in the party, I know that both Democrats and Republicans have flaws. We need to work together in a bipartisan effort to improve our city, region, state and country.
Rep. Doyle is not the only elected official locally who sends out this type of material, but his did strike me as being far too biased in nature to be deemed "official business" and paid for by my own tax dollars.
TOM BAKER
Greenfield
Compare, contrast
Two opinion pieces on the Lebanon-Israel war appeared in the Post-Gazette on Aug. 20. The contrast was striking and informative.
Your columnist Jack Kelly ("Israel Lost") complained that Israel failed to win because of "timidity" and urged it prepare for the future by getting "its military and political houses in order." No word here about death, suffering and what might have been done to avert the conflict.
In marked contrast, two physicians, Drs. Hussein Tawbi and Naftali Kaminski ("Peace Begins in the Heart"), wrote about the human side of the war, the cost in lives, injuries, property and displacement. In their Forum cover piece, they emphasized that there can be no winners from such conflicts. They urge us to prepare for peace, not war.
Mr. Kelly will dismiss them as idealist; he is wrong. These men know the Mideast and are all too familiar with suffering. The Mideast -- and the United States -- needs fewer Kellys and more Tawbis and Kaminskis.
MICHAEL J. ZIGMOND
Squirrel Hill
Even the best security cannot stop all terrorists
Long before 9/11 and the current conflicts, there was what was called then a security expert on TV showing the various ways explosives could be hidden. There were neckties and belts molded with plastic explosives that looked all too real. Same was done with other wearing apparel, like shoes with explosive soles, and the list went on. His premise was that it is virtually impossible to detect the variety of these "bombs" regardless of security measures.
There is nothing from the billions spent on security to the efforts of our governmental agencies that is going to deter those dedicated to harming this and other countries. We can only rely on these security experts to thwart these attempts.
Sadly, my opinion is that sooner or later, another 9/11 will happen. One can only hope that the incident will not be nuclear related.
DON OPACIC
Franklin Park
