Letters to the editor
Share with others:
Our legal system should be about truth
Your June 4 editorial "Speak Up," in which you (predictably) slam the recent Supreme Court decision regarding Miranda rights and the Fifth Amendment makes me wonder if you ever stop to consider the bigger picture and the context in which laws actually are applied. This editorial is incredibly narrowly focused, exclusively on the rights of the accused (and in this case, the convicted ... a murderer).
Where in your editorial is even one word of the rights of others concerned? What about the "right to life" (of the person murdered) which was violated by the person convicted in the case? What about the rights of the rest of us to find and know the truth? You don't seem too concerned about those, only the "right to remain silent" (even if you are guilty). The objective of our legal system should be to find the truth (at least that's the way it started out, but it has evolved into a contest between opposing legal teams).
Miranda clearly puts up a huge barrier to the pursuit of justice through the truth. The recent court decision slightly lowers that barrier. You might have had a gripe if the court had thrown out Miranda entirely (although I would not have wept). It appears to me that the justices struck a good balance between protecting the rights of the accused and enabling our law enforcement and justice systems to do their jobs. They should be applauded.
RON DALESIO
Franklin Park
Not quite there
The Supreme Court needs no help when it comes to diluting constitutional protection against self-incrimination. Your editorial "Speak Up" (June 4) comments on the affirmative procedure that will now be necessary for a suspect in police custody to invoke Miranda rights.
You, however, take the Thompkins decision one step further when you refer to a citizen's rights under Miranda. The court hasn't gone there -- yet.
MARY A. McDONOUGH
Schenley Farms
No to instant replay
Your editorial "Perfect Crime: A Pitcher Was Robbed of His Sterling Moment" (June 6), pertaining to Armando Galarraga's near-perfect game, appropriately credits both the pitcher and the umpire, Jim Joyce, with handling the controversy in a gracious and professional manner. However, your comment that "the matter should not end there" and that instant replay should be revisited is not a great idea.
As the high-tech world continues to control our lives so that face-to-face conversations are in the past and electronic accuracy gives us false confidence, I would hope that we would continue to rely on human responses. None of us is perfect and we have to be able to adjust to the consequences of less than perfect decisions. I'm sure that if every pitch in that game by Mr. Galarraga were reviewed, there would be some questionable calls by the umpire.
The game is over, both the pitcher and the umpire have received an unusual amount of press, and Mr. Galarraga probably will have benefited more from the bad call than if he had been credited with the "perfect game."
Instant replay adds time to a game and certainly creates more opportunities for commercials. In my opinion, it does not enhance the quality or excitement of the game.
SYLVESTER DAMIANOS
Edgewood
It's history now
Wrong! Your editorial plea to overturn the outcome of the Armando Galarraga near-perfect game is not the right thing to do ("Perfect Crime," June 6). The commissioner was right. You should not change the rules to fit the circumstances and set a dangerous precedent.
You cite the George Brett incident, which was a misinterpretation of the rules. There is no rule to overturn an umpire`s call. Had that play occurred in the middle innings, would we be having this discussion?
A sidebar here is the lesson that has been learned about the class and dignity of all concerned. And give the ump kudos for having the integrity, considering the situation, to call the play the way he saw it in live time without the benefit of the different angles and many replays that were shown.
First Published June 10, 2010 12:00 am
