To the editor:

I continue to be astounded by the double standard that exists in our state's judicial system. In an Aug. 24 article detailing the sexual exploits of ex-teacher's aide Marlene Hazel with her 14-year-old neighbor, it was reported that she was sentenced to three years probation by District Judge Stewart Bell.

Judge Bell noted that Ms. Hazel had no prior criminal record and also ordered her to perform community service and notify any future employers of her conviction if she ever tries to work with children.

Why was Ms. Hazel given only probation and not required to serve time or register as a sex offender? I have read plenty of articles in the Review-Journal about men who were given stiff prison terms, even if they had no prior criminal record. Could it be that if the gender was different, we would be reading a different outcome for the defendant? Here, an adult woman was accused of having sex with a boy more than once and she doesn't have to register or serve prison time. Where's the equality?

In federal court, if someone was convicted of, let's say, using the Internet to arrange to meet with a minor but they never actually met, thus having no physical contact, there would be a mandatory prison sentence and registration as a sex offender. This would occur regardless of whether the defendant had any prior criminal record.

Ms. Hazel didn't just have a physical encounter. It was determined it happened more than once, so it wasn't aberrant behavior. Forget that she is a married mother who is also accused of having sex with the boy's stepfather. At minimum, she needs to be registered as a sex offender. If you were the parent of a teenage boy, wouldn't you want to know if this woman lived in your neighborhood?

Possibly the district attorney's office is to blame for reducing the charge from statutory sexual seduction to annoyance of a minor. Maybe her attorney, Bill Terry, needs to be congratulated for cutting such a sweetheart deal. Regardless, Ms. Hazel should be quite thankful she's a free woman. No wonder Mr. Terry had no comment.

Stephen Detrick

LAS VEGAS

Casino seizure?

To the editor:

What a great deal Harrah's Entertainment made by purchasing the Imperial Palace's 18.5 acres ("Harrah's keeps buying," Aug. 23). Only the Barbary Coast, with its 4.4 acres, stands in the way of Harrah's extending its holdings to Flamingo Road.

If only Harrah's could acquire the old Barbary Coast, there would be no limit to the options they would have. Unfortunately, Boyd Gaming said the property is not for sale. In another time, that decision would be the end of the story: "Property owner refuses to sell."

Now, however, with the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision regarding eminent domain, there is an opportunity for our Clark County commissioners to intervene and turn the property over to Harrah's. If there was ever an opportunity to increase our tax base exponentially, this is it.

I am quite sure that former Las Vegas Mayor Jan Jones, now a Harrah's executive, would be delighted to make the presentation.

edward r. duffy

LAS VEGAS

Free ride to freedom

To the editor:

Recruiters for the armed forces are preying on our young, according to Hugh Jackson's Sunday commentary, "Ready for school?"

To check out the credentials of this concerned father, I visited his Web site, www.lasvegasgleaner.com. If you did so, you would find that Jackson is an unabashed progressive, an avowed liberal with Web links to Air America and other liberal causes. He hates President Bush, the rich, corporations and everything about America.

Mr. Jackson wants the government to pay for his children's education, his children's meals, their books and recreation. But he is offended if that same government attempts to ask his children to serve their nation.

His 17-year-old was home alone during the summer while Mr. Jackson and the boy's mother were at work. Gee, his kid could have been watching TV, or playing computer games, or dealing drugs, or robbing a 7-Eleven instead of talking to that awful recruiter with all those gaudy ribbons on his chest.

Mr. Jackson applauds the efforts of Democrats to make it as difficult as possible to recruit young people into the armed forces. I guess he thinks the kids will learn about the price of freedom in their history classes, like how we killed all those American Indians and stole their lands, how we brought all those slaves over from Africa and how the government hates poor people and kills all those terrorists just for their oil.

If he wants his little liberals to be safe from the nasty government, then take them out of government schools and pay for a private education, maybe in China or North Korea. In the meantime, he shouldn't be looking for a free ride to freedom.

D.J. Carson

LAS VEGAS

Medical school politics

To the editor:

Las Vegas has by far the largest population in the state. Yet our medical school is at the University of Nevada, Reno.

I remember when I was a faculty member and John Lilley became the president of UNR. He came to University Medical Center, where the southern clinical faculty of the medical school is housed, and gave a talk that was billed as a morale builder. In essence, he said the power of the medical school is at UNR and will remain there.

It is unfortunate that medical school students do their basic science studies in Reno, yet have to spend as many as two years learning clinical medicine in Las Vegas at UMC. These students have to pay for their room and board in Las Vegas.

I see no reason why Las Vegas should not house the entire medical school. Las Vegas has a large enough population to provide excellent clinical education. General surgery, obstetrics, internal medicine and pediatric residencies are located here. UNLV could easily provide basic sciences for the first two years. Also, many physicians and other benefactors for the medical school don't want to endow a school located in Reno. Why should they? If the medical school is for all of Nevada, why does the medical school letterhead have a large star on Reno in the map?

This is simply a matter of power and money. Consolidating the school at UNLV only makes sense. Las Vegas already has a dental school, nursing school and law school as well as studies in ancillary medical fields. As long as the school is split on north-south boundaries, it will never reach its potential.

It would be a shame to bring in an outside medical school to run or "share" the operation of an academic medical center in downtown Las Vegas.

Richard Litt, M.D.

LAS VEGAS