Send prosecutor back to law school
To the editor:
In response to your April 9 report, "Attorney seeking clarification of law: Convicted man's wife recanted beating claim":
The details of the appeal to the Nevada Supreme Court aside, I almost choked on my lunch when I read one of the statements by Henderson Deputy City Attorney Lin Ng.
Reporter Carri Geer Thevenot wrote: "Ng also expressed concern that the ruling suggested by (defense attorney Al) Lasso would take victims back to the time when they had the burden of proving their abusers' guilt. 'As public policy, we would ask this court not to do that,' Ng said."
I remember reading something about proving the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. This is what the prosecution is tasked to do.
The prosecution in criminal matters has the full force of the judiciary to seek justice when the need arises, unlike the defendant, who must rely on a private attorney or, heaven forbid, the public defender. When these elements combine in a court of law, the expectation is justice.
However, when a city attorney has such a lack of understanding about who is responsible for the burden of proof, much less attempting to make public policy through the judiciary, the system has broken down.
I can't fault only the local prosecutors, for it was the U.S. Justice Department that led the way with its legal opinions on "enhanced interrogation techniques."
The moral of the story is that the prosecutors have become the persecutors.
I truly fear for the republic.
Ron Magallanes
HENDERSON
Minimum wage hikes
To the editor:
State legislators and the public should beware that putting minimum wage increases on autopilot -- without any mechanism for stopping the increases during a recession -- is an extremely misguided policy that will yield disastrous results for vulnerable employees in the state ("Wage jump comes in July," April 8 Review-Journal).
In Nevada, employers who are seeing demand for their products and services dropping dramatically will have to stomach yet another wage increase in July, and will be forced to cut employee hours and eliminate some jobs entirely.
Decades of economic research predicted that there would be an increase in job losses following minimum wage hikes, particularly among vulnerable groups like minority teens and adults without a high school diploma. This job loss is only exacerbated in a weak economy.
The unintended consequence of reckless, autopilot minimum wage hikes is job loss for the least-skilled workers at a time when they need help the most. A job at the previous minimum wage is much better than none at a higher rate.
Tim Miller
WASHINGTON, D.C.
THE WRITER IS A SPOKESMAN FOR THE EMPLOYMENT POLICIES INSTITUTE.
Genie, meet bottle
To the editor:
It is interesting how folks with an agenda so readily ignore the facts. In Saturday's Review-Journal, Bob McKee wrote a letter rebutting a previous letter, saying that "no one is suggesting the United States completely eliminate its ability to possess or use nuclear weapons in defense of this country."
Apparently, Mr. McKee missed his president's comments in Europe this month, when he proclaimed: "Today I state clearly and with conviction America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons."
The president's statement seems perfectly clear -- and naive -- to me.
Dick Laird
LAS VEGAS
National interest
To the editor:
A number of Republicans (and a few Democrats, too) are preparing to fight Defense Secretary Robert Gates on his proposed budget for the Pentagon. It seems that he wants to stop production of a $140 million airplane at the current total of 187 planes. He would like to use the money instead to procure things that would actually help our soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq -- things like improved body armor and vehicles that are more resistant to improvised explosive devices.
The F-22 airplane has never been used in a combat operation. Not in Iraq, not in Afghanistan, not anywhere. We have 187 of the darned things and they not only haven't been used, but they are so advanced that we don't even sell them to our "friends."
Mr. Gates wants to build the F-35, a plane which has been and is currently being used by our military, and one which can be produced and sold to other countries. In fact, he wants a total order of 2,443 of them.
So why would Congress object? Well, because parts for the F-22 are made in some congressmen's local districts, and God forbid that money gets spent in some other congressman's district.
Isn't it about time that Congress acted in the best interests of the United States and not just in the best interests of specific congressmen?
David Adams
LAS VEGAS
