Some people deserve the ultimate penalty

To the editor:

Nancy Hart's argument that we could better use the money spent on death penalty cases was interesting (Sunday letter to the editor). All of the reasons are compelling but there is another side.

First of all, we do not need a study to assess the cost of the death penalty. I think we can all agree that it costs more. But because it does, Ms. Hart argues that the execution of criminals should be stopped. That is not a compelling enough reason.

As each criminal act becomes more violent and repulsive to society, the trial will always cost more. It costs much more to try a defendant for burglary or armed robbery than for shoplifting. Just like it will always cost more to try a defendant in a death penalty case than for vehicular manslaughter or second-degree murder.

Ms. Hart also states that not all murder victim families want the death penalty cases. Many prosecutors take that into consideration when deciding to try the person for the death penalty. Unfortunately our system does not leave it up to the victim as to how the person will be tried. That is why the case is titled State of Nevada v. Joe Alleged Criminal and does not include the victim's name.

In 1982 I worked as a guard in a tower at the Lompoc Federal Prison when I observed an inmate on the recreation yard stab another inmate more than 30 times. All of us in the guard towers were unable to take any action because there were too many inmates around the victim and murderer and we could not risk shooting innocent people. The guard on the recreation yard was unable to take action because every time he would close in, the murderer waved his shank at the guard. While it was over in a couple of minutes I will never forget it. The murderer had nothing to lose by taking this man's life because he was already serving two life terms for previous murders.

What we need is a swifter way of hearing the inmate appeals. Waiting for 25 years to execute a person sitting on death row is too long. It does not serve the victim's family, society or the person waiting to die.

Our society does not need the Charlie Manson of this world. I once heard the recommendation that we don't need more electric chairs but instead we need electric bleachers. But that is absurd as the "let's assess the costs of Nevada's death penalty" argument.

Societies need to come to grips with the realization that there are some people on this earth who need to meet the ultimate criminal penalty -- and that is execution.

Michael O. Kreps

LAS VEGAS

Great deal

To the editor:

This foreclosure gimmick is a great deal. More than a year ago, two families in my neighborhood bought new vehicles, ATVs, and other toys. They both stopped making payments on their homes more than nine months ago and are still living happily with their families at these homes. With all of the money they are saving not making a house payment, they've both recently taken nice vacations. Soon I'm sure, government-sponsored programs will help them re-negotiate their mortgage so they can achieve a payment that is more suitable for them and they can buy more toys. What a deal!

JAMES REED

LAS VEGAS

Double standard

To the editor:

The first President Bush, our 41st president, was vilified for almost all of his four years as president by the majority of the news media. The main reason was that he did not live up to his statement on taxes, "Read my lips -- no new taxes." This statement was made when he was campaigning for president.

Do we now have a similar incident brewing? President Obama made the following statement on Sept. 12, 2008, when campaigning for the presidency. "I can make a firm pledge, under my plan no family making less than $250,000 per year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains tax, not any of your taxes -- you will not see any of your taxes increase on single dime."

Has not President Obama out of necessity already broken his promise by recently signing a bill raising the federal tax on cigarettes by more than 60 percent. Prey tell, who consumes the lion's share of cigarettes? It is those people who make far less than $250,000 per year. Since when is a tax increase not a tax increase?

To keep our nation afloat financially, President Obama will have to break his promise many times over by increasing taxes on all citizens. He may, being who he is, attempt to call these increases "levies," not taxes, but we will know differently and will feel the pain.

Let's see how the news media treats President Obama over his backing down on his taxation pledge. Will they continue their double standard reporting or do what is morally right?

CLARENCE LANZRATH

LAS VEGAS

Wage talk

To the editor:

I retired from a large manufacturing company several years ago where I worked in middle management for 34 years. My monthly retirement benefits are approximately 60 percent less than that received by retired police officers and firefighters whose average monthly pensions have increased 59 percent over the past nine years. Unlike those in the public sector, my retirement amount is fixed; there are no annual increases of any kind.

In response to the Nevada state government's proposed long-term measure to reduce government pensions in order to make them more nearly equivalent to private sector retirement benefits, the employee spokesman refers to the proposal as "Draconian." While millions of workers in the private sector have been laid off or had their earnings severely cut, those in the public sector are vehemently opposed to any changes in earnings or retirement benefits, period.

With a severe economic recession existing nationwide it is essential that public sector wages and retirement incomes be reduced as necessary.

Walter Morykwas

LAS VEGAS

Free market

To the editor:

Jim Day's Sunday cartoon, "An unregulated free market at work," which presumably showed a gun dealer offering his wares to a drug dealer in exchange for his products, was just too much. As if Barney Frank and Barack Obama's daily skewering of market economics wasn't enough, we are to presume free markets at work are causing this mess on the border? If markets were truly free, all drugs would be sold openly and there wouldn't be a power struggle among underworld warlords similar to our liquor prohibition era that spawned Al Capone et al. There are enough legitimate things out there to laugh about without the ideological overreach.

Douglas Hunter

LAS VEGAS

Nuke plan

To the editor:

I am writing in response to Mike Garrison's letter of April 8 concerning his insistence that a reduction in nuclear weapons would invite other nations to attack the United States.

First of all, no one is suggesting the United States completely eliminate its ability to possess or use nuclear weapons in defense of this country. What is being encouraged is a reduction in nuclear weaponry; the same policy promoted by every president since Truman.

Also, did it ever occur to you that with all of our nuclear arsenal, we were unable to deter the greatest attack on U.S. soil since Pearl Harbor: that being the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001?

Bob McKee

NORTH LAS VEGAS