Sex offenders deserve harsh penalties
In response to Lora J. Mackel's article in which she expresses her faith in those who ruin other's lives, I would like to say she is wrong. Granted, there are minor sex offenders who do not deserve a life sentence, i.e. a 20-year-old guy who is charged with statutory rape of a 17-year-old because she told him she was 18. But those who prey on children, women and even men are the sickest of the sick. Sexual abuse early in life will most definitely have a huge detrimental effect on the rest of the victim's life, and the trauma of rape is as heavy as it gets no matter when it occurs. Someone who rapes once does not deserve life in prison. But someone who rapes repeatedly most definitely deserves life in prison or even death.
Lora's argument is that those who are convicted of such crimes are not treated fairly because they are not released to the outside world after they finish their prison term. Instead, they spend the rest of their lives in mental hospitals. One who is inclined to rape or molest is not going to be cured by serving time away from their victims. They cannot be helped by our revolving door prison system. The only thing that I could think of that would possibly help is mandatory castration for the worst of the worst.
It amazes me that our justice system does not recognize the simple human right that one has not to be raped or molested. The fact of the matter is that serial rapists need to die. And child molesters need to die. There is nothing that can be done to right them in their ways. It is too late for them, but it's not too late for those of us who have not already suffered.
Dan Sloan
studio arts freshman
Partisan letter off base
Charles Peterson made an astoundingly huge error in his letter yesterday when he said that a certain ex-president from Arkansas couldn't get the job done. Need I remind him that it was President George Bush Sr. who served during Desert Storm? We may have won, but it didn't solve the problem and so, like many other problems, it was passed onto Clinton when he took office. If Bush had taken care of Hussein in the beginning, President Clinton and now President George W. Bush would not be dealing with this issue as well. Peterson should be a little more careful as to who he puts the blame on, and not just find a Democrat to blame.
Secondly, in Ryan Schaffer's letter yesterday, he noted that the United States is simply enforcing U.N. Charters and Sanctions. This last bombing, as well as the ones that occurred during Clinton's presidency, were due to Iraqis that were threatening our soldiers. This issue is a lot larger than the current American president. This is an action by our military, which has also been backed by Prime Minister Tony Blair and Great Britain.
My point is that (former)President George Bush Sr. did not solve the problem of Saddam Hussein in the early 1990s, so now President Clinton, and currently President George W. Bush have had to deal with Hussein as well. Peterson was blinded by party politics in his defense of the president, but I feel it necessary to defend both presidents for their actions. In the future, Mr. Peterson should give both blame and credit where it is due, not just where it needs to go to make his fellow Republicans look good and Democrats look bad.
Amanda Gabriel
political science freshman
Iraqi bombing protects U.S. interests
Recently, the United States and Britain took action upon Iraq for constantly targeting, harassing and firing surface-to-air missiles at U.S. and British military aircraft patrolling the "no fly zones" in northern and southern Iraq. These military actions were of political significance and of course need some sort of justification.
However, the objectives of the missile attacks on Iraq were not for the personal security of President Bush or to divert attention elsewhere. These actions are initiated to protect U.S. and British interests in the Gulf region and to protect our American pilots. These American and British pilots are doing their duty, protecting us as American citizens, and protecting and preserving democracy. This is what President Bush has in mind while initiating these attacks on Iraq. May I also add that we are targeting Saddam Hussein's totalitarian regime, not the people of Iraq.
Back to President Bush's personal matters, what does this military action divert attention from? What is this action saying? It is saying he will continue to respond appropriately to ensure the safety of U.S. interests in the Persian Gulf, just as previous presidents have acted. He has been successful in starting his domestic agenda through Congress, i.e. faith-based initiatives, tax cuts and is beginning to seek support for his education reform bill. As one can see, President Bush has nothing to hide or divert attention from in his personal and domestic agenda.
Mark Lauver
economics sophomore
