Jordan River Forum

Columnist Cherry Blattert claimed the protesters in Dunn Meadow are "anti-American" ("An open letter to Dean McKaig," April 23). This claim is absolutely ridiculous. Radical demonstrators and protesters founded America. I, for one, enjoy the fact that we are no longer ruled by England. I thank the patriots at the Boston Tea Party for demonstrating that we would no longer put up with taxation without representation. I can only assume that Blattert appreciates her right to vote. All women can thank radical protesters for that right. How about equal rights for African Americans? Thanks go out to radical protesters and demonstrators during the civil rights movement. The liberties that we enjoy today are all thanks to a group of people who felt that their beliefs were worth fighting for. The peaceful protesters in Dunn Meadow believe in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all people, regardless of religion or ethnicity. How much more American can that be? Each of those ideals can be applied to the innocent civilians who have died, whether they were Americans killed on Sept. 11 or an Afghani family killed in our bombing campaign. So I suppose I'm a little confused…what exactly does Blattert believe is pro-American? I applaud Dean McKaig. He recognizes that being American doesn't mean conformity and stifling opinions. Lastly, I'd like to thank the patriots whose radical demonstrations and protests allowed Blattert, and me, to demonstrate our right to the freedom of speech and press. Melissa Lorenzen
Second-year student Death penalty doesn't save money Karen S. Johnston's lack of accurate knowledge of the U.S. criminal justice system provides nothing but a weak argument ("Support death penalty to save money," April 23). She claims the death penalty saves money in part because of lawyers for court costs. She couldn't be further from the truth. Court cases in which a suspect is eligible for the death penalty cost, on average, $50,000 more than they would if the suspect were up for life without parole. And that's just the first stage. Offenders facing execution go through much more lengthy appeal processes than do other offenders, costing the government more money. Well-respected statistics (unlike the fabricated facts in Johnston's response) report that to cover all the expenses of an offender facing execution would cost $2 million more than an offender facing life without parole. Johnston's other leading argument was that if an offender was killed, that is one less murderer to commit crimes. If an offender receives life without parole in a maximum-security prison, he's likely to remain off the streets as well. Perhaps a chance exists of an escape, but those numbers are not nearly as high as Hollywood would have us think. I would like Johnston to make her argument in front of the 69 people who have been released from death row since 1976 because DNA resources found they were in no way involved in the crimes for which they were convicted under lengthy court processes. The criminal justice system isn't perfect. Let us spend the $2 million we would spend on government murders in a more beneficial way. Let us improve the system which today allows for procedural errors in two-thirds of all capitol cases. Heather Showman Freshman