Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (Sept. 9, 2003)
nati HE BATTALl! Opinion al suit fil Bush prot N (AP) - sued the cit, j on Monday, di- jmance illegally^ ■ m protesting the* : ;n President Bust The Battalion Page 5B • Tuesday, September 9, 2003 >deral lawsuit ^gh of Caddo Rectenwald of 1in Wallace of they were thn 3St if they violatr: Dtest ordinance:, /lay 3 visit to ther ;aid the ordinanc; leir First Amen? ,nd the Texas § ordinance re:.; e demonstratr : r a permit 15 te i and state thefK larch and the n't e and kinds of its be involved, acco: lawsuit filed *1 r decries or S87 bill IINGTON (AF atic presidential hn Kerry said M: ould not Si nt Bush’s $87: for Iraq 5tan without a dd Vhite House ^ ot going to votfi" ided ticket," Ker ;ociated Press. H. lould get more ?- ito Iraq and use: o help pay for v i before AmenCc to foot the bill '■ ( United States i n the Persiar vide-rangmg W issachusetts se'p imocratic rival a former goven' :; t, lacks foreign (The U.S. injustice system toy ^ ^ > Criminal sentences should differ depending on circumstances of the case T he definition of injustice would be if a judge in New York gave one crimi nal a two-year jail sentence for pos- fcssion of cocaine, while a judge in Alabama Huled another person for five years for the »me crime. Congress passed the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 to combat this problem. ■he law imposed minimum sentences for cer- ■un crimes as federal guidelines forjudges to fcllow and created the U.S. Sentencing Commission to enforce them. I The commission immediately recognized the need to avoid snict application of the guideline system. It gave judges the Bower to adjust sentences if the circumstances of a case war- ftnted it. However, in April, Congress passed new legislation Biat gave judges substantially less freedom to deviate from fed- Brai sentencing guidelines. Since then, the U.S. Justice De partment, supported by this law, has been tracking all judges who violate the sentencing rules. I These new restrictions hurt the American justice system, as Biey are unjust, unfounded and lead to the intimidation of judges. I Congress’ revisions, collectively called the Feeney amendment, nuke it easier for prosecutors to challenge "downward depar- Bires,” which are sentences set by judges that are shorter than tnose in the federal guidelines. It also reports these departures to ■ongress. I To add insult to injury. The Washington Post reported last ftonth on a memo written by Attorney General John Ashcroft oi iering federal prosecutors to notify the Justice Department of all downward departures not requested by the government, Bcluding the specific districts or judges responsible for them. I In reply. Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., accused Ashcroft ol maintaining an "ongoing attack on judicial independence” by commanding prosecutors “to participate in the establishment of a blacklist of judges who impose lesser sentences than those recommended by the guidelines.” Even the conservative U.S. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said the new revisions would “do serious harm to the basic structure of the sentenc ing guideline system and would seriously impair the ability of courts to impose just and responsible sentences.” U.S. District Judge John S. Martin, on the bench for 13 years, left in protest because he felt the new sentencing system was “unnecessarily cruel and rigid.” He rightly believes it is impos sible for the federal guidelines to consider every factor that helps determine a crimi nal sentence. Hence, the rules are unjust. Judges hear individual cases. They know that not every criminal can be judged with a black or white mentality of guilty or not guilty. There are subtleties and nuances in every case. It is with this discretion that they rule on a case, and they are the only ones qualified to make this deci sion. Justice is given fairly, one case at a time. Unlike judges, members of Congress do not see individuals; they see only broad classes of defendants. Nor are they quali fied to be judges. As politicians, however, they know that by sup porting sentencing guidelines, they will seem tough on crime, and this takes precedence over justice. This is apparent when one examines the federal guidelines. Congress used the 100-to-l ratio when it wrote the sentencing guidelines for posses sion of cocaine. Congressmen believe crack cocaine to be 100 times more dangerous than powdered cocaine since crack is associated with greater substance abuse. So, Congress mandated the same minimum sen tence — five years — if one was caught with five grams of crack cocaine or 500 grams of powder cocaine. However, in 1996, the Journal of the American Medical Association published an extensive study done by researchers at the University of Minnesota and Columbia University that compared the effects of both cocaine forms on humans. It demonstrated that since the effects of the two were so similar, there was no justification for believing crack cocaine to be more dangerous. Still, Congress enforces this guideline. These shoddy guidelines should not be taken lightly. Each sentence imposed through them affects a human life and, in most cases, the lives of innocent family members suffer when their relatives are jailed. The changes especially affect college students, who have a greater tendency to find themselves in court. Students would certainly want to plead their case and plead the judge for a lighter sentence as opposed to experiencing a mock trial and then being given a one-size-fits-all sentence. Stricter enforcement of federal guidelines deprives judges of the ability to consider all of the factors that go into formulating a just sentence. This must never happen. Congress should revoke the Feeney Amendment and, in doing so, realize that they are not part of the judicial branch and leave sentencing of criminals to judges. Cracie Arenas • THE BATTALION Midhat Farooqi is a senior gmetics major. n ■a post-Se: demands it. citizens must reject Proposition 12 o: 11,2003 nee g Room ng Cadets DAVID SHOEMAKER .latt ] dent 1. Wt and osefy lulio Jam ichold talking returning ■inbrance ticipate. nter Wito • William I. Dean • Thonwl || nna Debin • Simon Dedvukaj’W' H aid A.DelapenlwVitoJoiepliDt* •* Pietra • Palmina Belli GatliTdS 1 «■. Tins • Francis X. Demin? •Carols, si. Dennis-Josi Nicholas Depeni' sperilo • Cindy Ann Deuel • Bow* ’ n • Gerard Dewan • Simon StllelI* ,l » DiAgostino • Patricia F.DiChiaro^ ] DiFranco-DonaldJ.DiFranco't^ # isio-George DiPasquaMosepI ) ano* Michael Diaa-Piedra-In# . GallettiDiaz-MatthewDiar'W’ * ihDermot Dickey •Lawrence Pawl . I• StephenPDimino-WilliainJ. | f-Jeffrey M. Dingle ■Ramai A. W • Brendan Dolan • Neil Doly'l* , icua Domingo • diaries (Caries) e) Mark Patrick Dominguez • He* 1 * i • Stephen Dorf-Thomas DowP ary Yolanda Dowling • Raymond^ Joseph M. Doyle-Randy Drake 1 i A.Duarte-LukeA.Dudek- rard Duffy • Michael Joseph Duff)' Juger • Sareve Dukat • Christoph* stan • Patrick Thomas Dwyer'M 1 eEagleson-Robert D.Eaton'Her rmann-Paul Robert Eckna 1 Dennis Michael Edwards •Michad )• Lisa Egan •Martin Egan‘MicW : Eggert • Lisa Caren Weinstein £1# Adam fisenberg-Daphne FEIdf’ Valerie Silver Ellis • Albert Ally# is Suk-Yuen Eng • Christophers#' Or-William J.Erwin-SarahlAli) / M. Espinoza • Brigette Ann Esp# silo • William Esposito • RubenEf i ’ •EricBrian Evans-RobertEdwad varf Catherine K. Fagan •Patrkii 11 imF. Fallon* William Falloft'AntW in Joseph Fanning •Kathleen pl y Carole Farley • Elizabeth Ann (Wl j. Farrell • John W. Farrell •Terrencd# 1 T Farrelly • Syed Abdul Fatha • (hh# >hannon M. Fava ■ Bernard D.favi®' illiamFeehan 1 Francis J.(f rank) I# n Sept. 13, Texans will vote on 22 pro posed amendments to the state constitution, which • Cover items from highways to the Veterans Land Board. But |ne of the most important propositions on the ballot is Proposition 12. The short description of the proposition • on the ballot describes it as an ; amendment “concerning civil lawsuits against ; doctors and health care providers, and other • action, authorizing the legislature to determine ? limitations on noneconomic damages.” I The proposition must be voted down because • it not only inadequately addresses the reasons why malpractice insurance costs have risen so ■dramatically, it contains loopholes that will ben- • jsfit industries other than medical practices. Although the proposition addresses one of the ■easons why malpractice insurance costs have i tisen, it does not address other problems, includ- : ing bad business practices of some insurers. S I In an article from The Houston Chronicle, bonald Zuk, the CEO of SCPIE Holdings and * malpractice insurer, admits the industry failed * to handle its business properly. He said, “The insurance industry has not underwritten properly,” meaning they issued :■ policies that they would be hard pressed to '• cover. In the 1990s, according to the article, such policies were met by using revenues from high Hying stocks and bonds, not by raising rates. This left insurers in a serious bind when the dot com boom ended. It is not fair to hold Texans responsible for bad planning on the part of insurance companies. Another factor that has caused insurance costs to rise, according to The Houston Chronicle, is the refusal of judges to dismiss frivolous claims, rais ing charges of collusion. In McAllen, one lawyer was convict ed of conspiring with the county clerk to backdate a case so it would not be stopped by the statute of limitations. Jon Opelt, executive director of Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse, stated that lawyers who improperly solicit cases, or “ambulance chasers,” are rarely charged with unlawful solicitation. Such problems stem from the poor state of Texas’judicial sys tem rather than from high jury awards in malpractice cases. Because doctors practice their profession in a high-risk environment, mistakes are bound to happen but, frequently, the errors made by a doctor can irrevocably affect someone’s life, which is why an individual can claim damages for pain and suffering, or disfigurement, not just for lost wages. u Although doctors deserve some protec tion due to the risk they undertake and the effort they ex pend, they cannot be allowed to escape se rious damages they are responsible for. Proposition 12 would change that, only allowing recovery of lost wages or other eco nomic damages. Those who did not hold jobs at the time of the malpractice could face reduced recovery for lost wages, which would harm people such as homemakers, who are not considered employed. Although doctors deserve some protection due to the risk they undertake and the effort they expend, they cannot be allowed to escape serious damages they are responsible for. But even more troublesome than the caps on malpractice claims of pain and suffering is section C which allows the Legislature to then extend these caps at its discretion, including to other industries. Because such high risks are involved in prac ticing medicine, these caps might be considered one of sev eral ways to keep costs down. But most other industries do not face such sufficient risks to deserve protection from noneconomic damages. The placement of Proposition 12 on the bal lot appears to be a case where Texas part time citizen-legislators were ridden over by business interests and insurers. Businesses, like doctors, can fall victim to frivolous lawsuits, but that is a problem of judges not exercising their discre tion to dismiss suits, not plaintiffs awarded damages for pain and suffering. Many other areas that the Legislature could extend this cap to also lack the high-risk environment that the medical profession faces. It would be ludicrous to believe that most business activities are even remotely as high risk as the medical profession. In plain English, this provision allows the Legislature to extend the noneconomic damage cap of section C of Proposition 12 to other areas, regardless of the legal theory of liability, which would also include negligence cases. There is no compelling reason to undertake such action at this time, except to protect the insurance industry and businesses. The cap on medical malpractice damages included in Proposition 12 might be improved upon in form, but it still does not address the fundamental issues in the Texas civil courts and also allows other industries to enjoy the same protection without the same risks as the medical profession. The real solution to the problem is to not bail out insurers from their poor decisions and to begin appointing judges to the state bench instead of electing them. The voters should reject Proposition 12 on Sept. 13 and force the Legislature to face the true causes of the rising cost of malpractice insurance. David Shoemaker is a junior management major. Not everyone can afford cost hikes Accepting one lifestyle invites all In response to a Sept. 8 mail call: in response to a Sept. 8 mail call I believe Mr. Shilling’s idea that stu dents should gladly take on more cost for their education is incorrect. For those students with endless financing from their parents or some type of trust fund, tuition increase is probably not an important issue. It is easy to see why students in that posi tion would share the same opinion. However, not every student has that luxury. Many students must provide for some or all of their educational costs without any assistance. For these students, tuition increases may hinder their ability to attend college. I believe the people of Texas would rather see their tax dollars spent on educating citizens than wasted on more government social programs that continue to fail. Jeremy Gribnau Class of 2004 The attitude of Mr. Kowalski in his mail call is frightening. He states the case of what is right or wrong is not concrete. This is the attitude growing in popularity that will lead to the moral degradation of America. Kowalski asks whose right is it to determine right and wrong about how one chooses to live. If nothing is wrong no behavior should be pun ished. Let all the murderers, child molesters and rapists free, because that is just how they choose to live their life. Once alternative lifestyle becomes mainstream and accepted as normal, a floodgate opens because every pos sible alternative lifestyle must then be recognized as well. It is time that peo ple stand up for what is right and real ize there is right and wrong. Mark Wood Class of 2003 MAIL CALL Cays exists outside Texas A&M campus In response to a Sept. 5 mail call: Whether or not you agree or dis agree with homosexuality does not make it any less a part of the American culture and a valid branch of study at a university. You cannot pretend that a major lifestyle does not exist and does not have an effect on a society. It drives endless debate and has changed the course of many leg islative acts. For that culture to be excluded completely from university curriculums would prevent people from being able to learn about a group of people. Learning about different lifestyles and cultures will not lead to an embrace of that lifestyle. It would simply allow them to become more well-rounded, open-minded and accepting individuals. Saying gay and lesbian people are vulgar and devoid of all morals just shows ignorance and closed-minded ness. They are just as good as anyone that engages in straight relationships. College Station is not representative of the real world. We are living in a homogenous environment where everyone thinks and acts very similar ly. When you move into real cities, with an eclectic mix of people, you will see that your opinion is not the same as everyone else’s. If you want others to be tolerant and accepting of you, you need to learn to be tolerant and accepting of others. Erin Holt Class of 2006 Homosexuality not a conscious choice Unfortunately, Ms. Arms, your argu ment is way off base. Unwillingness to accept and tolerate something differ ent is one of the major problems on our campus today. Insinuating that one chooses homosexuality is ludicrous. I have met many homosexuals dur ing my time at Texas A&M. Not one of them has said that if they could have chosen between being a homosexual and a heterosexual, they would have chosen to be a homosexual. Who in their right mind would choose to sub ject themselves to the persecution that people put them through? They have adopted homosexuality so they would n’t have to go through life living in a closed minded, uncultured bubble where nothing new, exciting, or differ ent ever happens. That is the bubble closed-minded individuals live in. I look forward to the day when Texas A&M can burst that bubble, and students on this campus can get past small-mind ed beliefs and look out into the world to see that everyone and everything has its own important place in our world. Ryan Bednarz Graduate Student The Battalion encourages letters that share per sonal experiences and reflections in remembrances of the 9-11 attacks. The opinion editor reserves the right to edit letters for length, style and accuracy. Please submit your 250-word thoughts in person at 014 Reed McDonald with a valid student ID. Letters also may be mailed to: 014 Reed McDonald, MS 1111, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-1 111. Fax: (979) 845- 2647 E-mail: mailcall@thebattalion.net
