4 Friday, March 12. 1993 OPINION UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN IN OUR OPINION Death penalty threatens lives of innocent people Last week, after four and a half years on death row, Walter McMillian was freed from an Alabama prison after it was proved that the three key witnesses for the prosecution had lied. Luckily for McMillian, the new evidence in his case had been found before it was too late. But he could have been executed. The execution of an innocent man is the worst form of injustice. Even Chief Justice William Rehnquist said that the execution of an innocent man would be unconstitutional. But that did not stop him in January from denying a new trial to another man who now could die wrongly by lethal injection. The reason. new evidence turned up after Texas' 30-day deadline for appeals. According to a study conducted by Tufts University, 350 people this century have been convicted of murder and later found innocent;23 were found innocent after they were executed. Are we ever really sure someone is guilty enough to merit the death penalty? Or, as in war, do we deem those wrongly put to death as "acceptable losses" in our administration of justice? As a "civilized" Western society, it is difficult to rationalize the existence of the death penalty. Studies have shown it is not a deterrent. While our jails are filled beyond capacity, those awaiting execution are too few to have any effect on prison overcrowding. Even worse, it is a grisly rationale. Proponents of the death penalty fear violent criminals returning to the streets after being released for good behavior. A possible solution to this may be a "truth in sentencing" bill such as the one proposed by Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld. Convicted criminals would serve no less than their stated minimum sentences. Prison conduct would have no effect on the minimum time sentenced. It is generally known that our justice system is far from perfect, but it is the best that we have. Eradication of the death penalty is the next logical step toward its improvement. VAL HUBER FOR THE EDIFICIAL BOARD V&H HUBER FOR THE EDIFICIAL BOARD NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE Congress needs to act responsibly on budget It was inevitable that Social Security in some way would take a major hit in any determined program aimed at reducing the nation's budget deficit and halting the spiraling $4 trillion national debt. At an estimated $302.2 billion in 1993, it is the single largest spending program in the federal budget. Social Security is vulnerable because its enormous size makes it hard to ignore. The trumpeting call of organizations representing the 30 million people, mostly voters, now receiving monthly Social Security checks and a politically sensitive Congress quickly shot down a proposal to freeze the annual cost of living adjustment for a year. Instead, President Bill Clinton's deficit reduction plan would increase the portion of the benefit now being taxed to 85 percent from 50 percent for individuals with an income more than $25,000 and couples more than $32,000. There's no question that the deficit must be reduced consistently to return aubin of fiscal sanity to the nation's finances. The interest on the national debt now consumes $292 billion a year. The increase now consumes $292 billion a year. Clinton promises that $2 of every $3 produced by his tax and budget cut program will go to reduce the deficit. But consider that the 1900 budget agreement, and its huge tax hike, was to reduce the tax 191-95 deficit by $500 billion. Instead, the deficit increased by more than $700 billion, a $1.2 trillion miscalculation. The reason is simple: Government spending has gone up $1.59 for ever $1 in tax increases in the past three decades, according to the Heritage Foundation. Congress must enact at least as much in spending cuts as in Clinton's program but must do it as responsibly as possible. This must be done because the second shoe will fall when Congress looks for more taxes to levy to pay for the revised health system that Hillary Rodham Clinton's task force is expected to come up with before the year is out. Leader-Telegram Eau-Claire, Wis. LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Columnist forces beliefs on others It is amazing that after all of the struggles for women to maintain control over their own bodies, we have to watch Ann Jurcyk waste ink and time attempting to dictate women's choices to them once again. By stating that doctors are supposedly making a killing on abortion while hiding the medical risks, you make it sound as if pro-choice advocates are waiting in the streets to pull women in when it is anti-abortion groups like Operation Rescue that have been out there pushing their beliefs upon society. You throw around abortion statistics as if pro-choice women (deemed "feminazion") enjoy having abortions . . . as if women want all of the medical risks that you warn them about. By ignoring the 225,000 pro-life advocates in Washington, Clinton is representing the people. By continuing research on RU 486 (previously halted by the Bush administration) women will be given the right to the complete choice and privacy taken away by those who share your beliefs. These medical risks wouldn't even exist if groups sharing your beliefs, such as the religious right, had not lobbied for a ban on RU 486. If this drug was legalized, women could have safe, non-surgical abortions, and the doctors supposedly capitalizing on surgical abortions wouldn't have to watch your followers picket and blockade their clinics. You have the right to believe whatever you want, but you don't have the right to force those beliefs on everyone else around you through laws and restrictions that destroy women's right to choose. Make note of the word choice, Ann, which includes two sides, not just your one-sided barrage of endless statistics and babble about "feminazis" (Speaking of statistics, is it coincidental that you happened to leave out the hideous statistics associated with illegal, back-alley abortions?)* The bottom line is that no one is going to make you have an abortion, so quit attempting to control everyone else's lives. Your choice is your business, but making such a decision for all other women only associates the word "nazi" with you. Steven Gooding Wichita freshman Activists violate rights of others I went to hear Faye Wattleton speak last Friday night because I was interested in hearing what she had to say. Unfortunately, I was seated two rows behind a group of five anti-choice advocates. From the beginning of the lecture, these five people were disruptive, interruptive and unquestionably rude. While I believe strongly in the right of all people to hold opinions and express themselves at the expense of the majority, the behavior of the group of five infringed upon my right to concentrate on what Wattleton had to say. This is not an issue of freedom of speech but rather one of common courtesy. Michelle Glivertz Niotaze junior Women do disagree on certain issues Lisa Cosmillo leaps to several entertaining but erroneous conclusions in her latest exposition of radical feminism. Her reasoning is simple yet flawed Women have traditionally suffered discrimination. This shared experience, she says, should allow women to set aside their differences on 'controversial' issues such as abortion and focus their collective energy on such worthy causes as health-care reform and family leave. This theory implies that women are not unique individuals capable of holding diverse opinions on a wide array of subjects, but a collection of brains bimbs in need of constant protection and stern guidance. Cosmillo's view both distorts reality and insults the female gender. In fact, women should not (and generally do not) allow their anatomy to determine their politics. Some female small business owners, for example, oppose family leave on the grounds that it increases operating costs and eliminates jobs. Some female physicians have voiced concern that a universal health care system might increase accessibility at the expense of quality. - Jennifer Murphy Levenwouw junior - Jennifer Bell Everly sophomore Cosmilu is right about one thing. Women have allowed men to make decisions for them for entirely too long. Ironically, however, Cosmilu appears poised to offer herself as a kinder, gentler substitute. No thanks. The only thing more frightening than the idea of enlisting in Rush Limbaugh's legion of "Dittoheads" is the prospect of being drafted into a battalion of radical feminists under Cosmillo's command. Columnist snubs personal beliefs Leavenworth sophomore I'm not meaning to make a habit of this, but after reading LaSca Cosmillo's article, "Women need to stick together to 'catch male-dominated world.' I felt like writing in again. It seems that Cosmillo thinks women should put their personal beliefs and moral upbringings on the back burner, so all women can successfully combat the evils of this male-dominated world. Cosmillo writes, "We are allowing issues to tear us apart and turn us against each other." Heaven forbid people base their opinions and actions on real-life issues. Cosmillo has also decided it is blatantly obvious that all women are united in their fundamental belief in the importance of women. I believe women are important too. I also believe men are important, as are the elderly, handicapped, and ill. I believe in people, born and unborn, and the importance of life. On an issue like abortion, where individual morality and fundamental beliefs are so involved, it is close-minded and ignorant to ask people to neglect their beliefs. Cosmillo acknowledges, with grammar school insight, that all women are not the same. So, should all women conform to the opinions and ideals of self-proclaimed leaders? Should any person, for that matter, ever ignore their beliefs and blindly follow any leader? The answer is no. Later in her column, Cosmillo says that men have no need to change things like child care, health care and family. Thanks, Lisa. I'm glad you've decided what's important to me and every other man in the nation. I'm sure you've got me pegged by now. Yes, I am the enemy. I'm the type of fascist you must declare war on and combat. Be sure to ignore my intentions. Be sure to neglect my reasoning. Just categorize me like you have the rest of the nation, and keep writing your overgeneralized columns. By the way, Lisa. I'm glad you still love your sister. That's very big of you. Columnist's antics put credibility in jeopardy Ed Connealy Leawood sophomore We were seated several seats apart during the Faye Wattleton presentation. Knowing Jurcyk's special concern for issues concerning women, I was not surprised to see her present. She approached me with a handful of brochures, placed in my hands face down, and asked me to take one and pass the rest down the row, claiming that it was simply biographical information about our presenter. I had no reason to distrust Ann. I took one, passed the rest, turned my brochure over and to my surprise there was no biographical information on any of Faye Wattleton. The brochure was titled "Exposed: Planned Parenthood, The Abortion and Eugenic Connections." The brochure was adorned with a picture of a protester holding a sign reading, "Planned Parenthood KILLS BABIES," Jurcyk was aware of my trusting nature and of my respect for her. She intentionally deceived me. The initial shock soon wore off as Jurcyk and her gang of four immediately began to make fools of themselves in the front row. Faye Wattleton took the stage, Juryc slowly took off her coat and began reaching for something. Was it a gun? No, It was a collection of anti-abortion posters that she handed to her clan. They held the posters up, Faye Wattleton's eyes passed through them, and the group was quickly reprimanded. Ann and her gang put the posters away, and threw newspapers over their faces, as if to be oblivious to the public forum. KANSAN STAFF I am sure that by now the *Kansan's* audience is quite familiar with the anti-human rhetoric of columnist Ann Jaricyk. I recently witnessed her extremely uncivilized and irrational approach to the abortion issue Friday evening in the Kansas Union Ballroom. Allow me to explain Unfortunately, this was just the beginning of the groups immature antics for the duration of the presentation. I will be merciful and spare the details of the absurdities that Jurcky led. More important is the issue of the militancy, vengeance, ignorance and spitefulness surrounding the issue of abortion, which Jurcky has led us to believe she stands against. Obviously, Jurcky has not only deceived me but has deserved us all inference enough to professionally approach this issue in a mature and intellectual manner. After Friday's temper tantrum, I have lost respect for jurcky's methods (this statement is based upon her behavior, not her personal perspective.) Business Staff While the topic is warm, I must state that the dilemma that faces the nation is not whether to abort or not to abort. It is not a moral dilemma. It is not a biblical dilemma — it is an ethical dilemma. It is the ancient dilemma of individual liberty versus enforced social order. I maintain that active anti-abortionists hold two misconceptions in common. The first misconceptions is that they believe life itself is more important than the quality of life. The second misconception is that human beings must be dictated or regulated to ensure social balance and order, whether it be by legislation or religion. Is individual liberty and individual realization not the ultimate goal of humanity? Joel Bales is a Pratt Junior majoring in liberal arts. GREG FARMER Editor GAYLE OSTERBERG Managing editor Astet Managing...Justin Knupp Naws ...Monique Guialain David Mitchell Editorial...Stephen Martino Campus ...KC Trauner Sports ...David Mitchell Photo ...Mark Roylows Features ...Lynne McAdon Dan Schauer BILL SKEET, Technology coordinator Business Staff Campus sales mgr...Brad Broon Regional Sales mgr...Wade Baxter National sales mgr...Jennifer Perrier Co-op sales mgr...Ashley Hessel Production mgr...Amy Stumbo Marketing manager...Angela Cleverenger Creative director...Holly Perry Classified mgr...Alida Dale Dave Habberger TOM EBLEN General manager, news adviser GUEST COLUMNIST **Lettera** should be typed, double-spaced and fewer than 200 words. They must include the writer's signature, name, address and telephone number. Writers affiliated with the University of Kansas must include class and homeetown, or faculty or staff position. **Guest columns** should be typed, double-spaced and fewer than 700 words. The writer will be photographed. The writer reserves the right to reject or edit letters, guest columns and cartoons. They can be mailed or brought to the Kansas newcomer, 111 Staffer Fint Hall. STEVE PERRY Business manager MELISSA TATERJIP Retail sales manager JEANNE HINES Sales and marketing adviser Mystery Strip by David Rosenfield