UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN editorials
Unsigned editorials represent the opinion of the Kanan editorial staff. Signed columns represent the views of
NOVEMBER 15,1978
Ruling no surprise
Disappointed, but not surprised. It aptly describes our reaction to the Kansas Supreme Court ruling Monday on the liquor-in-restaurants law.
It shouldn't have been a surprise to any Kansan that the state Supreme Court declared the liquor law unconstitutional.
Kansans, it must be remembered,
have long been accustomed to the
worst concerning liquor laws. In 1948,
the dry-minded citizens of this state
approved the new infamous Article 15,
section 10 of the Kansas Constitution:
"THE OPEN saloon shall be and is hereby forever prohibited."
It was this section that the high court mentioned in its brief opinion that struck down the new liquor law on a 4-3 decision.
According to the opinion written by Chief Justice Alfred Schroeder, "The court finds the 1978 legislative amendments to the law authorize the maintenance of an 'open saloon' in violation of Article 15, section 10 of the Kansas Constitution."
A FORMAL opinion, both majority and dissenting version, is expected to be prepared and released in a few weeks. Joining Schroeder in the majority were Justices Kay McFarland, Perry Owsley and Alex Fromme. Dissenting were Justices David Prager, Robert H. Miller and Richard W. Holmes.
The Kansas United Dry Forces, led by the Rev. Richard Taylor, reportedly spent $10,000 in a campaign against the liquor question, which was approved by only 15 of the 45 counties which voted on it.
The liquor-in-restaurants law proved to be one of the interesting political battles of this year's election. And with justices McFarland, Owesley and Holmes on the Nov. 7 ballot for retainment votes, the Supreme Court apparently wanted to avoid any possible voter retribution—waiting until after the election to announce its ruling.
AS ONE state representative said, "It is too bad the court didn't announce its decision before the election and save a lot of time and money for both sides."
But in an otherwise gloomy matter, there is a spark of hope. The Kansas Legislature, one can hope, having seen the error of its ways, will now pass a bill to provide a constitutional amendment allowing liquor by the drink.
Respect for law vital for reducing violence
If there was any surprise about the court's decision, it probably was that there were any dissenting justices. Nevertheless, the court was a disappointment, not only because of its ruling, but also for the amount it took for a decision.
N. Y. Times Feature
By CHARLES E. SILBERMAN
H.W. Teachers
NEW YORK—Criminal courts are on trial, the police have arrested three high-profile criminals against criminal violence.
Some critics attribute the failure to a gross shortage of resources that forces prosecutors and judges to indulge in plea bargains. The Court pleads a mild penalty in return for a guilty plea.
Still others believe the major flaw to be the arbitrary and capricious nature of criminal sentencing, which leads to wide misapprehensions and out comes to offenders guilty of the same crime.
Others put the blame on the Warren Court's rulings protecting the rights of the accused, which force prosecutors and police to deny defendants their large numbers of saliently guilty offenders.
The critics are wrong—wrong in the facts they cite, wrong in the way they interpret them and wrong in the conclusions they draw and the remedies they propose.
WHATEVER THEIR emphasis, the critics agree that the courts fail to administer swift, certain and equitable penalties for this failure encourages criminal violence.
It is not true that the police or the courts have been handcuffed by the rulings of the Warren Court. Only a handful of criminals escape arrest, conviction or punishment because of criminal rules, search-and-searches, and "duty" obligations" designed to protect defendants' rights.
It is not true that the courts are more lenient than they used to be. A larger proportion of arrested felons are in custody when the court, when the accused had far fewer protections.
It is not true that plea bargain distorts the judicial process. It is the principal means by which prosecutors and judges make the omission fit the crime.
IT IS NOT true that disparate sentencing practices undermine the deterrent power of the criminal law. Within any single court jurisdiction, an offender may be subject to the order of 85 percent—follow informal norms and can be predicted if one knows the nature of the offense and of the offender's victim.
Pla bargaining occurs as frequently in rural areas as in big cities and has been the dominant means of settling criminal cases for the last century. Attempts to ban plea
bargaining merely shift it to some other less visible part of the system.
MOST IMPORTANT, it is not true that significant numbers of guilty offenders escape punishment in criminal court. When charges are dropped, it usually is because the victim refuses to press charges, because a key witness declines to cooperate, or because the defendant doubts the defendant's dault or lacks the evidence needed to sustain a conviction.
When one examines what actually happens, in short, what is remarkable is not how badly, but how well, most criminal courts work.
They generally do an effective job of separating the guilty from the innocent—most of those who should be convicted and most of those who should be punished are punished.
THERE IS NO reason to believe that the reforms now being proposed—repealing the exclusionary rule, minimizing the use of forbidding and forbidding or reducing or eliminating judgers' and parole boards' discretion—and not noticeable reduction in criminal violence.
This is not to suggest that we live in the best of all possible worlds—far from it. It is to argue that what is written on official manuscripts is the truth about it, it produces the means by which it produces them.
As the old maxim has it, the appearance of justice is as important as justice itself.
Most criminal courts do justice; almost none of them appears to do justice, kitean, but the few who do are generally deermining respect for law by the shabby, hapazhard and surly way in which they are
IN ANY SOCIETY, respect for law is a more effective instrument of social control than fear of punishment. If the criminal courts are to contribute to a reduction in criminal violence, it will not be by stuffing more people into detention centers or jails. It will be by encouraging respect for law—by persuading people to obey the law because it is the law.
For that to happen, the courts will have to become models of due process—living demonstrations that fairness and justice are exercised through actions that can be treated with deciency and concern.
Charles E. Silberman is author of "Criminal Violence, Criminal Justice."
KANSAN
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY
Published of the University of Kansas daily August through May and Monday through Friday, 12pm-5pm. All offers valid for students enrolled in classes at the university or those with enrollment subscriptions to their book for $45/month and $80/month, respectively. Offer not combinable with any other offer. No restrictions on mailing or electronic delivery.
Editorial Brief
Barry Hirsch
Story Editor
Drew Dauwormer
Brian Swenson
Dirick Searles
Leon Urnish
Louis Wachmann
Editor
Shiva Prasad
Managing Editor
Jarro Rae
Campus Editor
Associate Campus Editor
Assistant Campus Editors
Sports Editor
Sports Editors
Sports Editor
Assistant Business Manager
Boehf Millar
Business Manager
Dav Grass
Associate Business Manage Karen Wend rott
Jeff Klotz
Nick Hadley
Mel Smith, Allen Blair, Tom Whittaker
Greg Munzer
'14
Advertising Manager
Promotions Manager
Assistant Promotions Managers
Advertising Manager
Classified Manager
Now a 564-page Federal Trade Commission report based on five years of research has identified the most important investigations and hearings have succeeded in documenting common knowledge: some experts believe that
Everybody has a story about someone who has been duned.
Advertising Adviser Chuck Chowins
General Manager
Riek Muster
Tall tales about "lemons," used cars that have really been used, and the shady car dealers who sell have become part of American automotive folklore.
FTC's used car rules show lost faith
The sale of unused automobiles, the FTC said, constitutes "a major consumer distraction" and "the most expensive item many consumers will ever buy." A bit overtated, perhaps, such hearings often overemphasize abuses—if only because统计 buyers
The FTCS complaint involves dealers who make oral promises of repairs, then write a contract disclaiming responsibility for them. The buyer, unable to prove an unwritten commitment, goes home with the repair bill.
But, yes, "lemmons" exist. No real argument vet.
Regulation becomes a fool's paradise.
Costs quickly exceed benefits when regulatory schemes are compounded to address every consumer grievance.
THE REGULATIONS, in fact, make frauds more successful. They reduce the public's skepticism; create a false sense of security. In consumers' eyes, car dealers, both good and bad, receive the government's offer for their TPC, in effect, vouchers for their good faith.
The staff report, released Monday,
concludes that nothing short of the vast
powers of federal government can rid
the country of pernicious car dealers.
The FTC recommended that dealers be required to inspect cars and post whatever defects they find on the vehicles' windows. A new form, of course, would be instituted.
The regulator's contribution to consumer protection becomes quite small when compared to the effect of the traditional and still powerful checks on consumer fraud: the businessman's interest in his customer's identity, the pursuit of financial advance and, ultimately, the threat of a law suit.
The do, however, demand their own blind flair. They require the honesty of men and women. They require that consumers be thought of as capable of making wise decisions about what is right for them.
And these protections come at less cost than regulation.
Information is not a free good; someone must pay for it. Each consumer should be allowed to purchase as little or as much as they need, and at no cost. The proposed FTC rules decree a mandatory purchase of information and, worse yet, a purchase from an unreliable source—the "free agent."
evade standards and guidelines because they are bad men; they can be dealt with only after they are caught cheating someone.
That is a misplaced trust.
The most dangerous myth about government regulation, however, is that, almost by magic, it protects consumers from fraud. That notion simply holds no truth; to believe it requires blind faith in the wisdom and good will of government.
Compliance with standards and guidelines cannot be assured before any sale because inspection and enforcement rules do not supervise every transaction. Bad men will
That point sparks an argument.
The regulators have lost faith. They are more men than women and need the government's protection. The FTC and the other regulators have lost in us, perhaps it is not the fault in their own hand.
Brakes, steering, engine and transmission would be certified either "OK" or "Not OK". The latter would be accompanied but defective parts would be accompanied by a written estimate of repair costs.
CAR BUYERS do need information about the mechanical condition of cars. A wise buyer goes to his mechanic. The new rules do nothing more than provide information that should be obtained and paid for by each car, not by the class of purchasers as a whole.
Thus ends the frauds.
The real fraud in this case, however, comes from the FTC. It pretends it can, by decree, guarantee honest car deals. If the commission thinks its rule will remove cars from used car lots, it is more gullible than the lappers buyers it tries to protect.
THE PROPOSED regulations pose no real impediment to dishonest deals. They will, however, slow the used car turnover and increase the shop costs of honest dealers, who will charge consumers higher prices for used cars.
Robert P. Mallon, president of the National Automotive Dealers Association, predicted used car prices would rise an average of $200 under the proposed law. He said it would be somewhat, if only for an element of shock value, but prices for all used cars must rise.
Judicious buyers, who avoid getting cheated without the FTC, will pay the higher prices, too. They are, in effect, subsidizing used car buyers who make hasty, ill-informed decisions—n characteristic of car dealers. Wise shoppers should resent having to pay more for those who sign contracts with provisions that differ from the oral agreement.
Kansan indulges in sensationalism
To the editor:
Experience, as defined by Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, is knowledge, skill, or practice derived from direct observation of events. Experience is also learning through one's acts.
The students of the School of Journalism are, in using the University Daily Kansan, learning how to write in the journalistic style, as well as learning the best methods of reporting in an accurate manner. Exercise is what the staff of the Kansan lacks.
In recent weeks the inexperience of Kansan reporters has run rampant and unchecked across the front page of a so-called 'business newspaper' circulation of far more than just students.
Three recent examples of such inexperience are:
I feel it is totally unfair to call the reporters responsible for writing these and many others of our professors, knowledgeable or experienced. Most Kansan reporters are inexperienced student reporters, who go after a story like a child with a bowl of ice cream scraping the bowl off.
Sensationalism, over-descriptive journalism, poor reporting, inaccurate reporting, lack of knowledge, insensitivity and just something to take up space are the outstanding overtones of these and numerous other articles.
I feel this is primarily caused by a lack of good editing, and in a newspaper that is inexcusable. If the editorial staff does not have time to oversee the work of its reporters, then it's time for a new editorial staff!
(1) The coverage given to the resignation of former StudEx chairman, Phil Kaufman.
(3) A story run Nov. 3, "Education week may lose support," in which Sam W Zeifel, a graduate senator, is quoted seemingly as saying, "Senate's a support of Higher Education Week.
Although their reporting exhibits a great deal of overzealous enthusiasm, they are not learning anything until every student on campus blasts them for their stories.
If anyone is to blame for the stories I have pointed out and their overtures, it's Steve
(2) A Kansan review of the Natalie Cole homecoming concert.
UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN letters
Frazier and the editorial staff. Frazier has said over and over again that he stands by his reporters. For that I commend him. However, this seems to be the same form of misjudged trust that led Custer to the Little Bie Horn.
Misguiding headlines and poor wording, as well as inaccurate quotes, have hurt the Kansan more than any one person ever. With few new titles and few laughs, others take the paper for their dog or the bottom of a birdcage, but many more people read the Kansan as if it were a real newspaper such as the Journal-World, The Star, New York Times, Tampa Tribune, etc.
It seems that the Kansan would be more responsible than it is, but it is not. For some examples we can look at the stories I have mentioned.
(3) Reporting on Nov. 3 that Higher Education Week had lost Student Senate support. Using a source that has no say on the matter, the Senate will or will not do. One view out of 119.
Reporting like this has no place in a so-called "professional newspaper." I feel that a front page apology is in order from Fravier to Kaplan, Harper, Reggie Robinson, the Student Senate, the Black Student Union, the student body in general
(1) On Oct. 24, the Kansan reported that Kaufman would resign that night at the Studex meeting, only to discover that on Oct 20, Mike Harper and Kaufman had attended at the State meeting on Oct. 25. The Kansan later admitted to making a misquoe.
and the other persons who are reached by the Kansan.
Furthermore, I feel the "review board" proposed by Kaufman would help the Kanans more than hurt it. Frazier has pointed out that the Kanans has a review board, that is true, and it obviously does not work well.
The Kansan should move into a more professional form of reporting and editing, as well as being familiar with newspapers in the Kansan gave enough space to student topics and news and limited wire service stories to one page it would be useful. The other six pages for all of the student news.
If the Kansan feels there is not enough student news, it should open its eyes and look around. It has the most competitive with the Journal-World or any other real professional paper. A newspaper that cannot be wrong and is always right is far from being real or genuine.
if the Kansan cannot or will not change its attitude, then perhaps we should take Harper's advice and use the $73.00 paid by the Kansan to fund the National Enquirer.
Henrv.Johns
Lawrence junior
Attack on magazine by gays unfounded
Bryan and Bussell, samples of whose epistolary style you published Nov. 9, fail to
Restoring to the same propaganda devices as "Today's Student," the publication against which they inveigh so mightily, their letters generate, and are apparently motivated by, great heat and no light.
To the editor:
The article in question is a feeble-minded response to a much needed campaign by President Obama.
homosexuality. The letters in question are part of that campaign. But let's not kid
Systematic violence has bolstered every significant effort to restructure society by persuasion. Unless they are willing to provide similar reinforcement, the writers B and B would be better advised to take the slower but sancer path of clear thinking and planning. They should delete the Midler one-liners: "America's answer to Sodom and Gomorrah."
Mr. Bryan's almost Spenglerian interpretation of American history slights the black spirit as unfelting as it insults the white mentality gravelessly.
One man's blige, or tripe, is another man's fundamental operating principle, and separating a man from his principles is a question of reason, not rage.
For the gay cause it achieves exactly zero, Rights are not "granted" by proclamations or referendums, but rather recognized, formalized, and protected.
I don't want anyone, straight or gay, to grant me any rights that I already have. Because while the unwashed masses are deciding whether or not to "grant" me my rights, I intend to be exercising them anyway.
For them.
John Blake More
New Haven, Conn., graduate studen Jeans or no jeans, gay day overlooked
To the editor:
So, Nov. 2 was "Wear blue jeans if you're
evad day" again.
We are curious about the dearth of letters concerning this event on the Kansan's edi-
tion.
Why is this? Could it be that people are now more secure about their self-concepts and less threatened by how others interpret such superficialities as dress?
Or could it be that everyone wearing jeans that Thursday actually was gay? Maybe one no reads the Kansan anymore and so didn't appear happened? Or, are people just bored getting bored?
Louis A. Gamino
Kathy Petrowsky
Lawrence graduate students