UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN editorials
Unsigned editorials represent the opinion of the Kansan editorial staff. Signed columns represent the views of other editors.
APRIL 23,1979
Insanity guide needed
In October 1971, Laurence Lublin, a New York resident with a history of mental illness, stabbed his wife 82 times with a sawing awl. He then drove to an overpass on the Long Island Expressway and attempted to jump into the oncoming traffic.
He suffered two broken ankles and a fractured wrist, and was arrested and charged with murdering his wife. Two years later he was found not guilty by reason of insanity, and was committed to a maximum-security psychiatric center.
Lublin will remain in that center until psychiatrists and the courts agree that he is no longer a danger to himself or others. How long that might take is unknown.
THE CASE of Lubin and others like him has left the legal and medical professions at odds with what exactly constitutes insanity and what should be done with those found not guilty of violent crimes on the basis of insanity.
The case of Carroll E. Neel, who was found not guilty of the 1973 murder of a Kansas City, Kan. postmaster by reason of insanity, has brought the question into focus in Kansas. Neel has applied for release under a 1978 state law that gives patients committed to mental hospitals after acquittal on the grounds of insanity the right to seek a review of their confinement.
A PAWNEE COUNTY judge ruled last month that Noel could be released—a decision that is now under appeal.
But the Noel case raises perplexing
questions about the issues surrounding the insanity defense. The combined efforts of judges, lawyers and psychiatrists have yet to produce a standard of legal insanity, yet that defense is still successfully used, and former killers are constantly released on the pretense that their "insanity" has lifted.
Nevertheless, the Noel case has prompted the Kansas Senate Judiciary Committee to draft a bill that would, among other things, force the patient to show that he is no longer a danger to himself or others. But considering the conflicting interpretations of what constitutes insanity, that would seem to be tenuous ground for reaching satisfactory decisions.
MUCH MORE satisfactory would be the institution of a two-step process that would allow a trial to determine guilt, then a second one to determine what should happen to the defendant. Under this process, a defendant who might normally be acquitted by reason of insanity would be found "guilty but mentally ill." He would face a specific term and treatment in a mental institution. If he were later cured, he would complete his sentence in prison.
The complexity of the issues involved, however, mandates that the Legislature move carefully in approaching the problem. The protection of the community must be maintained, but not at the expense of patients' rights.
But rushing through legislation in a knee-jerk reaction to the events in the Noel case would benefit no one.
in the race for the 1978 Democratic presidential nomination, California Gov. Jerry Brown, although he lost, finished with 62 percent; the attention of the party's power structure.
Indeed, the governor loomed as the top political thoroughbred for the party in the 1980 election after he won all six primaries he entered during the 1976 campaign.
Blinders would help Jerry Brown
And many believed, and still do, that Brown could have won the nomination if he had started his run right from the gate in New Hampshire.
But it seems Brown might have trouble putting out the stall for next year's race;
In the last campaign, Brown carried the liberals, the poor, the minorities and labor. But they do not like the apparent change in Brown's running shoes.
Brown has donned the conservative shoes, raising questions about the high rate of overweight children.
Phillip Garcia
in productivity and investment—his whole strategy of the "new realities of the 1980s.
THIS STRATEGY, of course, espouses a balanced budget in the "era of limits." This change of political ideology was best exemplified when Brown abruptly switched his stand from opposition to support for a popular tax-cut measure, Proposition 13.
Thus, Brown has floated with the political winds of austerity, which means cutbacks in social programs and, for Brown, alienation of traditional liberals. But the governor. The president. The ABC News-Harris Survey, has yet to capture the hearts of traditional conservatives.
In a survey of 1,323 voters nationwide, on potential presidential candidates, Brown trailed the one candidate who epitomizes the Ronald Reagan, by a 97-35 percent margin.
THE SURVEY also indicated that brown would not receive the vote of most big city residents, whites, trade union members, Jews or conservatives.
But his personal life, for most of us, is the least cause for concern.
The political whiz also might have startled a few voters by taking a趴 to Africa with rock star Linda Ronsstadt (perhaps, some couldn't envision Ronsstadt, if she and the governor were to wed, of course, as the first lady).
More important are two recent political errors by Brown. One blunder was committed in a strategic situation and the other was because of his adventures in Africa.
New Hampshire holds the first presidential primary, so Brown was in th
state to check sentiment for his potential candidacy in 1890. Brown, in accordance with his new conservatism, accustomed to the populistic speaker of the New Hampshire House, but what the governor succeeded in doing was prompting the wrath of the state's Democratic leader.
The Democrats threatened to boycott Brown's appearance, but later met with him in private, and chastised him for dealing with the wrong party.
A SECOND BLUNDER was his failure to respond immediately to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission report of his visit to nuclear plant California. The California plant was designed by the same firm that developed the Three Mile Island plant in Penn.
Thousands of Californians protested the decision, but the state's most powerful antinuclear advocate was thousands of miles away.
Brown captured the heart of the Democratic voters and the attention of most Republicans two years ago. After all, who could dislike a governor whose staff accepted voluntary pay cuts; who drove an old Plymouth rather than rode in a limousine, and who lived in an apartment rather than the Reagan mansion?
BUT BROWN needs to take note of comments by conservative author Garry Wills. Wills notes that conservatives tend to believe in representative politicians, who can be predictable and who makes his general circle of thought well known.
Wills adds, "He (the politician) is not likely to depart too markedly from that in the way he has started novel in his approach, liable to strike off on his own, capable of bold invention, unafraid of its consequences, only to take him to represent the mass of common man.
However, this does not accurately describe the situation for Jerry Brown—yet. The governor has the potential to be the object of the United States
It would be unfortunate if we were to lose this potential because of his participation in institutional politics, changing his step in accordance with the political whims of the
Perhaps, blinders for Brown would help him keep a focus on the issues he cham-
mands, and perhaps not.
Kansan's anti-nuclear stand propaganda
To the editor:
UNIVERSITY DAILY letters KANSAN
After reading your editorial of April 9, "Skip Wolf Creek Now," I do not know whether I should suggest that your staff take a refresher course in responsible journalism or better yet hire itself out as propaganda writers for anti-nuclear groups. I would like to thank Kansas Senate to investigate the safety of the Wolf Creek nuclear plant in hope that they thoroughly scrutinize the facility's materials, structure and design to elucidate the facts concerning the degree of safety and probabilities of disaster. I cannot remain silent when the Kansan, my student at the propagandize anti-nuclear sentiments.
When I read, "For, as much as nuclear advocates hate to admit it, the accident in Pennsylvania has effectively proven what a nuclear weapon can do." And along—nuclear power plants are not safe." I can only assume that in your opinion the accident in Pennsylvania effectively proves that nuclear weapons can be used safely.
It embarrasses me to think that the reasoning implied in this statement could ever reach the Kansan print, rather than a political handbill or flyer where it would seem more appropriate. Furthermore, though I do agree that the accident at Three Mile Island may have prompted industry with somewhat of a credibility problem, I fail to see a clear connection between the following events and conclusions, "The conflicting and often deliberately misleading reports emanating from the utility that operated the Three Mile Island plant showed that the utility's interest lay with company reports, not public news," said Mr. China Syndrome" and the recent antithe nuclear bandwagon rolled into one.
Now that I have a load off my chest, I can say that it is not my strict intention to blast the Kansan editorial staff or advocate peaceful nuclear power. I respect your right to express opinions, but I feel portions of the text in this section and misleading, on the vera of propaganda.
A company's profits are not largely dependent on "conflicting and often misleading reports" of a nuclear accident. In any accident of the magnitude that occurred in Pennsylvania, the company impatiently sought investigation would be forthcoming by the NRC. At worst, I grant that the stock may fall a few points, but profits fall due to lost lawsuits, loss of a plant, clean-up tasks and rebuilding. Maybe the reports were issued in the case of lessening or public hysteria. Few people really know.
It seems that the Kanans editorial staff as well as many experts and lay people, including myself, do not really know about the nuclear power industry. I believe the accident at Three Mile Island has awakened us to the need for stronger safety, not fully understand the safety, credibility, benefits and potential for destruction represented by peaceful nuclear power.
I dare to suggest that the University of Kansas, in the spirit of knowledge and better understanding, sponsor a congenial program that encourages students presenting both sides of the facts and issues
including the testimony of experts such as nuclear engineers, physicists, biologists and ecologists; professionals such as journalists, businessmen and technicians; and lay people such as students, housewives and children. At least, I would hope that the Kanans might do a good pro con special presentation in a fair format.
Rav Kenny
Finally, I sincerely hope that the issues of peaceful nuclear power now alive in our minds, spurred by the events that have taken place in Pennsylvania, will not be forgotten or put aside by the next weekend. I hope we fully investigate our doubts, fears and concerns of engineers near Burlington and the rest of us in Kansas can sleep well in the nights of 1983.
Overland Park senior
Shutdown of nukes unrealistic demand
To the editor:
Nuclear power, on an industry-wide scale, is one of the safest industries in existence. Until the Three Mile Island accident outside Canada in 2011, nuclear power could not disaster or any significant minor accident. From this incident it must be realized that those involved in the nuclear industry can never become complacent about their responsibility for nuclear waste observation must become standard policy.
Your April 9 editorial entitled "Stop Wolf Creek now" makes it sufficiently clear that you have no real conception of what the nuclear power industry is all about. Granted, there is a very definite need to treat nuclear power with the greatest amount of respect, but to even suggest that the nuclear power industry is preposterous.
Nuclear power affords us with a clean and limitlessly abundant energy source. In the near future, we will be forced to discover, develop and harness many new forms of energy, because our existing sources (oil, gas) are quickly running out. Right now, and until nuclear fusion is completely realized, we need a dynamic alternative energy source. You say, "Shut down the industry." I say, "Be realistic."
An accident is and always will be a possibility, as it is in driving a car, but with thorough and effective management, along with proper applications of modern engineering principles, we can all but wipe out the possibility of a catastrophe.
Noell Michaels
Tulsa, Okla. sophomore
Energy alternatives necessary for U.S.
Environmental concerns and the need to meet American energy demands must be properly balanced. The Three Mile Island incident shows what can happen if the balance tips too far toward supplying electricity in the air, or balance tips too far in the other direction, when the power is no longer available it will be the utilities turn to say, "Wet told you so."
To the editor:
Island power plant, anti-nuclear forces are saying, "We told you so," and with good cause. The public has a right to expect its power plants to work under Design, construction and operation procedures of all nuclear plants, existing, under construction and proposed, must be carefully reviewed. If they are found unhealthy, the necessary alterations must be made.
Jim Cartwright Ferguson, Mo. senior
However, the public must also have its ever-growing demand for power satiated. Most presently available (and com- pleted) energy sources are based in 19th century technology. They are only marginally adequate now, and will be inadequate in the future. It is quite conceivable that, given the American people's need to heat their homes for the seriousness of the energy crisis, a decision now to stop further development of large scale alternatives to fossil fuels could have dire consequences for the American economy and society in the not-too-distant future.
After the recent incident at the Three Mile
Regulation answer to nuclear question
I am writing in regard to an editorial and
letter to the editor regarding the safety of
men working at home.
Jim Cartwright
To the editor:
Ferguson, Mo. senior
Kansan April 11. At the outset, I will label myself "pro-nuke," at the risk of inviting misinterpretation of my attitude toward nuclear power, which should be clear. I am not an expert in the field. However, I believe many of us need reminded that we are not experts. In that light, in addition to a lack of time and paper, I will not attempt to explain any of our allegations, assumptions and conclusions made in the editorials about the accident.
Very few people – if any at present—have the information necessary to make many of these remarks about Three Mile Island. Personally, I will wait for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission report to provide me with the facts. Indeed, statements such as that “if it happens, when it appears that “luck” had nothing to do with it–it seems the chances were all in our favor), and Miller’s “They don't tell us conservation is the best and safest means of insuring energy for the future”) when the past three administrations have encouraged conservation as their reason to do so. They do not cloud the issue and raise the blood pressure.
However, it may come as a surprise that I agree with both writers on one general opinion: Many nuclear power plants are not safe. At present, it is not perfectly clear how many or which ones, but serious questions remain. There is no doubt that a problem exists.
The point everyone seems to be missing is this—lack of safety is not necessarily an inherent problem with the fundamental concept of nuclear power. The problem is with licensing, inspecting, regulation and a host of other peripheral aspects. But is it totally beyond our control? In what way has regulation and simple reform of the nuclear industry been ruled out as a viable solution? Do we have the ability to build public and public concern is sufficient to bring about successful changes in the present regulatory and safety procedures.
The root of the problem can be observed in this manner: Nuclear accidentes can only happen when nuclear reactors don't snack up on the nukeable public and attack. They are as safe as we
make them and I believe that we can make them safer than they are now.
Michael J. See
It is true that there is always the chance that something totally unpredictable could produce or result from a nuclear accident (such as the hydrogen bubble at Three Mile Island). But if the risk of an accident is minimized, so is the risk of an unfreeze problem. In any case, the chance is simply too small to justify eliminating such a possibility in the initial period (the fact that an unfreeze problem occurred at Three Mile Island already greatly lessens) the possibility of another such occurrence.
Let's not "throw the baby out with the bathwater," as the old adage would have it. Nuclear energy is the only economical alternative to oil that is readily available, and it is currently being developed to provide the lead time for the development of nuclear power. In other words, nuclear energy is a vital important link between old and new energy sources.
It was never intended to be a long-term, primary source.
What of Three Mile Island? Many things have been learned as a result of the accident, and any future ground endeavors will consequently be conducted much more quickly. The problem is that it’s very reassuring to know that despite possibly “three separate human errors,” “faulty plant construction” and an unforeseen hydrogen bubble, disaster was still avoided. With reference to the entire safety history of the plant, disaster was in "The China Syndrome"—it “worked.”
Merriam iunior
Nuclear power risk worth energy benefit
To the editor
To compare the recent events at the Three Mile Island nuclear power station to the mine explosion comparing a heavy rainfall to Noah's Flood. You have to stretch the facts to find any
This, however, is what bill Beems and his anti-nuclear coalition seem to be doing. This
is only cheap sensationalism on their part; clearly, they have seen that they cannot win converts to their cause by reason and facts, so they are using emotionalism and panic fact, so the Mile Island accident only proves that the Mile Island systems really are in a nuclear reactor.
The original failure of the main coolant pump caused the reactor to begin to overheat. An accidental failure of this type has been inevitable, and everyone had admitted it. The reactor was designed by (ECCS) was designed to cope with this problem, and when the failure occurred it worked perfectly. The reactor shut itself down and as temperatures rose, the ECCS activated itself long before any damage to the reactor was done. The core began to cool.
At this point, for reasons which we probably shall never know, somebody in the control room turned off the ECCS manually; with the main coolant system out, the temperature in the reactor apparently rose too high, and caused most of the problems that were later encountered. The ECCS was not turned back on until far too late, but even then, with significant core damage, only minimal amounts of radiation were released. (One of the problems is that many of the fission products are gases that are extremely toxic, so they only stay live; the xenon gas released, for example, has a half-life of 9 hours.)
The chances that, in another similar coolant accident, someone will again turn over the hose and leak are quite remote. (Yes, Mr. Beems, the chances that somebody would do it the first time would be less.)
But even so, with all the problems, the reactor has been essentially shut down safely after a very serious accident with no significant macrocric and no significant release of radiation.
Sure, the safety systems could stand improvement. The nuclear industry has made a lot of progress, but knowledge will greatly improve our understanding of what can happen. But the risks of nuclear power are dwarfed by the benefits, and I believe that they are acceptable.
Kenneth C. Mitchell Topeka senior
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY
KANSAN
(USPS 60-640) Published at the University of Kansas daily August through May and September during June and July except Saturday, and Sunday and holiday second-class days. Second-class days are $15 for each or $27 a year in Douglas County and $18 for its six months or $3 a year in county. State subscriptions are $2 a semester, paid through the activity fee.
Send changes of address to the University Daily Kaanan, Flint Hall. The University of Kannan, Lawrence, KS 60645
Managing Editor Dirck Steimel
Editor Barry Massey
Editorial Editor
John Whitesides
Business Manager
Karen Wenderott
General Manager Rick Musser
Advertising Adviser Chuck Chowins