4
Tuesday, November 23,1993
OPINION UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
VIEWPOINT
'Don't ask, don't tell policy best solution
President Clinton and Congress' compromise of "don't ask, don't tell" is the best proposal for allowing gays in the military.
While this policy permits gays to enter the military and prohibits exclusion merely because of sexual preference, most critics argue that these people are forced to live a lie. However, those complaining of this loss of First Amendment rights forget one thing about the U.S.military: those in the military have very restricted freedoms of expression.
Just as gays are forced to suppress their lifestyle while in uniform, so are other personnel. The military prohibits participation in demonstrations and frowns on what is called "fraternization," the friendly afterhours mixing between supervisors and their subordinates. This frowning even prohibits public displays of affection between, for example, a colonel or captain married to a lieutenant or ensign. They must leave their married lives away from the base.
In other words, homosexuals are not the only ones that must suppress something about themselves.
One aspect that is wrong with the compromise, however, is that it provides no abandonment for investigations of homosexual activity.
While any allegation of misconduct warrants investigation, no one should be subject to unfair scrutiny because of what they do on their own time, out of uniform and away from their official posts—as long as it doesn't hurt others. The present policy offers no protection from these continual investigations which have been likened to the Salem witch hunts of the 1600s.
Until the Clinton administration, gays have served proudly in uniform despite the ban against them. Rather than complain about the lack of freedom of expression, these people decided that the suppression of their lifestyle was an inferior sacrifice compared to serving their country. This decision allowed them to contribute in support of the United States and allowed the military to benefit from the technical talent and skills those people had to offer.
Gay personnel continue to serve in uniform today and will continue to enter and serve in the military regardless of policy. The policy of "don't ask, don't tell" avoids conflicts of homophobia and sustains morale.
For those who believe the commitment to serving their country is greater than a lifestyle, "don't ask, don't tell" is the best policy.
J. R. CLAIRBORNE FOR THE EDITORIAL BOARD
INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE
U.S. can't play favorites in Mideast peace plans
The United States is giving Israel almost everything it wants to encourage it to cooperate in the Middle East peace process.
One shudders to think what other goodies Rabin will reap.
Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin went to Washington the other day with a political, economic and military shopping list and was quite successful in finding — and getting — everything he wanted and more. On his second day of a 10-day visit to North America, Rabin was given pledges by President Bill Clinton for advanced U.S. warplanes and previously restricted computer technology to be sent to Israel, no cuts in America's $3 billion annual aid package to Israel and a renewed vow from Clinton to maintain and enhance Israel's qualitative security edge.
It is truly amazing how the U.S. is bending over backward to try to please the Israelis. A case in point is the access the U.S. is willing to give Israel to intelligence and satellite material. Until recently, it had been banned for export to Israel because of its military applications and use in building ballistic missiles. That America has barred this kind of information from going even to top allies says only too well how dangerous and sensitive it must be.
What is even more amazing is America's seeming unwillingness to acknowledge that for a peace deal to be struck there must be two parties, not one. In this particular instance, the second party — the Arab side — is getting nothing compared to what Tel Aviv has and will continue to get.
ARAB NEWS
ARAB NEWS
JIDDAH, SAUDI ARABIA
KANSAN STAFF
KC TRAUER, Editor
BILL SKEET, Systems coordinator
JOE HARDER, CHRISTINE LAUE
Managing editors
TOM EBLEN
General manager, news adviser
Editors
Assistant to the editor ... J.R. Clairborne
News ... Stacy Friedman
Editorial ... Terrilyn McConnell
Campus ... Ben Grove
Sports ... Kristi Fogler
Photo ... Klip Chin, Renoe Kneeber
Features ... Ezra Wolfe
Graphics ... John Paul Wolfe
AMY CASEY
Business manager
AMY STUMBO
Retail sales manager
JEANNE HINES
Sales and marketing adviser
AMY CASEY
Business Staff
Campus sales mgr ..Ed Schager
Regional Sales mgr ..Jennifer Perlier
National sales mgr ..Jennifer Evanson
Co-op sales mgr ..Blythe Focht
Production mgrs ..Jennifer Blowey
Kate Burgess
Marketing director ..Shelly McConnell
Creative director ..Brian Fusco
Glazed larder ..Gretchen Kotterleinrich
**Letters** 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 hometown, or faculty or staff position.
**Guest columns** should be typed, double-spaced and fewer than 700 words. The writer will be photographed.
The Kansas university reserves the right to edit or edit letters, guest columns and cartoons. They can be mailed or brought to the Kansas newarow, 111 Stauffer-Flint Hall.
Reasons for the death penalty do not support its reinstitution
COLUMNIST
Wednesday the Kansan ran an editorial calling for the reinstitution of capital punishment in Kansas in 1994. I completely disagree with the editorial. The death penalty is a barbaric and overly final solution to difficult problems.
On the applied side, the death penalty has been favored by some for its potential in deterring future crimes. But crime, especially violent crime, continues to rise along with the number of executions. Criminals do not generally think about the death penalty when they commit murders. In fact, as Kent Miller and Michael Radelet write in their 1993 book "Executing the Mentally Ill," a 1989 Gallup poll shows that supporters of the death penalty are using deterrence less and less as an argument for their support.
Second, as it is applied today, the death penalty borders on being racist. In 1887, the Supreme Court narrowly rejected the appeal of a Georgia man on death row even though the man's lawyers had found compelling evidence that black men were four times more likely to receive the death sentence than white men.
years ago, a man in Virginia was denied an appeal because his court-appointed lawyer filed the appeal an hour late. It was the lawyer's first case.
A final note about the application of the death penalty concerns appeals. Death penalty proponents often complain about convicts' seemingly endless appeals. But recent Supreme Court rulings now make the appeals process more rigid than ever. A few
Third, Hugh Bedau and Radelet reported in a 1987 issue of the Stanford Law Review that at least 23 innocent people had been executed in the United States in the 20th century. A system that is biased against blacks and occasionally makes mistakes, resulting in the death of innocent people, is a failed system.
On the theoretical side, the death penalty merely uses violence to solve violence, thus eliminating any traces of compassion. Death penalty proponents don't, for example, care about Johnny Frank Garrett, who in 1992 was executed for the rape and murder of a 76-year-old nun in Texas. As a child, Garrett had been beaten and sexually abused, and he was only 17 when he murdered the nun. Having grown up without learning the difference between right and wrong, Garrett merely acted out what he had learned.
all but a few exempt minors.
Of course, there is no turning back. Garrett cannot be rehabilitated, nor can he be brought back from the dead. His execution was a finality: a life for a life. Although that type of ancient system of justice may be arguable for the woman in California who killed the man who allegedly raped her daughter, it's quite a different matter for the government to get involved in the revenge business. The central question here is, "Should the government have the right to kill its citizens?"
I am not arguing that he should have been put back on the streets. But surely his past had something to do with the murder, and executing him said, "We don't care about his past." More important, the fact that he was a minor when he committed the murder made no difference. Even in countries that still use the death penalty,
Ironically, in most other countries the answer is no. We are the only nation in the developed world to continue executing its citizens. Amnesty International continues to include the United States in its list of countries with human rights' abuses, placing us on equal footing with such countries as China, Iraq, Turkey and Yugoslavia. It's not a worthy list.
Nathan Olson is a Chicago graduate student in English.
Thanksgiving — a time to eat, wrestle and to give thanks for your television
It has become the time of the year that I long for. Yes, soon Thanksgiving Day will be here. This is a day that we should all celebrate. For me, this holiday not only provides a much needed break from school, but it also gives me the chance to partake in much food. This food is not only plentiful, but most importantly, it's free. However, even though eating turkey is now the officially recognized reason for this special day, it wasn't always this way. Believe it or not, there was once a time when eating free food was but a minuscule part of Turkey Day.
Although I haven't researched this subject, if I did, I would probably see that the origins of Thanksgiving go back to the days of the pilgrims who came to the New World (Los Angeles). When they arrived, they met the American Indians, and after promising not to ever lie to them, decided to celebrate their meeting with turkey and Stove Top Stuffing. Then they probably decided to give thanks
(hence the name Thanksgiving.) So based on this information (which is probably true), I think maybe we should relive those days by giving thanks for the good fortune in our lives. Before any further reading, you should probably dress in proper attire (choose between pilgrim and American Indian) for maximum benefit. I have been very fortunate in my life and am especially grateful for these things:
1) My television set. I hold my TV very close to my heart because I
spend 90 percent of my life in front of it. Many people will claim that television is actually evil and can decrease your intelligence. I argue that if you watch quality shows, such as soap operas, you can learn quite a bit about human interaction. Therefore, television is actually teaching people how to better survive in this tough world. Also, I wouldn't be able to watch Detroit play in their traditional Thanksgiving game, and wouldn't that just ruin the day? (HA-HA, chuckle, chuckle.)
2) As the cowboys, I mean the pilgrims and American Indians, almost certainly gave thanks for their food, so will I. If things work out right, my Thanksgiving food will be very tasty. I love just about everything, except those little purple things that look like Jello. YUCK! One of the disadvantages of this day is that it takes turkeys almost three weeks to cook. I can start smelling it at about nine in the morning. Then I try to sneak a
taste, but my Dad says, "Don't spoil your appetite. Save room for turkey."
3) The wishbone. This turkey bone has provided many fond memories for my family. To be selected for the "Wishbone Wrestle-Off" is quite an honor. My competition record is unscathed. There's a certain method to it that one either has or doesn't have. The whole theory about making a wish and having it come true is a joke though — the Buccaneers still haven't won a Super Bowl.
Well, I wish you and yours (whatever that means) all the best for Thanksgiving. May the pumpkin pie be plentiful and may you not get into some never-ending argument with an older relative about how messed up the government is. GOBBLE, GOBBLE, GOBBLE!
Chris Ronan is a Overland Park sophomore major in broadcast journalism.
Death penalty is revenge,
will not solve problem
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
The Nov. 17 editorial, "Capital Punishment Bill Should Be Passed in '94," makes pseudo-facts out of urban legends derived from romanticized cowboy myths. In the myth, it takes a lone-wolf, pure-hearted, hawk-eyed, good-guy cowboy to clean up the town. In the myth, violence is commonly a force for good, and you can tell good guys by the color of the hat.
I believe that reality is much different; it usually takes concerted and non-violent civic action to clean up crime.
The myth of immanent purity or perfection is hidden but central in the Kansan's argument. That is, the cowboy-government is seen as a distorted Christ figure. Since the gov-
emment's heart is pure, we should trust it with life and death decisions. Since the government's vision is perfect, we should empower it to tell bad guys from good guys "efficiently," without an expensive system of trial and appeal. Since we rightfully seek a "sure way" to prevent recidivism, the government must kill the killers. Since the court system is perfect, we need not think about such messy unfairness as executing innocent persons.
In reality, the following facts are well documented: 1. A fair trial in a capital case in the United States costs much more than the cost of lifetime imprisonment. 2. Alaw law has cited more than 300 persons convicted and punished in the United States for potentially capital crimes on inadequate and often false evidence. 3. Murder rates are higher
If you really want to reduce murder, forget the cowboy myth and ban firearms.
in states with than without a death penalty. 4. The death penalty in the United States is almost entirely reserved for low-income males who murder white people.
David Burress, research economist
Institute for Public Policy and Business Research
Capital punishment is myth in crime control
First, the death penalty is racist. Minorities receive this sentence at a higher rate than whites.
The Editorial Board's call for capital punishment in Kansas (Nov. 17) is insubstantial for three reasons:
Second, capital punishment is not a deterrent to violent crime. Neither
psychopaths nor "common" serious criminals worry much about the consequences of their crimes before they commit them. A more "efficient" system will not prevent a police officer from being shot when responding to an armed robbery, yet it would increase the chances of executing an innocent person.
Finally, capital punishment will not "dramatically reduce the problem of prison overcrowding." Only a small percentage of Kansas' criminals have been convicted of a crime that would be punishable by death; capital punishment could not ease prison overcrowding unless applied to a wider variety of crimes. Furthermore, the idea of justifying executions because taxpayers do not want to provide for criminals is appalling.
Matt Shellenbergar
Leeward lunar
---
1