Some sex offenders worse than others
In Dr. Carman S. Clark's letter to the editor ("Sexual predators are unpredictable, violent," June 16), the author justifies my previous point by not considering different crimes that can cause someone to be a sex offender.
He says their behavior is "impulsive, unpredictable and violent." He is right about some, while wrong about others. Offender A abducted a child and violently raped and molested him or her. Offender B was four years older than his girlfriend and had consensual sex, which is a common sexual offense in our society. Most people assume a sexual offender is someone like offender A, not offender B.
While all of the crimes deserve punishment, it is important to see a clear difference between offender A and offender B. Offender A has more of a predatory personality than offender B. One of them is impulsive, unpredictable and violent, while the other might be impulsive, but is not necessarily unpredictable and is far from violent.
To further complicate the subject on the front of the paper ("Coach held on charges," June 16), there is someone who has been charged with the same crime as offender B but in a very different situation. If convicted, he would most likely get a more severe sentence on multiple accounts than someone like offender B. This is why the state Legislature has different punishments for different crimes. It is why judges have different sentences for different offenders for the same crime. They realize some are worse than others and view things on a case-by-case basis.
Clark assumes sex offenders can't respond to rehabilitation. That is simply not true. While a few sadly commit crimes again and make national news, most do not commit a crime again.
Why should you or anyone else be concerned about the newspaper printing more information? I am not asking them to stop printing what they are - just to improve upon what they do print.
- Clay Kimbro
Nuclear war would have caused cooling
Tom Jordan of Lawrenceville ("Rethink 'facts' about global climate change," June 14) wants to claim that science was wrong about global cooling and therefore any claims for global warming are suspect.
But the global cooling he references is the "nuclear winter" hypothesis where one result of a nuclear war would be clouds of dust that cause the Earth's temperature to fall. The fact that the Earth did not cool off is not because of a failure of science but rather because of the victory of human intelligence over human nature.
- Alan Thursby