To the Editor:
Re “More Heroes, Fewer Traitors” (editorial, July 12):
By presenting a sample of true American heroes as suggestions for new names for Army bases now bearing the names of Confederates, you showed the breadth of our country’s people who have served us with skill and honor.
Any of them would be inspirations for today’s soldiers as well as yesterday’s stationed at any of those bases. Renaming bases is just one small step toward a more perfect union that we can take together.
Jim Engelking
Golden, Colo.
To the Editor:
I and nearly all of my friends agree that the base names should be changed. But your editorial shows little understanding of Southerners and empathy with those who so often feel the condescension of people in the Northeast and in the liberal media.
That is epitomized by your recommendation of Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman, who is best remembered by most in the South not for setting aside land for settlement by former slaves but for his scorched-earth policies.
Changing the names is an opportunity for reconciliation, not further division.
Pete Cornish
Little Rock, Ark.
The Trouble With Mandatory Minimum Sentences
To the Editor:
Re “How Mandatory Minimums Are Weaponized,” by Sandeep Dhaliwal (Op-Ed, July 6):
The enactment of mandatory minimum sentences has been a nightmare of unfairness. It has resulted in a substantial reduction of trials. The prosecutor threatens to charge a crime that requires a minimum mandatory sentence unless the defendant agrees to plead guilty to a lesser crime. This places the power to determine the sentence in those cases in the hands of the prosecutor, where it does not belong.
A mandatory minimum sentence means that the judge must impose that sentence, no matter what the judge thinks of the fairness of that sentence. Unlike the legislators who mandated the sentence, the judge knows the actual facts of the case and the background of the defendant. The judge knows these facts from the trial she presided over or the plea she took, from the probation department’s sentencing reports and from the submissions of the prosecutor and the defense.
There is simply no valid reason for the existence of mandatory minimum sentences. There is no reason to doubt and every reason to trust sentencing judges to do the right thing because only they and not the legislators who enacted the mandatory minimum sentences have all the facts in each case necessary to make the fairest sentencing decision.
Irwin Rochman
Water Mill, N.Y.
The writer is a criminal defense lawyer and a former prosecutor.