In regard to the “take away candy” letter to the editor (June 3), I wouldn’t sign my name either, not out of fear of reprisals, but out of fear of being laughed at and thought of as kookie.
I totally agree that looters and arsonists are the scum of the earth and should be punished for destroying other people’s livelihoods and property. However, the writer uses heavy artillery when a smaller caliber would do the job.
Taking away housing, food and transportation would only make the problem worse and almost force them into criminal activity to even survive. Placing them on a “no fly” is actually sort of funny, since I doubt most looters have that kind of money in the first place.
Saving agricultural work for the “worst of the worst” is a slap in the face to all our wonderful farm workers who labor to feed the rest of us so we don’t have to labor in the fields. Shame on you, writer.
Now we come to the fun part. “Probationary citizens,” now there’s a chilling phrase. “Normal rights” would be suspended for 10 years. (What’s with the 10-year timeframe for everything, a mystical number, perhaps?) What are “normal rights” for the writer? Are they life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the whole Bill of Rights, the right to own a parrot or a pogo stick or a parasol?
Also, who gets to reevaluate people and how will officials know what their behavior for the last 10 years has been? Not all behavior shows up in police reports.
The writer is right about one thing: personal responsibility is of utmost importance. However, you learn that from family, school, mentors and church.
So, no, I don’t think the writer’s solution is a good or viable one at all. It is silly to the extreme, and that is why the author didn’t sign his name.