Letters: Oct. 18, 1968

On the Scales of Justice

Sir: Re your cover story on law and order [Oct. 4]. As a member of the "young radical" element in our nation, I feel greatly encouraged when a publication as influential as TIME speaks so clearly and honestly on an issue. Although I shall continue to voice my dissatisfaction with our present society, 1 now have renewed hope for the future of America.

JOHN R. MOLITOR

University of Notre Dame

Notre Dame, Ind.

Sir: A person cannot have a genuine respect for laws unless he respects the law and himself. Changing the laws will not help. Our attitudes need to be changed. I will not argue whether or not income tax evasion is comparable to violent crime. But the attitude that a little transgression is all right definitely is not healthy and clearly points to this nation's need for moral leadership.

CAROLYN AMBROSE

Westbury, N.Y.

Sir: The first step in grasping the reaction of the majority of Americans to lawlessness is to understand that the only thing that makes our Government work is the recognition by the individual of the obligation to accept the majority opinion once lawfully stated, no matter which side he may have taken in' the debating stage. In equating our colony's revolt against King George with the current radicals' attacks on our established democratic forms, you seem to understand this as poorly as the rioters.

WALLACE HOOPER

Westfield, N.J.

Sir: Mayor Lindsay in his attack on the campaign issue of law and order speaks of liberty. I find myself wondering if the liberty that he speaks of is the liberty to be afraid to walk the streets of a once-great city after dark, or the liberty to refrain from using its parks or the liberty of the people of that city to bolt and rebolt their doors and windows so that they may sleep free from the fear of being murdered in their beds. If this be liberty, then give me death.

RAYMOND J. HERBIG

Meriden, Conn.

Sir: Your advocacy of "police calm" in the face of "verbal provocation," "filthy abuse," and "language, however violent" is irresponsible and ridiculous. To justify such acts in the name of the First Amendment is just absurd. Surely you must know that the law prohibits the use of obscene language in public places, disorderly conduct, violent language, and interfering with a police officer in the exercise of his duty. You might as well defend the shouting of "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

LEWIS KAPNER

Judge

Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court

West Palm Beach, Fla.

Sir: One sentence startled me: "Certainly, police should not be responsible for carting drunks to jail—one-third of all arrests." I am wondering what you propose to do with the drunks? Leave them lie to be rolled by other nighttime characters? Leave them lie to become sick? Leave them lie as an unsightly and disgusting sight for sober citizens? I realize that my thinking (based on over twenty years as a Village Justice) is not on all fours with the current thinking on how to cure alcoholism. Perhaps it is a disease but I have "dried out" many an alcoholic with a jail sentence (where alcoholic beverages were denied them) and have been thanked after their release.

G. C. BRADSTREET JR.