Law ReformThe item in the Republican "Contract with...


January 17, 1995

Law Reform

The item in the Republican "Contract with America" that addresses "legal reforms" is on the wrong track. It states that judges should be allowed to require someone who brings a lawsuit and loses to pay the lawyers' fees of both sides.

Should this be allowed, it would no longer be prudent for an ordinary individual to bring suit against a large business establishment, regardless of the blatancy of an offense.

In general, an individual is hard-pressed to cover the cost of a single lawyer, whereas large business establishments bring on sometimes three, five or even 10 lawyers.

With our less-than-perfect justice system, an individual cannot afford to risk having to pay such costs. Therefore, it is suggested that such an allowance not be enacted.

The Contract also proposes limiting punitive damages. This, too, is a bad idea.

Plaintiffs should be adequately compensated for damages, but they have no rightful claim to punitive damages.

The change needed is one whereby punitive damages are awarded to society (e.g., state or federal government), with legal fees for such awards being disallowed.

Larry Guess

Havre de Grace

Postal Un-service

I went to a Post Office to get some three-cent stamps to cover my remaining 29-cent stamps. It was sold out of three-cent stamps.

This bureaucracy had been talking about this rate increase for at least four months, and they can't even be ready for a known situation as their own prices changes.

I can't wait for the day to come when the U.S. Postal Service is either privatized, or e-mail gets so advanced the U.S. Postal Service will become obsolete.

Joe B. McCall


Drunk Drivers

Commendations to C. Fraser Smith for the Jan. 1 article in Perspective.

The effect of the children's testimonies before the 1994 General Assembly was praiseworthy considering the legislature's previous slow response to the need for stiffer laws covering drunk driving.

The bereaved family and friends of Annie Davis were successful (with the help of Mothers Against Drunk Driving) where MADD had formerly labored long to to gain slow changes.

The new law requires "drug and alcohol testing at the scene of serious accidents." My question -- what constitutes a "serious" accident? Is it the presence of an ambulance at the scene, any injury verified by police, and/or other factors?

The "illegal per se" law already passed by 46 states appears to be the tough measure needed by Maryland. But let us not pass it merely for the federal aid which will result.

Could this law be unfair and/or unconstitutional? Consider a case in which a drug or alcohol impaired driver may be stopped and then hit by another vehicle whose driver used bad judgment unrelated to drug or alcohol abuse.

The first driver could still be charged with driving under the influence but would the "illegal per se" law then absolve the person responsible for the accident from deserved charges?

My heart goes out to the family and friends of Annie Davis. May memories of Annie continue to spur them to worthy causes and may their faith in the democratic system continue to grow.

Margery C. Craven


Bum Rap

Connie Chung did nothing wrong in her interview with Newt Gingrich's parents.

She did not ask Kathleen Gingrich about Hillary Clinton. But Mrs. Gingrich brought up the subject of Mrs. Clinton and seemed as if she couldn't wait to make the "B" remark.

When Connie Chung said, "Whisper it to me," surely everyone involved knew the microphone was on. Mrs. Gingrich's bad judgment, not Ms. Chung's.

Gloria Galperin


Judicial Bias

I read with curiosity the article in the Maryland section of The Sun Jan. 5 about the married couple who have had 22 visits by the police because of their domestic violence.

The article reported that a judge warned them that one more 911 call -- regardless of who makes the call -- will land the husband in jail.

I find it curious that the judge, who happens to be a woman, will automatically jail the man the next time this couple fights.

Her attitude that he is automatically the one to be punished (even though, as the article stated, they have both been arrested in the past for battering each other) reveals her stereotypical attitude toward domestic violence -- that men are always its perpetrators, and never its victims.

With the judge's biased, anti-male ruling, what's to stop the wife from calling the police on her husband when he hasn't done anything wrong, just to get him out of her hair and into a jail cell?

This seems like a clear-cut case of anti-male discrimination to me.

Ken Thomas


Jews in Iran

Rafael Alvarez's report on new Jewish immigrants (Dec. 17) quoted from an Iranian Jewish couple (Sion and Mahvaash Delshad): It was "too dangerous" to name their son a Jewish name while they were in Iran; also that the culture has no love for Jews.

Mr. and Mrs. Delshad, and other Jews, may not remember (or may not want to remember) that it was Cyrus the Great, founder of the first Persian Empire, who freed Jews from Babylon captivity.

Baltimore Sun Articles
Please note the green-lined linked article text has been applied commercially without any involvement from our newsroom editors, reporters or any other editorial staff.