Letters to the Editor

Executing 16-year-old kids is OK now?

Let the jury decide the shooter’s fate

In response to “Butler student should face death penalty” (Nov. 20 Forum):

I was stunned when I read Forum writer Eugene Halpin's letter stating that Jatwan Cuffie should get the death penalty for the shooting at Butler High. A 16 year old high school student should be executed?

Mr. Halpin wasn't there, isn't part of the investigation, doesn't know any of the evidence and knows nothing of the circumstances that led up to the shooting. The Grand Jury, however, that did hear evidence, indicted him with second-degree murder. Let the facts come out at trial and let a judge and jury do their job and return justice in this matter.

I would also like to point out Mr. Halpin that the law states that 16 year olds cannot be executed, and that law is appropriate.

Jerri Wesson, Charlotte

there’s no justice in child execution

Sham Ostapko
Sham Ostapko

Jatwan Cuffie shot and killed Bobby McKeithen. It breaks my heart that a boy lost his life at only 16. Two families are now forever changed and I pray for both of them.

Jatwan was wrong to bring a gun to school. He was wrong to use it to kill another human being. However, let the Prosecutor determine the facts of the case through a proper investigation. Forum writer Eugene Halpin would likely have a different opinion about executing a child if Jatwan Cuffie were his own son. Have you no compassion Mr. Halpin?

Don’t get me wrong, Jatwan Cuffie should be held accountable for his actions and should serve time. But, where’s the justice in executing a child? I see none.

Sham Ostapko, Huntersville

Your vote does count in this Republic

In response to “Electoral College has its flaws” (Nov. 20 Forum):

Robert Salvia
Robert F. Salvia

Forum writer Hilda Howerton’s assertion that the United States is a democracy is simply untrue. Article VII of the Constitution states that the United States is a Republic formed by the states. Founding fathers James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson all explicitly rejected democracy.

Even before the days of California and Texas, the small states feared being overwhelmed by the large states (then Virginia and Massachusetts) hence the electoral college construct. The assertion that “every vote does not count” is simply untrue. It counts within the citizen’s state of residence.

Robert F. Salvia, Charlotte

Democracy has a history of failure

Spencer R. Rackley IV
Spencer R. Rackley IV

Our Founding Fathers were well read and understood why the ancient Greek Democracies failed. In Federalist #10, Madison explains the difference between a Republic and a Democracy and why they chose to create a Republic.

A Democracy has been described from time to time as "Seven wolves, three sheep, and two chickens voting on who is for dinner.”The sheep can compromise and vote with the wolves but soon there will be no chickens. A pure Democracy is a disaster.

I'm fairly sure that if the blue and red on the political maps were reversed, Forum writer Hilda Howerton would be clamoring to keep the Electoral College.

Let us preserve our Republic.

Spencer R. Rackley IV, Charlotte

Dems have ways to start solving issues

In response to “Outgoing Republican after Democrats sweep county: ‘You now are completely in charge.’” (Nov. 21):

Democrats it’s time to go big or go home! It’s time to tackle these problems like the lack of affordable housing, deficient school system, crime and homelessness just to name a few. Progress can be made.

Without raising property tax, where do the funds come from? The lottery was a self imposed tax that actually netted revenue for education. Think! Legalize pot and tax the heck out of it, form an express line for pre-approved screened immigrants for a fee, institute a small vehicle tag fee increase and many more options that probably very few people would object to. There is so many possible solutions so it’s time to get to work.

Randall Lemly, Charlotte

Athletes are employed like us

When will folks realize that football players are employees of a company? As such, they are subject to the whims of the potential employers that may wish (or not wish) to employ them, as well as the salary the employer may wish to pay them.

Union or not, this is the same employee/employer relationship that most of us understand and agree to abide by. If one employer isn't willing to enter the relationship, one moves on to seek another that will. Again, can it really be all that complicated everyone?

Dick Frank, Hickory