Readers React: Punishment for USC shooter
Re “Rigid sentencing laws leave no room for nuanced judgment,” Column, April 26
Something overlooked in Sandy Banks’ column on the 40-year sentence for USC shooter Brandon Spencer is that this is not really about the precise amount of punishment to deal out; rather, it’s about keeping people off the street who are most likely to repeat their violent crimes.
The California voters who approved the harsh sentencing laws were primarily concerned for their own safety. Given Spencer’s nonchalant attitude toward his violent crime involving innocent victims, would a lesser prison term be more likely to rehabilitate him or make him more violent?
If returned to the streets while still in his 20s or 30s, would he continue to be influenced by gang culture? Would Spencer still be a danger to the public?
That’s the question, and the only solution we have now is a long prison sentence aimed at protecting us from those who are most likely to commit additional crimes.
Carolyn Dingus
Oceanside
Access to firearms certainly accelerates violence, sooner or later. But more to the point, how and why is violence ever tolerated as justifiable or natural for the human species? Isn’t use of violence always preceded by some form of failure, communicative or otherwise? Should violence be acceptable in our culture just to solve another failure? Furthermore, does it ever work? Or does violence merely breed more violence?
Psychological testing for each and every shooter may be needed. Or do we accept the awful notion that violent behavior is simply “normal” in our present human condition?
Daniel John Richards
Long Beach
ALSO:
Did California drive Toyota to Texas?
Why ‘cheap’ coal is actually expensive
A cure for the common opinion
Get thought-provoking perspectives with our weekly newsletter.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
