Circulation Booster?

I was astonished to read your article regarding a small-town newspaper whose policies encourage rapists to commit their crimes with greater immunity from prosecution (“How a Paper’s Rape Policy Affects Town” by Ann Japenga, July 20). The publisher, editor and reporter (all men) of this small newspaper in Shelton, Wash., make a special point of identifying rape victims and even printing the victim’s trial testimony in explicit detail on the front page. They justify this as a way to ensure the rapist the “presumption of innocence.” This is merely a smoke screen for their real interest: increasing their sales.

If their stated justification was accurate, the implication is that this trio just doesn’t believe that a jury of 12 can evaluate the evidence fairly and come to a proper verdict. They prefer that the testimony of the victim, her rapist and the forensic findings be debated and judged by the entire county. The article implies that many townspeople want the policy changed, but their petitions and picketing have had no effect.

It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that the women and children in this small town would have to be crazy to report an assault. The local police lieutenant states that many victims choose not to complete an official report. Obviously, since they know how unlikely it is that they will be punished, the rapists and other abusers (surely, a tiny minority) will enjoy far fewer inhibitions about attacking women and children in this community.

ADELE LYFORD

La Habra