Suggestion for Criminals Has Flaws

I read with great interest a letter you recently published from Robert Rose in Laguna Niguel (“Debate Over Gun Control,” Jan. 14). Mr. Rose was commenting on an opinion article written by Richard Reeves discussing gun control. In his letter, Mr. Rose displayed strong beliefs in our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Rose also displayed strong feelings about our “bleeding heart legal system” and allowing criminal defendants to be released on bail. Rose suggested that every time a defendant released on bail commits a new crime, his lawyer should be charged as an accomplice. This is a brilliant idea; however, it does not go far enough.

Along with charging a criminal’s lawyer as an accomplice, we also should charge as an accomplice the judge who set the bail, the clerk who wrote the order, the prosecutor who was incompetent enough to let bail get set in the first place, the bail bondsman who bailed the crook out of jail, and the jailer who opened the door and released the guy back into the world. And why stop here, Mr. Rose? How about the criminal’s parents who released the guy into the world to start with?

Of course, the above is said in jest to illustrate how foolish Mr. Rose’s suggestion really is. He obviously does not understand the legal system or the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. I wonder what he would think if he unknowingly sold a criminal one of the many guns he probably owns, and then the criminal used it to commit a crime?

What do you think, Mr. Rose? Should you be prosecuted as an accomplice? You would certainly be more responsible than the crook’s lawyer who was just protecting his client’s constitutional rights.

GREG JONES, San Clemente