‘Deaf Justice’ View Is Unsound

In his column, “Words From Families Don’t Belong in Death Sentences” (July 5), Dana Parsons makes an emotional pitch against the current law of the land regarding first-degree murder with special circumstances.

While he fails to point out the guidelines recently set up by the high court (family testimony only in cases where it is established in the trial that the accused had prior knowledge of a victim’s family), his fear is that more harsh sentences would be meted out to those who murder people with eloquent family members.

His argument that justice be deaf as well as blind when it comes to the totality of the facts involved has several fallacies. First, our justice system has always allowed “degrees of bad,” if you will. Only in the total scheme of things can one murder (first- versus second- versus third-degree) be viewed as worse than another. The amount of (money) stolen determines the “degree of bad” in a robbery case.

Secondly, he would have the crime viewed as if it were committed in a vacuum--the only person harmed is the person killed. This is also not the case since murder is viewed as a crime against the people, and that includes the family--regardless of their eloquence or lack thereof.

Finally, his metaphor concerning blind justice is well-intentioned but misused. Blind justice has always meant equal justice for all, not justice blind to the facts.

While Mr. Parsons’ sympathy for the murderer is liberally correct, keeping juries in the dark about the totality of the crime is justice ill-served.

BILL ROBESON, Huntington Beach