Life-and-death jury decisions

Re “Jury spares killer’s life in rail crash,” July 16

Unbelievable. Carmelita Alvarez, the wife of convicted killer Juan Manuel Alvarez, is going to tell her children when they get older that their father was unfairly convicted. In fact, what she should tell her children is that their father was subjected to the best system of justice ever devised, that he was presumed innocent until proved guilty, that he was justifiably convicted following a public trial and full opportunity to confront his accusers and that his life was spared by a jury of his peers. That is what Carmelita Alvarez should tell her children.

Aside from being the truth, it would constitute a civics lesson, an example of taking personal responsibility and an unequaled opportunity to teach her children right from wrong, including the consequences thereof.

Craig A. Roeb

Los Angeles

--

Despite outcries demanding the execution of Alvarez, whose suicide attempt caused a deadly Metrolink crash, and the two elderly women convicted of murdering homeless men for money, the juries and judges in those cases imposed permanent incarceration. By sparing the lives of these deeply disturbed individuals, the juries and judges also saved taxpayers millions of dollars that would have been spent on automatic appeals if the death penalty had been imposed.

Indeed, the independent, nonpartisan California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice released a report last month showing that, statewide, we could save more than $100 million every year by not seeking the death penalty in cases like these, money that could be better spent to balance the state budget and provide better healthcare, education, transportation, job training and law enforcement.

Stephen Rohde

Los Angeles