To the editor: Once again, The Times Editorial Board frets about the problem other states may have with the system of convicting someone of murder and punishing him, without attempting to provide any suggestions for improving those systems. (“The Supreme Court has the chance to end the death penalty. They should take it,” editorial, Dec. 7)
I am fully aware of the fact that you oppose capital punishment, but I was still appalled by your use of the term “run-of-the-mill killing” in your quest to chastise the state of Arizona’s death penalty statute.
You stress out over potential problems that some other states have in convicting and punishing their killers, but you admit that these evidently do not apply in the clear-cut case of Abel Hidalgo, the Arizona murderer of four whose appeal prompted your editorial.
I suspect you will not ever answer the ultimate question of why Hidalgo deserves to go on living.
Mel Wolf, Burbank
To the editor: As you clearly state in this editorial, you are opposed to the death penalty in all cases. What is also clear is your lack of respect for human life.
You make the incredible statement regarding “run-of-the-mill killing,” as if the victims and families that suffer because of these “run-of-the-mill” atrocities are somehow of lesser consequence than other cases.
Robert Braley, Bakersfield
To the editor: The Times Editorial Board states it is against the death penalty in all cases.
My question for The Times is this: Is Hidalgo against the death penalty? I must assume he endorses it. His criminal past certainly indicates that on numerous occasions he has applied it to others.
David Ando, Torrance