ShareThis Page

Letter to the editor: Punishments should fit the crimes

| Sunday, Dec. 3, 2017, 9:00 p.m.

Two articles on Page A3 of the Nov. 3 Valley News Dispatch show why this world has gone topsy-turvy.

Harrison Township public works director Randy Martinka was convicted of two counts of simple assault and one count of terroristic threats with intent to terrorize another ( “Harrison public works director convicted of assault, terroristic threats” ). Judge Kevin Sasinowski gave him the ridiculous punishment of two years of probation and anger management classes and forbade him any contact with the victim. Big whoop.

A federal grand jury indicted Ronald Wojcik of Tarentum on charges of opening two pieces of mail that didn't belong to him ( “Not at this address: Postal worker indicted for opening someone else's mail” ). He faces 10 years in prison and a fine of $500,000.

Does anyone else see the inequity here? The punishment does not fit the crimes.

This is why on Nov. 6 we read about Devin Kelley, who entered the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, and shot and killed 26 innocent people, including eight children ranging in age from 1 to 16. Kelley received a bad-conduct discharge from the Air Force and was court-martialed in 2012 for a brutal attack on his then-wife and stepson. He was able to get a job as a security guard for a Texas water park this summer, then went on to commit this heinous crime.

Judges need to be held accountable for punishments that don't fit the crime if those people go on to commit worse crimes.

Christine Cimino-Schubert

Lower Burrell

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.