It has been stated that the death penalty cheapens life. It is just exactly the opposite! Doing away with the death penalty sends a clear message that life is not valued enough to have a proportionate punishment meted out to those that take innocent lives. Although some say that life without parole is just as good a guarantee as the execution of murders, there are always jail breaks, releases or pardons. To prove my point, we have recently seen escapes of death row murders in Nebraska, Texas, Oklahoma and Alabama.

In regard to inequality of sentencing, I suggest that a three-judge panel be appointed and review all murder cases and set the penalty for the crime. There should be a limitation to the number of appeals (that are paid by public money) to three years maximum. Plea-bargaining should also be carefully reviewed by this panel.

A number of "junior" senators are interested in cutting the budget. According to information that I have received, it costs about $31,000 a year to incarcerate a prisoner, not including the construction of new facilities.

The use of lethal injection has been suggested as a replacement for the electric chair. There is also opposition to that. "They" say that the second injection in the three injection series is very painful. I have received anesthesia 8 times in the last 10 years. I can say that after the first 10 or 15 seconds, Each time I did not feel anything until I woke up in the recovery room!

If that is not satisfactory, there is also the gas chamber. I have been on an investigative team for monoxide poisoning and the victims did not show any signs of struggle, but that they had just gone to sleep. Any gas that excludes oxygen from the intake will be lethal. (I take issue with the people that use the term "murder" when the government executes criminals.) Genesis 9:6, Romans 12:19, and Mathew 26:52 make it clear that execution by government agencies is not "killing."

The use of hanging and the firing squad have also been suggested.

How about giving the murderer his choice? That is certainly more than he did for his victim(s).

Many people forget that DNA testing is a relatively new "tool" to use in investigating murders. A person that was convicted 20 years ago did not have that defense. This is one of the reasons for the reversal of sentences.

Robert A. Lange

202 East 20th Street

Simply let pubs have signs telling customers about smoke

It seems to me there should be a better way to handle the proposed smoking ban that would not cost the taxpayers money by having to put it on the ballot for a vote. Each individual business owner should be able to decide whether or not they wish to allow smoking in their establishment and post a sign on their doors and windows indicating such. Then each person can make their own decision as to whether or not they wish to patronize that business. Everyone has a right to decide if they want to subject themselves to smoking or second-hand smoke, and I don't think we need the City Council to make that decision for us. By the way, I am a non-smoker.

Bill Clinch

123 Pletcher Terrace

Smoking is unhealthy, but there are many programs to help stop

Having just read the letter written by Mr. Duering I had to put in my two cents. I am a former smoker who also used to weigh over 300 pounds. I never felt like more of a social outcast than I did when I was grossly overweight and that bad habit of mine did not endanger the health of anyone but me. That's what it boils down to Mr. Duering - smoking kills. Period. And not just the smoker but anyone within close proximity.

I know quitting is hard. Of all the bad habits I've had in my life it was the hardest one to kick. And you also mentioned that the government should have programs to help smokers quit. There are scads of such programs available. I just Googled "help for smokers" and over 250,000 sites were available.

You could also use the money you spend on tobacco products to buy a smoking cessation product that could help you.

Lastly, I find your attempt to blame our government for smokers who leave the city of GI to go somewhere where they can smoke and then drive home under the influence a huge insult. Why would driving while impaired be the responsiblity of anyone but the user?

Rosemary Hatton

1314 West Charles

Shouldn't we care more about kids' health than football?

Please forgive me if I don't understand. I am a relatively new resident to the state of Nebraska, the land of the "Good Life". But there is an attitude amongst some of the natives here that needs to be explained to me.

We (Nebraska residents) just financed a staff change in the University of Nebraska's Athletic Department to the tune of $5 million dollars (+/-). During this same time the United States Congress has attempted to pass a bill (SCHIP) that would provide health insurance for children.

Now I realize the two issues are not related. However, our 3rd District representative Mr. Adrian Smith voted against helping children get needed health care because it "cost too much". He did receive the most votes in the last election so I assume his position represents the majority of the 3rd District residents. So I guess my question is what really represents the "Good Life"- a winning football team or healthy children?

Oh, I know, a winning football team generates revenue for the university. But I have a problem believing that is what really motivates such zealous support for the Husker football team. Furthermore, I would suggest that healthy children also contribute the economy and the quality of life in our state.

I wouldn't be bringing up this issue but I recently received a survey from Mr. Smith. I have never seen a survey with such leading questions. It also fails to ask anything about children's health insurance(SCHIP). Am I supposed to assume that the residents of Nebraska just don't care about kids unless they can play football?

Richard Johnson

Phillips

Theater needs to control patrons' behavior, language

Saturday afternoon my daughter and I went to see "Untraceable" at the Dickinson theater. In the theater, there was a group of five men who were talking loud and being very disruptive and rude. They continued to talk during the entire movie. They would talk on their phones, belch, cuss and whatever else would suit their fancy. After the movie was over I went to the manager and expressed my concerns. I don't think that my concerns were taken too seriously, but just to get us out of there, she gave us tickets to another movie. We were also told that "these individuals" are there every weekend and cause the same problems.

Why, I wonder, do you keep admitting problem people, and not consider the general public's enjoyment, if this seems to be a repeat behavior pattern. Also, where are the "ushers" that used to monitor the theater to see that situations such as this are not presenting themselves? Do you not watch out for children and try to protect them from such harassment? I don't feel that your theater is or would be a safe place to send my grandchildren, let alone go there myself again in the future.

Sue McTavish

1008 S Cherry