All trials should be taken seriously to jurors
Three times in my life, I have served on juries in Allegheny County. Each time, I tried to take my task seriously. I appeared in court with my mind and heart open, knowing that my deliberations and vote could lead to exoneration or possibly incarceration for the defendant. In addition, I felt that my participation was an affirmation of our justice system.
As I think about the impeachment trial upcoming in the Senate, I would like to encourage our two senators, Sens. Bob Casey and Pat Toomey, to take their duty as seriously as I did my jury duty.
In some ways, senators’ duties go beyond being just jurors. They will also be called upon to decide the rules of evidence and which evidence is relevant, duties usually reserved for the judge in a common court procedure.
May I ask of our senators three things? First, search for the truth. Second, adopt rules that allow the truth to be displayed, which should be the basis for all legal proceedings. Third, please consider that this may be the most important thing they will do in their lifetime and that our democracy could be at stake.
BOB MUTMANSKY
West Mifflin
A better way
Regarding the Jan. 17 letter “A Way to Responsibly Manage Nature” on managing deer populations through culling, he omitted one important fact: it is inhumane. We should be practicing ahimsa (live and let live).
There is a better way: it is called wildlife fertility control. According to the Humane Society of the U.S., deer shot with a dart gun containing the socalled “PZP” vaccine will not reproduce for up to three years.
Regarding Lyme disease, more than 60 species carry the blacklegged tick, carrier of the disease, so killing deer does not reduce the risk of Lyme disease for people.
LORRAINE ASTURINO
Ingram
Coal mining law
I am writing in response to the Jan. 5 article “Five-Year Report Assesses Impacts Under 25Year-Old Mining Law.” The article resonated with me, as my property law class just finished covering a Supreme Court case from 1922 — Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon — in which the court invalidated a Pennsylvania regulation that forbid any mining of coal beneath homes to prevent subsidence.
The court determined this regulation went too far in depriving the company of its right to mine for the purpose of saving a few residents and required compensating the company. Regulating harmful land use without compensating the owner is usually permitted unless the landowner’s loss in value greatly outweighs the public benefit.
Nearly 100 years after that case’s decision it seems to have had a lasting impact as Pennsylvania hasn’t come any closer to solving the same issues; the law continues to permit longwall mining, causing subsidence, damage to homes and pollution of our water. I think if the Supreme Court were to revisit the issue today, it might find differently.
A lot has changed in that time, including our understanding of the impact of subsidence on public health and the regression of mining as the backbone of Pennsylvania’s economy. The declining value of the coal economy hardly outweighs the benefit to protecting our communities and our beautiful landscape from the noxious harms of subsidence. Harrisburg should take a page out of the 1922 playbook and be bolder in restricting longwall mining altogether.
ISAAC JOSEPH
North Oakland
Interesting theme
Over the past three years, I’ve noticed an interesting theme. Every time President Donald Trump and his administration commits an act of barbarism or inhumanity, the opponents of said acts aver that we, as a country, are better than that. Are we, though? Mr. Trump still maintains a support level of approximately 4045% approval in the general population, no matter how base the behavior exhibited by his administration.
Throw kids in concentration camps? His supporters argue that it’s like attending summer camp. It’s actually good for them. When he likens neo-Nazis and white supremacists to the people opposing them in Charlottesville, Va.? He’s just trying to be fair to both sides of the issue.
Solicit support for his re -election by extorting a foreign power to investigate a political rival? Mr. Trump’s only concern was his well-known policy of fighting corruption in the Ukraine. These are but three egregious acts of blatant disregard for law or decency exhibited by Mr. Trump and his apologists over the last three years. There are many others; I encourage you to pick your favorite.
To summarize, slightly less than half the country supports Mr. Trump’s xenophobic and white nationalist philosophy, and will go to any length to defend his policies and behavior. These are not the characteristics of a nation that is “better than that.”
BILL KING Butler