Low IQ is not an excuse or a determinant of violence

Low IQ is not an excuse or
a determinant of violence

EDITOR:

For too long I have remained silent on the question: “Does low IQ necessarily lead to aberrant behavior?” The Davis arson case highlights the need to revisit the question.

I have 14 years experience working with special needs children ranging in age from 8 to 19 years. I have also been privy to several hundred Multi-Factored Evaluation (MFE) reports, and have yet to find any conclusive evidence supporting a direct correlation between a child’s IQ and his/her ability to distinguish right from wrong. To follow the line of reasoning proposed by the Davis’ lawyer is to say that some if not all special needs children have a propensity for leading a life of crime. Granted, some of my former students have been in trouble with the law, but this is usually due to other factors, such as home environment. I am happy to say that many others have escaped the “special needs” label and have gone on to lead quiet, productive lives.

I am also a parent myself of a special needs child, and as a parent I have hopes and dreams concerning my child’s future, despite his apparent learning disability. I realize that he learns differently and at a slower pace than his peers, but I also believe that with positive support from both home and school he can and will succeed in his endeavors. I am readily aware that he may be emotionally and socially immature at times, but this lack of maturity has not impacted his ability to distinguish right from wrong. Fortunately, he is not the exception to the rule.

From my experience in the classroom, I have observed a greater lack of control and poor decision-making among students who have neither been identified nor labeled as special needs children. To say that borderline IQ scores play a significant role in poor decision-making resulting in a life of crime is to set a deadly precedent. It’s a definite “grasping at straws.” But leave it to some in the legal community to make a case for it. Lest we forget this mindset also exists when presenting the legal term of “temporary insanity” as a psychological construct. Think about it.

ZANE PAPPAS

Youngstown

A truck driver’s lament:
It’s been a tough seven years

EDITOR:

An owner-operator, I am both a small businessman and a consumer. I have a business to manage, hopefully at a profit, and I have a home and family to maintain. At every opportunity this administration has done its best to undermine my ability to do either.

Since 2000:

1. We have seen gasoline and fuel prices rise from $1.50 per gallon to over $3 and diesel fuel is closer to $3.50. A mandatory fuel surcharge bill was not passed to help off set these rising prices.

2. Bills were passed to enable states to toll or lease our existing interstate highway systems to corporations, either domestic or foreign. The governor of Indiana leased their turnpike to Spain and Australia. Shortly after, tolls were raised.

3. Mr. Bush went to the Supreme Court to allow Mexican trucks and drivers into our country. Evidently, we don’t have enough illegal aliens or drugs yet, When making this decision, I am sure safety was not a priority since Mexican trucks and their drivers are not required to follow our safety rules and regulations.

4. The FMCSA and the Department of Transportation extended the 8 day/70 hour on duty rule to a possible 98 hours on duty rule. Of which, 88 hours would be driving time. They claim this is safe and healthy.

From what I can see, this Republican administration has worked very well for corporate America and the very rich. It has put thousands of my fellow truckers out of business and, according to all reports, conditions will not be improving anytime soon.

I have been a truck driver 48 years. I am an owner-operator leased to a motor carrier. I have no control over freight rates, fuel surcharges or brokered cheap freight, other than not to haul it, And I don’t.

DAVID P. GAIBIS Sr.

New Castle, Pa.

Bring that state money home by voting for Springfield levy

EDITOR:

On March 4, our community will have the opportunity to vote on the Springfield Local School Bond Issue. This is our opportunity to reclaim our state of Ohio tax dollars. Keeping our state tax dollars, in our community, is the bottom line of the bond Issue.

Our elementary building was first built 85 years ago, with additions made over 50 years ago. The high school was built over 40 years ago (the same age as the majority of the high school building in Petersburg when we moved out of it). These schools were designed and constructed for a 30-year life cycle. In a state conducted study of our facilities, these buildings need over $10 million dollars in repairs, which we will pay 100 percent for.

Voting yes would be new and remodeled buildings for about the same money. This is not going away, we must act now and take our 65 cents in State funding.

Information is available through meetings and by checking www.yesforspringfieldschools.com. Please be informed, and you will find that we need to keep our state tax dollars here. Sixty-five cents of your state taxes and 35 cents from the Springfield Bond Levy equals $1 for new buildings and the future of our community.

KIMBERLY WELSH KOCH

Petersburg

Let’s have a debate, and let’s have it here in Youngstown

EDITOR:

According to our local TV stations, Hillary Clinton has agreed to debate her opponent here in Youngstown. Congratulations should certainly be in order to Atty. Don Hanni, UAW’s Jim Graham and the Vindicator’s Bert de Souza. I have known Don Hanni for over 40 years and we have opposed each other with baseball bats in the courtroom, but when it was all over, we remained good friends. My daughter, Casey Malone, says it best when she states: “Don Hanni says what he means and means what he says.”

Keep up the good work, fellows. The Youngstown area needs good men like you guys.

VINCENT E. GILMARTIN

Canfield

X The writer is a former Mahoning County prosecutor.

A better jolt than caffeine

EDITOR:

Last Saturday, being down to my last grounds of coffee, I went out to Dunkin’ Donuts to get a cup of what we “run on.” I arrived at the door simultaneously with another gentleman, so I opened the door and gestured for him to enter first. Inside, during the 45 seconds we waited in line, we spoke to each other as if lifelong friends. We were called to the counter much the same way as we entered, each of us placing our respective orders. When suddenly, as the cashier gave me my total, I was the recipient of a “random act of kindness” because the gentleman offered to pay my bill, even though I spent more than he did.

I was truly touched by his kindness, and to be given a chance to experience what I know is true: what we really “run on” is compassion for each other. Kindness comes from the heart; when it is nurtured and acted upon, everyone benefiTS.

PAtrick McCLEERY

Young