There are both LTE's and PUB LTE's (pro and con responses).

Presented in this manner would it not be more appropriate (accurate) to make the subject line "CN BC: LTE; PUB LTE: Do You Agree With The Federal Conservatives' Get Tough On Crime Legislation? " ?

Or, is "Column:" best?

*moving to "Hold File"*

Regards,
Smitty

Pubdate: Mon, 26 Sep 2011
Source: Province, The (CN BC)
Copyright: 2011 Postmedia Network Inc.
Contact: http://www2.canada.com/theprovince/letters.html
Website: http://www.theprovince.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/476
Authors: Richard Ly, Natalie Speckmaier, Jodie Emery, and Pedro Coelho

WE ASKED READERS:

Do you agree with the federal Conservatives' get tough on crime
legislation?

You only need to look south of the border to see how successful get
tough on crime legislation can be - not very. I think we would be
better served in Canada if the government were to focus on social
supports and crime-prevention programs.

- - Richard Ly, Surrey

What's the point . . . if the end result remains the same? Not enough
judges or court space, which means more criminals walk because trials
are not commenced in a timely way. Not enough jails, therefore
conditional sentences and again, not enough personnel to ensure compliance.

- - Natalie Speckmaier, Vancouver

Mandatory minimums for marijuana will cost a fortune when we can least
afford it and will have absolutely no impact on crime. Broke U.S.
states are reversing similar laws because the prisons are packed and
their crime rates are unchanged. We shouldn't make the same mistakes.

- - Jodie Emery, Vancouver

I am in agreement. Detractors are now attacking its
cost?

Being aware that the majority of Canadians are in favour of this
logical policy, they conveniently forget that, being out of jail, the
cost and danger to society is far greater.

- - Pedro Coelho, Vancouver