Mediaboss Marketing

Innocent? Seal that arrest record

I can't agree with the Sentinels Tuesday editorial, "Don't scrub arrest record, guilty or not." Even the title seems wrong, because what editors are really advocating is to retain arrest records "innocent or not." It doesn't matter whether the premise behind this bill is that anyone arrested and charged but not convicted was wrongly accused. Presumably, anyone charged but not convicted is innocent that is what "presumption of innocence" means, after all.

Failure to convict for whatever reason means the state didn't prove its case. If innocence, indeed, is presumed, then why should people who are arrested but not convicted have to have an arrest record and mug shot hanging around their necks for the rest of their lives? Don't such people have a right to privacy?

A prospective landlord or employer could decide on the basis of an arrest record alone not to rent to or employ that person.

So what that records for Casey Anthony and George Zimmerman would be automatically sealed? The millions of words the media have written and broadcast about them are public record enough to keep the citizens of Florida informed.

I understand the Sentinels concern about keeping public records open, and I almost always would agree with the editors but not in this case. I think the right to privacy should prevail over the public's right to know when a person has been arrested but subsequently found not guilty or had the charges dismissed.

Robert Kreps Oviedo

The Republicans were right to celebrate their House victory repealing Obamacare in the Rose Garden with President Trump and champagne all around: The majority of them have admitted that they have not really read the bill; they have neither data nor facts on the true cost in economic and humane terms; they don't know what the Senate bill will look like; and none of it applies to them or their staffs.

This could be their only opportunity to congratulate themselves. Those up for midterm re-election could find crying in their beer not nearly as satisfying.

Susan Schaidt Averill Altamonte Springs

Regarding Randolph Bracy Jr.s guest column, Mary McLeod Bethune worthy of D.C. pedestal, on Tuesday: There is no doubt that Mary Bethune was a great person and distinguished for her accomplishments.

However, I was perplexed when Bracy stated, Put Bethune in the statuary in Washington now, and stop fighting the Civil War over again.

Everywhere monuments, flags, school names and anything pertaining to the Civil War and our history have come under fire and been removed in the name of political correctness. Whether it is removing a Confederate statue or changing the name of Robert E. Lee Middle School, our history is disappearing. Now its Gen. Edmund Kirby Smiths turn to go away. So who keeps fighting the Civil War over again?

Smith was a native Floridian. Bethune was almost 28 years old before she stepped foot in Florida. He was dead by the time she arrived. Smith was a well-decorated war general, including the Mexican War and the fight against the Indians. He later taught at his alma mater West Point. Somebody in 1922 decided he was well worth a statue. And now almost 100 years later, somebody else is second guessing that?

It is impossible to compare one generation/time in life to another. So it is also impossible to compare Smith to Bethune. Instead of this P.C. replacement mentality, how about agreeing to add a statue?

Nobody today would condone what happened during Civil War times. Why cant we as a society get over it and move on?

Donald R. Zimmer Longwood

More here:
Casey Anthony, George Zimmerman seal their arrest records for ... - Orlando Sentinel