Macumber didn't confess, but was he wimpy? <nbsp/>

(PNI) Regarding The Republic's series last week on William Macumber, "Justice Delayed":

Studies suggest that people who confess to crimes that they did not commit (a) have "wimpy" personalities, (b) have an exaggerated respect for authority (perhaps due to an exaggerated need for authority to help them fight their battles), (c) cannot recall what they were doing at the time of the crime, and (d) are presented by the police with overwhelming evidence against them. So, they confess that they might have done it, which authorities take that they "did it."

Now, William Macumber did not confess. But he showed exaggerated respect for authority when he believed what the police told him about "his" palm print being on the victim's car. And he apparently could not recall what he had been doing at the time of the crime. Also, the evidence against him, as presented by law enforcement, was overwhelming.

Meanwhile, Macumber took a polygraph test. Are people with wimpy personalities, in situations such as this, more likely to fail polygraph tests? The conservative writer, editor and publisher William F. Buckley once confessed that he had lied during a polygraph test -- and passed it. He attributed his success to an unyielding belief in the rightness of his cause.

--Richard P. Sibley, Gilbert

Let's be fair on migration

Letting people stay in this country when they came here illegally is grossly unfair to people who came into this country legally.

I have some friends who came to this country legally and had to wait 12 years to get a work visa, so tell me what is fair about letting people that came to this country illegally stay here.

I agree that the immigration system is broken, but letting people stay in this country when they came here illegally is not fixing the problem.

--Gil Fidler, Gilbert

Prop. 201 indeed a start

Regarding "Phoenix's Prop. 201 is no pension fix, but it's a start" (Opinions, Friday):

I've known Republic columnist Bob Robb for 30 years now. I'm always interested in his opinion. I was glad that Bob overwhelmingly endorsed a "yes" vote on Proposition 201, the Phoenix Pension Reform Act (or at least, for Bob, it was overwhelming support).

Bob rightfully states that Proposition 201 does not solve every problem Phoenix faces nor does it solve every problem Bob would like to fix. But, as he correctly states, it is a good step in the right direction.

Fifteen business and community leaders spent thousands of hours looking at 43 possible options for pension reform and came to the conclusion that Proposition 201 is fair to employees, fair to taxpayers and saves taxpayers $596 million over the next two decades, and it raises the retirement age appropriately.

Yes, you can argue that the highly qualified actuaries who made the savings projections are off -- maybe it saves only $594 million or maybe it's even $598 million, but it's a lot of money that taxpayers save and it's the right thing to do.

I'm hopeful that someday Bob finds one program that will solve every issue the city currently faces or might face in the future, but I doubt that.

Prop. 201 is the right thing to do. It's fair, and it saves a lot of taxpayer money. I urge every taxpayer to vote yes on Prop. 201.

--Rick DeGraw, Phoenix

The writer is co-chairman of the Phoenix Pension Reform Committee.

Open up charter finances

Clint Bolick's recent "defense" of the opacity of charter schools' finances is absurd ("Charter schools a model," Opinions, Thursday).

He suggests that financial reporting is an undue burden. Let's see, we're talking about a couple of key strokes in their accounting software program and e-mailing a report. He also seems to be suggesting that the absence of reporting contributes to the schools' student performance -- no comment needed.

What is critical is that these schools are using public money, and as "shareholders," we, the public, are entitled to know how our money is being spent.

--Michael Jonas,

Scottsdale

Can't have it 2 ways, GOP

I am confused with claims made by Sen. John McCain and the Republican Party. If the government does not create jobs, then why is Sen. McCain running around saying how many jobs will be lost in Arizona if the government cuts defense spending?

These jobs that will be lost exist only because of government spending. I thought only the private sector creates jobs?

The right will argue that these jobs were created by the private sector. Yes, they were created by the private sector with the government paying for them. Without the government spending, these jobs never would have existed in the first place. Ike was right.

--Rodney Iverson, Mesa

Copyright 2012 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted

View the original article here