Reconsider Stance On Privatization Of Courthouse Security

Re: Privatization editorial in the March 22 edition of Hernando Today.

As Ronald Reagan once said, "there you go again."

While it is expected your paper to be in favor of privatization, I quote: "Privatization often, but not always makes sense." I am disappointed you would use the Sunday editorial to further the "privatization push" on such a vital issue as courthouse security? What were you thinking? Or rather, what was your thinking?

Did you take a moment to reflect on the risk? Did you take time to consider the risk to the public? Before you buy in completely to the privatization agenda, please take a second glance at a couple of facts. The courthouse is where criminals are brought and, generally, they do not want to be there. In addition to criminal court, the courthouse is the site for many a domestic or family issue, that without the presence of "a well-trained" deputy might turn violent. Despite the violence in our times, you do not often hear of violence at the courthouse. I conclude this is due to the presence of the well trained and I can only guess to you, too costly, deputy.

As a Hernando taxpayer, I disagree. I disagree with your conclusion in this instance and others. As a news organization that has spoken often of public safety in the past, please take a second glance at this issue.

Vince Roth

Spring Hill