I am perplexed. Has society declared the judicial system redundant? When an individual is judged guilty, convicted and completes the terms of sentencing, does it then fall on dissatisfied members of the public to continue punishment indefinitely?

Why even bother with the courts?

I refer to the removal of paintings at USM gallery because somebody complained of an artist’s conviction. Perhaps a vindictive act? Why did that institution of higher learning do that? In fairness, shouldn’t the artwork of Picasso and others also be removed?

Abuse, though it happens, is wrong. And the male or female abuser should be tried or sued and made to pay damages to whomever they have wronged, according to the extent of the abuse. Having paid one’s debt should be sufficient; else you could become the defendant in a defamation action. Members of the so-called pillars of justice and morality — priests and potentates — who behave abominably should receive the harshest public enmity.

I remain perplexed at the action of USM. Does anyone see how far down the hill this snowball is likely to roll, gobbling up whomever is in its way? And wasn’t it Jesus who said “let he who is without sin cast the first stone’?

I wonder how many other artists on those walls had questionable backgrounds but are still there?

My, my.

Diana Tozier, Poland