Letters to the editor for Thursday, Feb. 14, 2008

Who is responsible for Demond Reed's murder?

Of course, Demond Reed was allegedly killed by his cousin, Carla Poole, but is she the only person responsible? I think not.

This child had no chance. His mother abandoned him; his father left him with someone who was a known drug user. The state of Illinois allowed his father to have custody of him despite a criminal record. No one seemed to care that he was left in Minnesota with this awful woman.

What in the world is wrong with these people? Stop having children if you don't want, don't love or can't afford to care for them.

Demond was a beautiful child who, like all children, deserved to be loved and cared for. He was only 4 years old -- a baby. Poor thing! I hope all those responsible are haunted for the rest of their lives and punished for their sins against Demond.

BONNIE JO MCISAAC, ST. MICHAEL

Lessons to be learned I am so appalled and upset over the short life of Demond Reed. I have children of my own and can hardly believe what this small boy had to endure at the hands of his so-called family.

JANET LAWSON, MINNEAPOLIS

It happens every day I would like to take this opportunity to thank the media, politicians and others who have come to the Fourth Judicial District's Juvenile Court to document or express their outrage in response to the tragedy of Demond Reed's death.

While it is gratifying to see people concerned about the plight of children, I hope it is not simply the spectacle that brought them all here. We have court hearings every day for children who have been viciously beaten, abused, neglected or deprived of an education. Our courtrooms have been open to the public for some time. Every day they are empty of anyone interested in witnessing the plight of these children and the struggles of their families to heal.

By all means, express your outrage at the fate of Demond, but do not forget all the other children who are only less notorious because they didn't die.

KELLEY LEAF, MINNEAPOLIS;

The unasked question The Feb. 13 editorial, "Demond's death leaves many victims," brought some attention to a neglected child welfare issue: the impact of a maltreatment death on the surviving children.

In the incident of Demond's brutal murder, it is hard to imagine how these children will cope with the catastrophic event of having a parent, to whom one looks for protection, turn into a killer of a young child ... and then being forced to be an accomplice in committing a horrific crime. You rightfully point out that "the children who survived the tragedy" are also victims, but it will take years of therapy to assure a chance for these children to have a normal life.

Very soon, Hennepin County's required Mortality Review Committee will begin an inquiry. The question here is, "What could have been done to prevent this tragedy?" Stark details of this child's death will be revealed in the coroner's report. The painful traces of family networks here and in Chicago will be reviewed. Someone on the committee is likely to ask about the community: If it takes a village to raise a child, what went wrong with the community that should have protected Demond?

After all, this wasn't a child living in a remote farmhouse in the middle of an isolated prairie. Were the family networks too chaotic and crisis-ridden to respond? Were the next-door neighbors, living in a duplex with Carla Poole, strictly obeying the command of this street -- "mind your own business" -- despite what they might hear of a child's prolonged and terrifying crying?

Again, what went wrong in our village?

We should be haunted by the brutality of Demond's death, which marked the first homicide of the year in our community. Can we be assured that it will not happen again?

ESTHER WATTENBERG, MINNEAPOLIS;

PROFESSOR, SCHOOL OF SOCIAL WORK,

UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA

A Feb. 12 editorial pointing out some of the amusing and annoying questions asked by 60 Minutes correspondents Steve Kroft and Katie Couric ("Basketball, peppers and hand sanitizers") missed one.

This phrase is a gloss often heard from those trying to justify the surge, but it is misleading, and is ultimately a form of newspeak. What Kroft, and others, presumably mean to say is that the rate of casualties is, for now, not increasing.

The ugly fact of this fraudulent war -- and of any war -- is that American casualties are not down -- they never go down. After the first, they can only go up.