I am writing in response to Ms. Benigni's opinion of our legal system and, in particular, the execution of Ted Bundy.

Ms. Benigni, you stated that you were aware of "one's right to life." When one is talking about "rights," he/she is talking about things which should be unconditional.

In the context that you used this phrase, a better choice of words might have been "one's privilege to life." This phrase suggests that we have the "right" to take that life under certain circumstances.

Another statement that I must question is the one in which you wrote that some people don't deserve a trial. Are you suggesting that the basic principles upon which our country was founded should simply be pushed aside? If so, then how would you decide who doesn't deserve a trial?

You also commented on your disapproval of "paying for their room and board, and in many cases their education."

Let me say that Bundy's case was an extreme. Time magazine said that Bundy's ten year stay and his appeals cost Florida taxpayers about $6 million. Averaged out, this extreme case cost those tax payers pennies a year.

The people in jail have the "right" to an education and should be encouraged to learn. I don't know about you, but I don't mind spending a few pennies a year to help those few people in prison who want to do something constructive.

As far as criminals who are made to look like saints by the media, I have never seen such an instance (except maybe in Col. North's case).

You stated that "people aren't permitted to get away with such atrocities." The fact is that Bundy already had gotten away with it. He paid for it afterwards.

There is no point in arguing his guilt at this time, but what we can argue about is whether we had the "right" to take his life. I think not. Does Hammurabi's code ring a bell?