‘Following the Law’

Your editorial (June 13), “Following the Law,” justified the murder-case reversals by the California Supreme Court, using the argument that the rules must be followed. As evidenced by the fact that the court had to reverse previous interpretations of the law by experienced judges on a lower level, the rules that you allude to are not as clear-cut as you would have us believe. For that matter, even the great philosopher Plato had difficulty defining the concept of justice itself.

The four cases cited in your editorial were not all unanimous decisions, and, as usual, the justices aligned themselves as to their respective positions on the death penalty.

As a layman, I’m more interested in our legal system implementing the “spirit of the law” than the “letter of the law.” A vast majority of the residents of this state have expressed their will through the legislative process that they want a death penalty and that it be used to help protect us from heinous crimes and those who commit them. If, in the course of a lengthy trial, a minor misinterpretation of the law (as the Supreme Court sees it) was made, why not apply civil penalties to the person who made it (be they judge or police officer) rather than retry the case, which demands an inordinate amount of time and money?

Finally, please don’t be concerned about my rights. Most of us believe that the odds against being accused of a murder we didn’t commit and being tried and executed for it is a gamble we can live with.

RICHARD B. MEASE

Carpinteria