‘Life or Death Confusion’

After reading the article (Editorial Pages, Jan. 3), “Life or Death Confusion in the Law,” by Robin Lakoff, a professor of linguistics at UC Berkeley, I sense no “intolerable confusion” created by the Briggs Initiative. I agree that the language of our laws “accurately communicate the intent of the people who framed them.” I conclude after reading his article that the California Supreme Court is incorrect in its conclusion concerning the Briggs Initiative, which mandates that “the jury shall impose the death penalty if it finds that aggravating factors outweigh mitigating ones, if not, it must vote for life without possibility of parole.”

When Lakoff sat as a juror in a capital case in Alameda County and the jury received the instruction, “when aggravation outweighs mitigation you are permitted to impose the death penalty, but you are not required to do so.” From what I read, the jury received improper instructions and a learned man who rationalizes his responsibility over the words “shall or may” is not a responsible person.

The American Civil Liberties Union did a study that found that in the last 80 years it believes 25 innocent people have been executed in the United States. This is unfortunate. But, there are innocent people who die each year in highway accidents. Out of 40,000 deaths, how many deaths are related to driving while intoxicated? How many more thousands are injured and have financial ruin or are invalids and handicapped for the remainder of their lives?

I hope someday the ACLU will direct its energy to those drunken drivers who kill and maim on the freeways.

I don’t have the education and writing ability of Robin Lakoff, but I respect peoples’ lives and I abide by the law. I feel it is important to be a responsible person and that includes carrying out the law and in giving the death penalty without looking for some intellectual or otherwise excuse.

MAHLON R. BRADEN

Tujunga