Bird on Voters and the Court

Dembart does the readers and the citizens of California an injustice in his attempt to cloud the real Rose Bird issue.

His “smoke and mirrors” defense of Rose Bird ignores the real issue by talking about the difficult, unpopular decisions judges must make for the benefit of society, which happen to run contrary to the groundswell of victims’ rights opinion. He also strays when he addresses the independence of the judiciary and the need to adhere to an established set of rules despite public opinion.

Society has and should continue to tolerate the setting free of the guilty in instances where the police and authorities have denied that person his constitutional rights in order to make their case. This is in the interest of precluding the gradual development of a police state and the erosion of all our constitutional rights. Society should not, however, tolerate the capricious and arrogant behavior of Rose Bird or any official who ignores the law and the people she serves because of personal views on capital punishment.

This is the real basis of the Rose Bird recall. Or would Dembart have us believe that in each of the 56 murder convictions she has voted on that a precedent that would foster a police state or endanger society’s civil rights was at issue?

PETER L. ODORICO

Seal Beach