Justices’ interpretations and the Constitution

Re “Justices May Further Restrict Domestic Violence Testimony,” March 20

It seems to me the old saying “being beaten within an inch of your life” takes on a whole new meaning under Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s interpretation of prosecuting domestic violence offenders.

Beaten nearly to death and you’ve got to face your accuser in court, testify against him and maybe even go home to sleep in the same bed with him. Die from being abused and the state has a much easier time prosecuting it; the accused gets tried with whatever evidence is available (911 recordings, blood spatter, the whole nine yards). From the state’s point of view, the victim is better off dead. Is that what the founding fathers intended?

MARK SANFORD

Redondo Beach

*

The March 21 article, “Justices Signal Court Testimony’s Primacy,” shows the need to keep our Constitution up to date. The justices’ seemingly likely opinion, save Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, that “defendants have a right to confront the witnesses against them,” thereby strengthening defendants’ rights in abuse cases, was written at a time when women had few rights or a voice in legal matters. This is a step backward, decided by men.

The Constitution is an unparalleled document, setting up the basic rules for our society, but it is a starting point. There is nothing written within it that says there is no room for flexibility to deal with future change.

We need our justices to think as well as read, protecting all in this complex time.

DEAN BLAU

Van Nuys