Opinion editor's note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

I am writing to bring attention to a critical issue regarding the complex language used in the Driver and Vehicle Services (DVS) permit test.

The difficult English language and complicated sentence structures employed to write the questions make this permit test more like an advanced-level English-language test instead of a knowledge test about driving. As a result, the test turns out to be inequitable and discriminatory against the individuals whose primary language is not English. Unfortunately, my attempts to have the DVS simplify the wording of the test, following the guidelines of the Plain Language Act — an act that exists both at the federal and state levels — have been unsuccessful so far.

I understand that the DVS offers this test in a few other languages, but a considerable number of widely spoken languages are still not included. The fact that the preparation material — the driving manual — has not been offered in all the corresponding languages does not help. If it is not possible for the DVS to offer the tests and manuals in all the languages, why not start by simplifying the language of the test in English?

The result will ensure an equal opportunity for every Minnesotan, both native and non-native speakers of English, to succeed and will allow more Minnesotans to drive to work, school and shopping legally and safely.

Amna Kiran, Fridley

The writer is a teacher to English learners/multilingual learners.

•••

In a letter writer's criticism of the Dec. 9 editorial "How to drive safer and save money" ("It's not seniors zipping past you," Readers Write, Dec. 14), the letter writer's own words belie why seniors should learn to drive safer. She writes of those of us who are over 60: "we don't drive as much at night, and we drive slower ... ."

Countless sources share that, statistically, driving too slow can be just as dangerous as speeding. There are things the slow driver can do in that case, though. For example, if my husband and I notice we are causing even a few vehicles to pile up behind us, we will pull over and let them pass if it is safe to do so.

Slow drivers may be contributing to accidents without realizing it — one good reason to take the AARP course!

Nancy Hassett, Big Lake, Minn.

I found David Boehnke's commentary on the prison system to be vague and impractical ("Minnesota can end mass incarceration, here and now," Opinion Exchange, Dec. 12). He claims that mass incarceration is "the civil rights issue of our time." He also says, "In 2023 no one can deny that the system has a knee on the neck of the poor — Black, Indigenous, white, immigrant, women, LGBTQ and more." What are those statements based on? Are people being locked up because of their race, gender, sexual orientation or poverty? If innocent people are being locked up for no valid reason, that would indeed be a huge civil rights issue. But he doesn't present any information to support that idea. The people in prison are there because they committed serious crimes, not because of their race, gender, sexual orientation or poverty.

Boehnke says, "If someone is not a risk to the public they should not be in prison." He doesn't give any examples of the types of crimes that would land someone in prison that don't cause harm to the public. Perhaps he thinks that nonviolent crimes don't cause harm. That isn't true. Selling illegal drugs, for example, is nonviolent but can result in deaths from overdoses. All crimes cause harm; that's why they are crimes.

He says, "If we build the best public-safety apparatus in the country we'll have fewer than 1,000 [people in prison] by 2035." However, he fails to say which crimes would no longer require prison time.

If the current justice system can be improved, it should be. I'd love to hear a proposal, but unfortunately Boehnke's commentary does not provide one.

James Brandt, New Brighton

•••

Many thanks to David Boehnke for his thought-provoking commentary. Readers who may have missed it will do well to search it out and share broadly. Boehnke's analysis of our current justice system provides critical information in highly readable terms and sheds light on the pernicious issue of mass incarceration in our state and the pervasive toll it continues to take on everyone involved (including taxpayers). What's equally illuminating as well as practical is his blueprint for "reimagining justice in four ways." During this season of peace, love and goodwill, these very smart, practical and life-giving ideas are a concrete reason for hope and celebration!

"This is our time to make Minnesota the first state in the union to end mass incarceration."

Beth Rademacher, Minneapolis

In a perfect world, all people desiring euthanasia would have chosen it "freely." But what about someone who is feeling they are too much of a burden to their family? What about the temptation to tell a sufferer that they are too much of a burden to the health care system? In the real world, there are many ways to thwart a "freely chosen" decision.

Louise Burton, Minneapolis

•••

The point-counterpoint columns between Ross Douthat and John M. Crisp on euthanasia seem much ado about the lesser of two evils ("Suicide vs. civilization in Canada," Opinion Exchange, Dec. 6, and "Denying sufferer's wishes is no triumph of civilization," Opinion Exchange, Dec. 13). The far more obvious and dangerous problem in our society is, of course, the outright murdering of those who do not want to die because of some incurable, disabling, painful and expensive-to-treat disease. This includes anyone: young, old, healthy, pregnant, schoolchildren, churchgoers, infants, concertgoers in Las Vegas, those with a lust for life with years to live. Their lives were cut short.

We have a murder problem in our society like few if any other societies. And apparently it has become so common that some can overlook it and focus on those who are suffering and posing no threat to others. And focus in particular on a country where citizens are far safer than our citizens here. What a country we have become.

Jim Lein, Minneapolis

I would like to mention to a Dec. 13 letter writer and the litany of "peace" activists who are going to inventively claim or point to some vile dictator or group that did so that Russian President Vladimir Putin isn't going to leave Ukraine by negotiation. You cannot reason with unreasonable people. Dictators like him kill people who do. They kill anyone who threatens their power, anyone they dislike or anyone who looks at them wrong. This is a fact. Why on earth would one think that Putin or any dictator would leave a place a) they think is theirs, b) against which they have committed multiple war crimes by invading, c) where their soldiers are committing war crimes, d) against which they mentioned they might use nuclear weapons to capture and where they are firing at nuclear power stations.

I mean, that sounds like a reasonable person to me.

Andrew Gordinier, Northfield, Minn.

A recent letter regarding people invading and taking over land is correct as far as it goes ("Complex history of first peoples," Readers Write, Dec. 13). However, this practice has not stopped in the last 100 years. The goals of Germany and Japan in the 1940s were to take over huge amounts of land for themselves. If that seems too remote, the Vietnam War saw success by invaders from the north coming south and winning. Russia took over Crimea a couple of years ago and is now in the process of invading and taking over Ukraine. Whether Russia succeeds remains to be seen.

Stronger peoples have always taken land from those who are weaker and, it appears, will always do so. It is part of the human condition.

John D. Sens, Newfolden, Minn.