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

•••

Perry Moriearty, in his opinion essay, mounts a spirited defense of Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty's campaign to reform the criminal justice system in favor of adolescent rehabilitation ("Moriarty-style youth justice keeps us safer," Opinion Exchange, Jan. 4). The science and statistics appear to support the value of leniency and rehab for underage offenders. This approach may also, as Moriearty argues, help make society safer in general.

But there's a gaping hole in his, and by extension the county attorney's, theoretical approach. And that is that the purpose and end of justice is not simply "safety." Justice is about righting the balance. It is providing recompense — consequences — both for the offender and for the victims of grievous injuries and outrageous crimes and for the suffering that results from these offenses.

This balance, this compensatory justice, does not have to be offered in the spirit of vengeance or the infliction of further violence. Underage criminals certainly deserve particular attention, empathy and treatment. But they also need to recognize and acknowledge the pain and loss they have inflicted. And they need to be held responsible for their actions. This is the only way they will ever change.

With these things in mind, I urge county and state officials, and the public at large, to weigh the specific legal actions taken by the county attorney in several recent cases involving young offenders. Examine the way these cases were torqued by clever plea deals and justified by "science." Look at the immediate effect on victims' families, and their public responses (which has been, repeatedly, outrage). There is something more than "brain science" and presumptive "public safety" going on here. We have to think about the basic nature and goals of justice, which is one of the deep foundations of our community.

Henry Gould, Minneapolis

•••

Moriearty's counterpoint is well written; in fact it is a great brief, but, like most legal briefs, it omits significant information. Under the German system, decisions about treatment of juvenile violators are made by highly trained experts who have a panoply of social assets available. We don't have such experts handling such matters, and we certainly don't have the broad range of social assets available. Under the German system, Husayn Braveheart's treatment would have been thoroughly explored. (Opinion editor's note: Braveheart was given a controversial plea deal for a fatal 2019 carjacking.) Here, Moriarty made herself the psychologist, social worker, defense council, judge and jury and decided to turn Braveheart loose without any attempt at preventing recidivism.

That didn't protect anyone.

John D. Sens, Savage

•••

Just what is restorative justice?

In "Moriarty-style youth justice keeps us safer," Moriearty writes that "Moriarty's approach to youth justice is backed by data, science" and experience. Missing is a description of Minnesota's system of restorative youth justice and how it compares to programs known to be effective. On April 6, 2023, in a Star Tribune opinion piece worth rereading, Bruce Peterson described one gold-standard program of true accountability based on Danielle Sered's highly acclaimed 2019 book "Until We Reckon," a program with over 17 years of experience. Peterson notes that perpetrators, after much intense work, a long struggle to become someone who does not commit harm, acknowledge responsibility, decide what they can do to make amends and then confront a victim and hear their pain. Does any of this exist in Minnesota?

Richard Lentz, Minneapolis

Interesting placement in the Jan. 3 edition's front page: "Encampment residents are suing to block city's planned demolition" was next to "State expects surge in refugees." The former adds to facts on Minneapolis' worsening homeless problem for citizens, many of whom are our Indigenous people. The latter covers the various thousands settled here in recent years and the 2,400 expected soon. Anyone else see irony?

Both pieces are well-written; however, readers should know more, especially about costs, in the continuing general coverage articles we see about homelessness. Basic economics tells us costs rise with increased demand, which leads to shortage, which then drives prices up. So, what increases demand and drives up cost here? Numbers of applicants for housing, of course — people. Yet every authority on population quoted in the news feeds depopulation fears and says Minnesota's human population should increase.

Is the desire to settle refugees driven by emotions such as the "feel good" of rescuing citizens of other nations from their circumstances? Perhaps there is a lesser surge of emotion when focusing on our own citizens? The cost to taxpayers for housing, medical care and other services needed by refugees and all immigrants is considerable, according to Center for Immigration Studies' research of government information.

The U.S. government, which pays much of refugee resettlement cost, is loaded with debt. The continental mass of the U.S. is not expanding anytime soon. It's time to get real about how many people (of Earth's 8 billion) can live in the U.S. without further environmental destruction, and just what we taxpayers should support.

Linda Huhn, Minneapolis

A woman suffers a miscarriage alone, after trying to get medical help twice and being prevented when Ohio's anti-health care laws stymied a hospital ethics panel ("Ohio woman could face charge after miscarriage," Jan. 4). Records show this was a spontaneous miscarriage.

But we must punish a woman for losing a baby. How? Why, by charging her with abuse of a corpse. There is no more punitive attitude to women than to compound their physical and mental suffering by trumping up an accusation.

In a more reasonable time I tragically miscarried and was offered comfort and help to let my body recover. Now we look for the best way to punish the same tragedy. What has this U.S. come to?

Elaine Frankowski, Minneapolis

In an opinion piece on Jan. 3, Bruce Yandle makes the claim that President Joe Biden's attempts to remove patent protection from drugs whose owners won't sell them at reasonable prices is wrong ("New treatment for drug prices risks side effects"). It is wrong, he implies, because the current freedom to price new drugs without any restrictions has vastly improved their development, bringing to market many lifesaving medications that would not otherwise be available.

However, he misleads us about Biden's actions and their consequences. Biden isn't turning back the clock to 1980 and before when the government retained all patent rights to government-funded research. He simply wants to send this message to entrepreneurs: Greed and the desire to make lots of money by producing lifesaving drugs are not the same. Nothing in Biden's actions will prevent entrepreneurs from making lots of money from drugs. They will only remove patent protection when drug profits reach the level of obscenity.

What is an obscene profit? One that leads to death, one whose motive has a great deal in common with the motivation of drug cartels and very little in common with the vast majority of entrepreneurs in the medical industry, whose investments in drug research will not be affected.

Paul Swenson, St. Paul