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

•••

The feature "A night in Minneapolis" (front page, Aug. 29) was, according to the article, meant to dispel the negative news stories that have been showing up in the national news media. It did the opposite. The article brushed over and tried to normalize many of the very reasons people are avoiding Minneapolis. Open-air drug encampments (masquerading as last-resort housing); loud, disruptive and dangerous street-racing; a man beaten and lying motionless outside of a popular downtown bar; crowds so out-of-control that pepper-spray may have to be used; open drug dealing on the light rail; armed groups loitering outside of a local liquor store — oh, and 59 gunshot reports. All in just one Minneapolis weekend.

The article euphemistically calls Minneapolis "a city in transition," as if the city is on some sort of positive journey, but interestingly doesn't mention what it's transitioning from or to. For certain we have seen a change over the past few years. Minneapolis has elected increasingly radical city leaders who will freely criticize police officers while granting criminals victim status, leaders who have not placed any value on overall community safety. We have prosecutors at all levels who won't jail career criminals, and offer unthinkably light sentences for crimes that would have been considered egregious even a decade ago.

So yes, in retrospect, Minneapolis is a city in transition. Transitioning from the beautiful, clean, relatively safe City of Lakes to a city where even the most socially destructive behaviors aren't condemned or punished, where criminals abound and criminal acts are commonplace and which decent people avoid.

Chris Boik, Lincoln, Neb.

The writer was a resident of Minneapolis and nearby suburbs from 1994 to 2021.

There are things we want to be true that simply aren't. Sadly, these tales continue to drive public sentiment on crime, as evident in Sunday's editorial ("Curbing violent crime: All-hands job") and letter of the day ("Victims are victims, too"). One falsehood: that harsh punishments are an effective deterrent of violent crime. If this were true, we should be the safest country in the world given our levels of incarceration. A second: that victims of crime simply want revenge. What victims actually want is support for healing, for any monetary losses to be repaid and a sense of safety that comes from knowing what happened to them won't continue to happen.

We should not be hiding behind the short-term safety that comes with incarceration for true long-term safety that would come from effective interventions and prevention. While punishing people for crimes makes some people feel better, such responses are simply a salve for failing to do the things that actually prevent and deter crime: fair employment, reliable health care and well-funded education. But investing in those things doesn't make for good old-fashioned dog whistling at election time.

Kara Beckman, South St. Paul

•••

There were several letters to the editor this week that discussed the pros and cons of restorative justice programs. Once again, it appears that many people see this intervention as an "either-or": offenders are either referred to such programs, or they are locked up.

Restorative justice programs should also be identified and assessed for appropriateness for each offender. What programs exist? What population do they serve? What kind of accountability is required? How well do they work with the probation or parole officer, or whoever is responsible for supervising the individual? What's the response if there is no compliance? Most important: How is success measured and reported, and what are the outcomes for the program? Once the program is completed, is there follow up and/or additional support available?

Finally, there are no rules that state restorative justice can only be used if individuals reside in the community. Some offenders, adult and juvenile, require removal from the community for greater or lesser periods of time. There is no reason restorative justice programs cannot be (and perhaps they should be) offered in every institution in which an offender resides. Restorative justice can be effective, but it must be administered at the right time (is the offender ready to participate?), to the right people (is the offender able to participate?), by the right people (what kind of training do the providers have, and what have been the outcomes?) and in the proper environment (does the offender need to be removed from the community?).

Jeanne Torma, Minneapolis

D.J. Tice characterizes Hitler as, among other things, "a patriot" ("Of all the ginned up analogies in all the world ..." Opinion Exchange, Aug. 28). Of all the things Hitler was, patriot was not one of them. A patriot is someone who "loves his/her country and is ready to boldly support and defend it" (Merriam Webster).

It is important for conservatives to understand the difference between a patriot, a nationalist and a racist. Hitler was not interested in defending the German state as constructed by Otto von Bismarck some 60 years prior, albeit with its sails trimmed by the 1919 Treaty of Versailles. He wanted to destroy the German state and succeeded in doing so. Once Hitler went beyond the boundaries of pre-Versailles Germany by annexing Austria, annexing the Sudetenland then the entirety of Czechoslovakia, invading Poland and the Soviet Union for "Lebensraum," he showed he was no patriot but a murderous racist expansionist. In fact, Hitler and his men executed the real German patriots, the ones who tried to kill him on July 20, 1944, including Claus von Stauffenberg, Ludwig Beck, Wilhelm Canaris, the Protestant pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer, plus many others. These patriots managed to salvage some of Germany's honor by sacrificing their lives.

Robert Meyerson, Atwater, Minn.

•••

Did the letter writer of "Real issue: Pandemic precautions" (Aug. 27) read Tice's column the next day? Overreach with fascist analogies is not uncommon. Tice states such analogies are "meant to compare shocking events being used to justify new powers." The letter writer excoriates Jensen over "a woeful lack of understanding of the medical and public health challenges." Hmm, yes, over a million lives were lost, almost exclusively by those with pre-existing conditions, especially old age. This was apparent early in the pandemic. Yet Gov. Tim Walz forcibly closed businesses, shut down public schools and demanded mask "obedience." Minnesotans endured draconian control for nearly two years and suffered like Californians and New Yorkers. But other "open" states prospered with intelligent, informed leadership. Scott Jensen would provide that leadership.

Donald Pitsch, Eden Prairie

•••