COLUMN ONE : Upholding the Law in New Ways : Fighting crime will require more than building prisons but will cost taxpayers, experts say. Voters can consider two measures on the June ballot.

Year in and year out, it is perhaps California’s most persistent and intractable problem. Although the state’s overall crime rate fell 11% in the last decade, it is still the fourth-highest in the nation--and violent crime continues to rise.

California’s crime-wary electorate has sent unmistakable signals to lawmakers--and they have responded with tough new laws that are sending more and more criminals to prison. And with huge numbers of parolees going back behind bars, mostly on drug-related charges, the number of felons in prisons has leaped from 22,500 to 88,000 in only 10 years.

As a result, California’s crime problem has taken on new dimensions, posing costly challenges as the state faces the prospect of overflowing corrections facilities, even with the projected expenditure of billions of dollars in new prison and jail construction. Authorities say California has reached a pivotal point--and the search is on for new alternatives to conventional imprisonment and more effective ways to combat crime.

A blue ribbon state commission studying the problem concluded earlier this year that the criminal justice system in California is “out of balance” and that innovative steps must be taken to reduce prison and jail overcrowding while protecting public safety.

“We’re at a critical period,” says the commission chairman, Riverside County Dist. Atty. Grover C. Trask. “If we don’t do something, the consequences will be that the crime rate will rise, the drug problem will continue to devastate our society and members of the law-abiding public will be even more upset with the system than they are now.”

Authorities envision a wide array of tools and techniques--some as newfangled as high-speed, computerized criminal identification systems and some as conventional as expanded drug-treatment programs, intensive probation supervision and putting more cops on the streets.

These emerging strategies would cost the taxpayers, of course. But experts say that effectively fighting crime in the ‘90s--and contending with the vexing related problem of illegal drugs--will require far more than just building more prisons.

“The criminal justice system is just overwhelmed,” says Jerome H. Skolnick, professor of law and social policy at UC Berkeley and a longtime specialist on crime and law enforcement. “Whatever we do, there are going to be costs. The question is where do we put our money?”

For now, however, the immediate focus for California voters will be two measures on the June ballot that will expand prison facilities and harshen punishment for criminals.

Proposition 115, the far-ranging anti-crime initiative, would lengthen terms for murderers and criminals who torture their victims, increase the number of crimes subject to the death penalty or life in prison without parole, limit the state constitutional rights of defendants and try to reduce delay in criminal proceedings.

Proposition 120 would provide another $450 million in state bonds as part of a long-term, $6-billion plan for more prison facilities to house 145,000 inmates by 1995--six times the number imprisoned in 1979.

Gov. George Deukmejian is supporting an initiative for the November ballot that would allow prisoners to work at private-sector jobs to pay restitution to their victims and help defray the costs of incarceration.

State Atty. Gen. John K. Van de Kamp, a Democratic candidate to succeed Deukmejian, is promoting another anti-crime initiative in the fall that would fund a $1.7-billion program to expand police patrols, establish new drug-treatment programs and build low-cost, minimum-security “cocaine prisons” for drug offenders.

And Lt. Gov. Leo T. McCarthy advocates a “safe streets” initiative for the fall ballot that would impose a half-cent sales tax to raise $1.6 billion for law enforcement and drug-treatment programs and effectively lengthen prison terms for violent criminals and drug dealers.

In the Legislature, two key measures have been introduced that would implement some of the blue ribbon commission’s recommendations for providing new options for handing criminals.

Legislation sponsored by Sen. Robert Presley (D-Riverside) would provide $15 million for community corrections facilities for counseling, drug rehabilitation, and literacy and mental health programs for as many as 1,000 parolees, probationers and parole violators. A similar bill by Sen. Bill Lockyer (D-Hayward) would provide state funds to counties for jail rehabilitation and counseling programs for offenders who otherwise would be sent to state prison.

Crime rate data in recent years has provided Californians with good news and bad news, with certain types of crime fluctuating greatly. Much of the drop in California’s overall crime rate has been attributable to a steep drop in property crime. Burglary, for example, dropped nearly 34% over the last decade, while motor vehicle theft increased 28%. And, for reasons not clear to experts, rape in California decreased by more than 22%.

But official data may not indicate the full extent of crime. As Skolnick points out, crime rates reflect only offenses reported to police. Public opinion surveys may reveal more victims of crime, but those who engage in drug transactions, for example, are highly unlikely to reveal it to a questioner.

The stage was set for a steady growth in prison population in 1976, when California adopted new determinate-sentencing laws, setting down specific terms for judges to impose rather than giving them wide discretion in issuing sentences.

Other changes brought more mandatory sentences, increased burglary terms, stiffer penalties for rape and additional prison time for using a gun during commission of a crime.

In 1982, the voters approved Proposition 8, the Victims Bill of Rights initiative, which among other things, provided for additional five-year terms for convicted felons who previously had been found guilty of a serious crime.

Another factor in the prison population explosion is the growing number of parolees returned to prison for violating the conditions of parole or committing new crimes. In 1978, there were barely 1,000 parole violators returned to prison, according to the blue ribbon commission. That number jumped to 34,000 in 1988--representing 45% of the total admissions to prison--and is projected to increase to 83,000 in 1994.

Currently, drug charges are a primary or contributing factor in nearly two-thirds of all parole revocations. One survey in 1988 showed that 92% of the parolees sent back to prison from Los Angeles had tested positive for drug use.

“We’re running the largest revolving door system in the world,” says state Assistant Atty. Gen. Brian Taugher. “We give (parolees) $200 when they go out the door. That’s not enough to make the first and last month’s rent. It’s only enough for one thing: to party.”

The ineffectiveness of the parole system is matched by the ineffectiveness of the probation system, authorities say. Caseloads are so high, overworked probation officers retain only minimal contacts with probationers and many officers are forced to “supervise” these released offenders by monitoring police reports to see if they have been rearrested.

Sending offenders to prison has logical and political appeal, but it also has its limits. Even with the current expansion program, the prison system will remain full beyond capacity for at least another five years. And not only is prison construction costly, it almost inevitably encounters local opposition when a specific project is planned for a specific area.

Los Angeles County, for example, has no state prison but produces about 40% of California’s inmate population. The Legislature three years ago authorized construction of two facilities in the county. But local legislators, citing community opposition, have succeeded in blocking the projects.

No one is arguing against placing the most dangerous offenders and career criminals in state prisons. But increasingly, the call is heard for expanded use of so-called “intermediate” punishments for other offenders, including drug abusers, that would provide more flexible and more effective alternatives to incarceration. Such options, for example, include:

Intensive-supervision probation. In these programs, certain high-risk offenders are subject to rigorous supervision, required to contact their probation officers up to five times a week.

Drug rehabilitation. The blue ribbon commission, calling substance abuse the “most significant contributing factor” to prison and jail overcrowding, urged the development of programs that would ensure that every incarcerated drug abuser be required to participate in an anti-drug program. Felony drug arrests in California climbed 116% in the past five years and in 1988 surpassed the total number of arrests for all property offenses, such as burglary and larceny.

House arrest. After conviction, the offender is sentenced to confinement at his residence, with exceptions made for employment, medical treatment or religious services. Electronic devices may be used to monitor the whereabouts of the offender.

Under a program in San Diego, the first of its kind in the state, probationers wear an electronic transmitter strapped to their ankles that emits an inaudible sound picked up by a receiver connected to their residential telephones. Eighty-seven percent of 633 offenders successfully completed court-ordered home confinement, officials say.

Boot camp. For some offenders, military style regimentation, emphasizing physical fitness and hard work, is the alternative to jail in this type of program. Such facilities would be less costly to operate and perhaps more effective than conventional incarceration.

Community service. These programs have been used for drunk drivers, drug users and other nonviolent offenders. Typically, community service is imposed as a condition of probation or parole and the offender works for a nonprofit or public service organization.

Those and similar options, of course, would be applied after the offense, with the aim of reducing the chances of repeated crimes. Some experts also call for new emphasis at the “front end” of the system--with an expanded role for police in community efforts to prevent crime.

USC law professor Susan Estrich, a specialist on crime and dangerous offenders, would give first priority to expanding police patrols in crime-ridden communities--not only as a deterrent to crime but also as a psychological boost to residents.

“The fear of crime can be as big a problem as crime itself,” says Estrich. “If we get police out on the streets, it introduces a sense of order. You will get more people out on the streets and that in itself can make things safer. . . . And with more policing, you increase the rate of apprehension.”

The oft-made plea for more police has considerable support. But in a time of tight fiscal restraints on local governmental budgets, it is far from easy to accomplish.

In Los Angeles, for example, city officials are contending they can no longer afford to fund a popular, $3-million-a-year program that established police foot patrols in 13 high-crime areas. Preliminary studies found an 11% drop in violent crimes in areas where the patrols were deployed.

Many California police departments, in addition to budget restrictions, report they also are having trouble recruiting qualified applicants to fill the vacant slots. Many applicants cannot meet the mental, physical and background requirements. And departments often find themselves competing with each other--or employers in other fields--for the remaining candidates.

“Out of 100 applicants, you will be lucky if you get three or four who will make it through their probationary period,” said Norman C. Boehm, executive director of the state Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training.

While authorities have yet to find the ultimate weapon in the war on crime, they are at work developing and expanding a wide variety of technological innovations to help identify, apprehend and convict criminals.

“We have made strides in identifying people that are absolutely astonishing,” says state prosecutor Taugher.

Among other things, he observes, police in the next decade will be able to carry a high-tech “little black box” in their squad cars that will enable them to electronically scan the fingerprint of a suspect on the scene and within moments learn from a centralized computer system who he is and whether he has a criminal record or is wanted by authorities.

Such devices would help ensure that fewer wanted suspects evade detection--and those who are not being sought would spend less time in custody.

Stephen C. Helsley, assistant director of the state Department of Justice investigation and enforcement branch, envisions a much wider use of computerized information files, collecting data on everything from evidence stored away in police property rooms to laboratory analyses of fuels used in arson fires.

A ski mask confiscated for use as evidence against a rape suspect in one locale may prove to be the key evidence that could tie the suspect to similar crimes in other locales. But at present, he points out, without computer technology, police in other jurisdictions would be unaware of the existence of such evidence.

Among the most promising advanced criminal-identification techniques currently under development are:

DNA fingerprinting. In this widely hailed innovation, investigators can identify suspects by comparing their unique individual genetic codes with the code found in samples of hair, blood, skin and semen left at the scene of the crime. Although the technique has been challenged in court, its use has won preliminary acceptance in California and elsewhere. Supporters cite its value in exonerating suspects as well as identifying them.

State officials see the technique as especially valuable in tracking down violent criminals--particularly sex offenders, who tend to repeat their crimes. Authorities hope that within five years, DNA samples will be taken from every inmate in jail or prison and filed in a data bank of genetic codes for quick identification in future cases.

Photo identification. Legislation is pending that would establish a statewide computerized photograph system, enabling investigators to identify suspects through digitized, electronically transmitted photos. The system would operate much like the statewide computerized fingerprint system, credited with solving thousands of crimes in the past five years.

At present, there is no way to get photographs of suspects, kidnap victims or missing children quickly into the hands of authorities throughout California.

Violent crime information. This system is being designed to collect a broad range of data on violent offenses--particularly so-called “serial” crimes, in which a single assailant attacks multiple victims over a period of time.

Computers will store detailed information on victims, weapons, vehicles, physical and forensic evidence and the modus operandi of the attacker. Data also will be kept on registered sex offenders and serious habitual criminals. As new cases arise, they will be compared by state analysts with existing records to see if there is a connection with previous offenses.

But in a revolutionary era, new technology is not only in the hands of the law-abiding. Authorities say they will be increasingly challenged in the coming decade by the growing use of computers and other new techniques by lawbreakers, ranging from embezzlers to drug traffickers.

“Criminals have picked up on the new technology,” says Edwin Zedlewski, a crime analyst for the National Institute of Justice. “What we’re realizing is that to pull off certain crimes, you don’t have to have a heck of a lot of sophistication.”

A study by the institute of computer crime noted, for example, how a $3 million-a-year prostitution ring operated in one metropolitan area with five computer workstations, 38 telephone lines and a data base including the names and backgrounds of some 80,000 customers.

There also are calls for a reinvigorated attack on the underlying, root causes of crime and for bolder policies and programs that would confront the problem at the basic level of the home, the family and the schools.

“We’re not doing a very good job of parenting our children,” says Jack Dugan, head of the crime prevention center for the state Department of Justice. “We’re not educating parents on what it takes to rear a child these days. . . . In some instances, we have children raising children.”

Dugan favors community-based, parental-instruction programs that would help attack the fundamental social problems that ultimately lead to crime, particularly among juveniles. Such programs, he says, should be offered in the public schools, with teachers receiving special training to deal with those problems.

All three current candidates for governor--Republican U.S. Sen. Pete Wilson and Democrats Van de Kamp and former San Francisco Mayor Dianne Feinstein--have favored some form of expanded social programs tied to the schools.

A recent report by the National Council on Crime and Delinquency looked at the prospects of the future generation and found the emerging trends “not encouraging.” The report predicted the crime problem will become “considerably worse” in the next decade, especially within inner-city communities.

The report cited data showing that one in five U.S. children live below the poverty line, that increasing numbers of children are being born to unwed teen-agers and that the vast majority of single mothers work outside the home, leaving large numbers of children without parental supervision much of the day.

Moreover, demographic analyses show that in the mid-1990s the children of the so-called “baby boomers” will be reaching the crime-prone ages of 16 to 24, threatening a new surge in crime rates, the report said.

“More of these kids will get in trouble if they are trapped in poverty or institutional racism,” says Michael E. Jett, a state crime prevention program supervisor. “If nothing is done, we’re going to develop an underclass of deprived and violent people . . . and they will turn this violence on themselves or turn it on us.”

CRIME IN CALIFORNIA AND NATIONWIDE

Here is the California Bureau of Criminal Statistics’ list of the states with the highest crime rates for 1988 from their 1990 report. Crime rate figures listed below include: willful homicide, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, and larceny. States with the Highest Crime Rates (Per 100,000 population) D.C.: 5,298 Florida: 4,177 Texas: 3,610 California: 3,321 New York: 3,176 Nevada: 2,925 Oregon: 2,904 New Mexico: 2,885 Georgia: 2,831 Michigan: 2,797 Washington: 2,755 Maryland: 2,658 Arizona: 2,659 Oklahoma: 2,634 Louisiana: 2,613 Figures below indicate the percentage of change in selected crime rates from 1978 to 1988.

Type of Rest of Six Most Crime California the U.S. Populous States* Overall Crime -11.1% +1.6% +9.4% Violent Crime +14.6% +19.9% +27.6% Property Crime -18.3% -3.2% +4.0% Auto Theft +27.9% +13.9% +27.2% Burglary -33.8% -8.9% -4.1% Forcible Rape -22.4% +15.4% +13.8%

* The six most populous states excluding California are: Florida, Texas, New York, Illinois, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Source: California Bureau of Criminal Statistics and Special Services Compiled by Times editorial researcher Michael Meyers