Probation Alternatives

* Your editorial, “Excess of Liberty” (Dec. 8), lamenting the premature release from prison of Richard Allen Davis is on target--to the final paragraph. The question is not “Are Californians ready to pay the necessary costs to have a safer society?” We can sorely afford to expend more for a system which only temporarily removes predators from society. Rather, Californians need to be willing to redistribute the available resources to be the most effective.

Violent offenders, those who are a threat to the person of others, belong in custody for as long as is necessary to assure that they will not pose a threat when they are released. To augment this, a well-trained and staffed parole system is essential.

To make room for those who need to be in custody, it is necessary to provide correctional alternatives for those who do not pose a threat to people. What is needed is the willingness to put in place an array of options which will hold offenders accountable while remaining in the community. Such options may include electronic monitoring, intensive probation supervision and restitution programs among others. These are not new concepts, but to date they have not been adequately funded in California. Not all offenders need to be incarcerated. A balance is needed both in sentencing options and in correctional alternatives.

Worldwide, California is second only to Florida in the number of persons imprisoned per 100,000 population and expends $3 billion annually, over 6% of the state budget, just for prisons and related services. Despite this the crime rate still has not been significantly reduced. Community corrections alternatives for the right persons can be effective and still provide safety for society. This then can assure space will be available in our existing prisons for those who need to be there, and at little or no additional cost.

PAUL D. MUNTZ, President

California Probation, Parole

and Correctional Assn., Los Angeles

* Your editorial rightly laments the fact that Davis was “at liberty” to commit yet another senseless, violent, and terrible crime, this time against 12-year-old Polly Klaas, who was taken from her own bedroom. But as we struggle to develop a response to these and similar events, let us not stop with the usual call for “more courtrooms and judges, more prisons and guards.”

Are we forever limited to responding to the problem only after it has developed and grown to such ghastly proportions? Why can’t we put more resources into efforts to help prevent the development of criminals like Davis? The hardest part isn’t getting voters to agree to pay for tougher laws and more prisons. The hardest part is getting voters to see the potential of things that could help reduce the need for ever more prisons, such as better and more available mental health programs for children, adolescents, parents and families; programs to prevent and treat child abuse, and ways to decrease domestic violence.

DAVID K. SLAY

Seal Beach

* Your report, “Klaas Suspect Twisted Legal System Since ‘70” (Dec. 12), made one thing perfectly clear: Plea-bargaining is an incentive to commit more crimes, since each offense becomes a bargaining chip for the criminal.

If laws like this are the achievements of an advancing civilization, let’s regress.

HANS J. PLICKERT

Downey