orative effort betweenthe state and counties requiring a community based plan describing the sanctionsand services to be provided. A progress report on an actof this kind would bemade by the California Board of Corrections on January 1, 1997 and annuallythereafter to selected legislative committees. "It seems clear that theCalifornia Legislature has determined that incarceration is not appropriate formany criminal offenses and that alternative sanctions are preferable for non-violent offenders. " (Randy Meyer, Political Official). But while this approachis to be applauded, its spreading prevents the fulfillment of its true potential. "By retaining those non-violent offenders that are currently in state prisonand continuing to pursue defensive punishment at the local level in the form ofshort term "shock incarceration" and bootcamps, the costly and ineffectivemethods of criminal behavior correction remain intact." (Charles Calderon-USNews). By immediately eliminating incarceration for all non-violent offensesand requiring victim compensation and community service, resources can becommitted to preventing crime rather than to the feeding and housing ofoffenders. This is consistent with the findings of the legislature and is costefficient, requires minimal systemic change, and increases public safety andsecurity. "Our current criminal justice system appears to be based upon the OldTestament proverb that "your eye shall not pity; it shall be life for life, eyefor eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot." Revenge thus plays apart of the punishment model." (LA Official Boland). From a societal standpoint,we expect punishment to prevent the offender and others from further criminalbehavior. Incarceration of offenders as the punishment of choice thustheoretically provides revenge, individual incapacitation, and restriction.But I submit that such a philosophical foundation is flawed. Revenge whileunderstandable from an individua...
