d victim restitution, day reporting, and others. Pilot programs are to be developed as a collaborative effort between the state and counties requiring a community based plan describing the sanctions and services to be provided. A progress report on an act of this kind would be made by the California Board of Corrections on January 1, 1997 and annually thereafter to selected legislative committees. "It seems clear that the California Legislature has determined that incarceration is not appropriate for many criminal offenses and that alternative sanctions are preferable for non- violent offenders. " (Randy Meyer, Political Official). But while this approach is to be applauded, its spreading prevents the fulfillment of its true potential. "By retaining those non-violent offenders that are currently in state prison and continuing to pursue defensive punishment at the local level in the form of short term "shock incarceration" and bootcamps, the costly and ineffective methods of criminal behavior correction remain intact." (Charles Calderon-US News). By immediately eliminating incarceration for all non-violent offenses and requiring victim compensation and community service, resources can be committed to preventing crime rather than to the feeding and housing of offenders. This is consistent with the findings of the legislature and is cost efficient, requires minimal systemic change, and increases public safety and security. "Our current criminal justice system appears to be based upon the Old Testament proverb that "your eye shall not pity; it shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot." Revenge thus plays a part of the punishment model." (LA Official Boland). From a societal standpoint, we expect punishment to prevent the offender and others from further criminal behavior. Incarceration of offenders as the punishment of choice thus theoretically provides revenge, individual incapacitation, and restri...
