This book provides a means of eventually solving two problems 
which every state in this country finds itself facing  -- crime 
and prison overcrowding.  It sets forth a complete system for 
dealing with the entire spectrum of criminals, ranging from "first 
offenders" to hard core, career, predators.
    This is a pretty tall order; but, it's only impossible when we 
insist on limiting ourselves to prison as the only meaningful form 
of punishment we have at our disposal -- with the only alternative 
being probation.  When we add corporal punishments to this mix, we 
gain the ability to begin lowering the prison population and making 
the possibility of even a first conviction very unattractive.
   Since time is fairly limited, in most interviews, it's usually 
better to deal with the portions of the book which seem to attract 
the most interest, which involve my advocacy of corporal sentencing 
as an alternative to prison.  I don't, however, like neglecting the 
fact that it IS a three level system and, to really do the best 
possible job in reducing both crime and prison overcrowding, the full 
range of criminals must be addressed and all three levels are important.
Even if they are touched on only briefly, I like to give the following 
information about each level and how it would be handled:
   "Level 1" -- Those people who are now (for the most part) receiving 
probation and other "accessories" such as community service, fines, etc.  
Most of these people haven't fully committed themselves to crime; but 
are "testing the waters."  This is the group who can be the most easily 
diverted -- if they find the consequences unpleasant enough.
   "Level 2" -- refers to 1) very determined non-violent criminals; or 
2) people who have committed violent crimes, but have not yet qualified 
for Level 3.
   "Level 3" -- career, violent criminals and people who are guilty of 
capital murder.

   At such time that the entire system were implemented, these levels 
would be dealt with as follows:
   "Level 1" -- corporal sentencing (with 2 to 3 days prior, and @24 
hours after, being spent in an "isolation cell" being "worked" by a 
"counselor" trained to break down the inmate's rationalization, 
justification, and denial systems).  Also, after release, the use of 
accessories such as: community service, substance abuse treatment, 
literacy and job skills training, etc.
   "Level 2" -- Much higher levels of corporal sentencing, plus up to 
2 years of 2-phase incarceration. 
"Phase 1" -- a cross between "boot camp" and "chain gang" 
"Phase 2" -- a more rehabilitative environment where the 
inmate learns job skills, etc.)  
     Violent crimes would carry "points," based upon the seriousness 
of the crime.  These points would apply toward placing the person 
into level 3.  
     This level would also include a mandatory 5 years of chemical 
castration for first conviction rapists and child molestors; with 
surgical castration for a second conviction.
   "Level 3"  -- death by lethal injection, preferably within 
one year.


   The first step in bringing this system about involves a four to six 
year period of "Corporal Alternative Sentencing" (C.A.S.) programs to 
establish both the effectiveness of corporal sentencing and to establish 
sufficient precedent for more mandatory laws to stand upon.  While the 
8th Amend. in NO WAY banned corporal sentencing, the Dec. 9, 1968 8th 
circuit court of appeals decision of "Jackson vs Bishop" (which SHOULD 
have been a due process case) inappropriately labelled such sentencing 
as a violation.  Any defendant, however, has the (well established) 
right to waive any other right...  After several years of "waiver" 
cases, opponents would have an extremely difficult time establishing 
that more mandatory laws are either "cruel" OR "unusual."

   Short-term benefits (during this C.A.S. phase):
1) The ability to safely free up prison bed space for more serious 
   criminals;
  a) increasing the likelyhood of incarceration and driving 
     more people into;
  b) reducing the need for early release of more serious 
     criminals;
  c) freeing up tax dollars which would otherwise have to be 
     spent building new prisons, paying more prison guards, 
     etc.
2) Higher effectiveness rates for probationary rehabilitation 
   programs such as drug rehab. and allowing money to be diverted
   to these programs.
3) Rather than being a drain on society, these people could be 
   returned to productivity -- increasing the tax base;
4) Establish precedent for more mandatory corporal sentencing 
   laws.

Long-term benefits --
1) Even a FIRST conviction would become VERY unattractive, thus
   preventing many people from getting involved in crime in the 
   first place;
2) More money would become available for programs such as drug
   treatment, early childhood education and nutrition, training 
   and jobs programs, etc.
3) Improved quality of life for everyone, especially for people 
   living in what are now high crime rate areas.  (They might 
   even be able to get a pizza delivered, or find an all night 
   gas station without having to drive across town!...)
4) Fewer excuses for politicians to infringe upon our rights 
   in the name of "crime control."
5) Reduced caseloads for police, courts, and defense attornies, 
   reducing the rate of wrongful convictions.

   It's impossible to fully cover it all in the course of an hour 
long interview.  People can obtain more information on my web site, 
which is located at:
                http://www.reducecrime.org
Or, they can order my book by mailing check or money order for 
$17.95 (14.95 plus 3.00 for U.S. shipping and handling) to:
                Kathy Renbarger
                P.O. Box 7011
                Edmond, OK 73083
A text only version is also available for $5.00 (for downloads) or 
$6.00 (U.S. s&h included) on IBM 3 1/2 inch disk (in DOS .txt format)
    It's usually good to point out that the book is 3/4 illustrative 
fiction, for those people who hate to read non-fiction books.

    My e-mail address is: fedup@flash.net  I try to answer most of my own e-mail 
and I speak to people on the phone at 405-722-3633; but, snail mail really has to attract 
my attention to get answered, unless people provide me an e-mail address (friend's, etc.)


             15 COMMONLY ASKED QUESTIONS

1) Why not longer prison sentences for "Level 2"?
A) After a certain point, people become adapt to the prison
environment.  It becomes a way of life to them.  By limiting
the time they spend in prison, and by returning to single 
celling, the idea is to hinder this adaptaion and to undermine
the attitudes of the prison sub-culture.

2) What do you mean by the term "prison sub-culture"?
A) Prisons have a culture all their own -- a person's stautus 
in this "community" is predicated on things such as what they 
are "in for" (usually the more serious the better), how mean 
and predatory they are, and how much they hate society.  Any 
vulnerability, any identification with the prison staff, and 
any attempts to turn their life around are seen as "weakness" 
or betrayal, and will increase the likelyhood that the person 
will be victimized by the other inmates.  These attitudes only 
reinforce criminal behaviors.

3) Do you support caning?
A) No.  I feel that  caning is far more damaging than flogging 
(whipping of the back).  The idea is to establish real consequences 
and to "get their attention" -- NOT to do long-term damage.  Also, 
I have a personal bias against anyone above the age of puberty being 
struck below the waist.  Most countries which use caning limit its 
usage to males, because its use on females  would open up a "can of 
worms."  I feel that any sentencing system which is gender, rather 
than crime, based is inherently unfair.

4) You'd really support the use of corporal punishment of females?
A) Any system of sentencing which was based up gender would not only 
be unconstitutional; but, very unfair.  Besides, as primary care givers 
to any children in the family, women (and their families) often suffer 
more than men from incarceration.  Substance abuse problems in a mother 
have an even greater impact on their children than those of a father 
(which are significant enough) and can result in children being born 
into addiction.  To exclude females would be ridiculous.

5) Why should taxpayers have to pay for rehabilitaion?!?
A) because when used effectively, it makes good economic sense and 
the ultimate goal is to improve the quality of life for all of society, 
not just the offender.  The problem with such programs today is that 
they lack any real teeth and are often a waste of money.  Under my
system, this would change!

6) Variations of: "Isn't that torture?!?" "How can our society be so 
cruel and still claim to be civilized?" etc.
A) What is "cruel" is that we (now) squander billions of dollars on a 
system which only encourages people to adopt a criminal lifestyle and 
refuse to really deal with them effectively while they are still 
salvageable.  This not only reduces the quality of life for society; 
but, also, for criminals and their families.
   Also, I believe the acute nature of corporal sentences is far more 
humanitarian, in that it is applied and the person is then returned 
to life.  Prison, on the other hand, reduces the probability of a 
successful re-entry into society and subjects the person to abuses 
such as rape, servitude, and arbitrary beatings at the hands of their 
fellow inmates -- especially if the person is not of the predatory 
variety.

7) If these people are released through your "C.A.S." programs, won't 
they just return to crime?
A) A few will; but, they are those who DEFINITELY would under our 
present system.  Most, with secondary and deferral waivers dangling 
over their heads AND adequate opportunities to change, will choose to 
change... These other waivers would effectively lock the person into 
the new system.  Deferred portions of sentences are subject to doubling, 
and new crimes carry higher sentences.  The majority will go to great 
lenghts to avoid going back!

8) Won't flogging scar a person for life?
A) In most cases, no.  Even in cases where it does, these scars are 
not nearly as serious as the emotional, and often physical, scars 
which people receive from being crime victims; or even from being 
criminals in, or out, of prison.

9) By using corporal sentencing and the death penalty, aren't we 
reducing ourselves to the criminal's level?
A) This is nonsense.  A criminal inflicts pain and death whimsically, 
arbitrarily, and without contructive cause.  If society did so on a 
similar basis, I would agree; but, that's not the case.  Fact of the 
matter is that you HAVE to deal with people on a level which they can 
understand.  It is pointless to try to teach a 3 year old child quantum 
mechanics when they are on a level of one apple plus 2 apples equals
three apples...

10) What about people who are wrongfully convicted?
A) As much as I abhore the idea of people being punished for things 
they haven't done, I realize that it will occassionally occur.  Even 
so, the person loses much less this way and, since they have no contact 
with any other inmates, will often fare better overall...  Also, I feel 
there would be fewer wrongful convictions under this system, due to the 
reduced case loads of the courts, police, and defense attornies.

11) Isn't it a contradiction to argue that corporal punishment is a 
better deterrent; but, that prison is a far worse punishment?
A) No.  For one thing, we're dealing with a broad spectrum of people.  
It's an irony in our present system that (with the exception of child 
molesters) the worse the criminal is, the easier a time they have 
assimilating into the prison sub-culture and the less they are 
victimized by it.  It's a very reversed world where good things are bad, 
bad things are good, and you'd better be pretty darned "bad" if you want 
to make it without being somone's "girlfriend."  All of this causes people 
to come back into society worse than they were when they went in.

12) What are your qualifications for writing this book?
A) All front-line.  My classroom has been the streets, including: 
3 1/2 years doing fugitive retrieval (bounty hunting) and often 
working closely with undercover narcotics officers, almost 2 years 
doing proactive security at section 8 apartments (shutting down gang 
activity and drug dealing), and (over 20 years ago) 5 1/2 months as a 
member of a (vigilante) street patrol group which used corporal 
punishment to clean up its area.
   In spite of my lack of academic qualifications, my ideas have been 
endorsed by many people who DO have them, such as: judges, attornies, 
criminology proffessionals, people involved in substance abuse and 
domestic violence treatment, etc.  About the only ones who really take 
issue are those with either a far left, or far right, bias.  The far 
left hates holding people accountable; the far right hates giving them 
the tools to change...

13) What is your political affiliation?
A)  Independant moderate with conservative leanings. I believe both sides 
have areas where they are correct AND areas where they are all wet.  I 
prefer to think for myself.

14) Do you really think you can get rid of crime and the need for prisons?
A)  Of course not!  As long as there are people, will be some who insist 
on committing crimes.  I DO believe that we can bring it down to a MUCH 
more manageable levels, though, and that this will have a cumulative 
effect as the police and courts are less over-burdened, and as crime 
becomes less culturally accepted.

15) Publishers and bookstores?
A)  Currently, the book is available only through the author.  I'm only 
willing to sell the right to publish under license, instead of the rights 
of ownership.  Very few publishers will agree to this; so, I'm self 
publishing.  When you sell the copyright, they can do whatever they like 
with it (change it, bury it, etc.)  I feel that this is much too important 
to risk allowing that to happen.  I'd love to have the wider distribution 
which the right publisher could provide me and I'd be willing to talk to 
any of them.  They would have to be willing to work with me on my terms, 
which are:
1) no substantive changes (without my prior authorization);
2) they would have to actively promote it;
3) recourse for me to get a different publisher and / or self-
   publish, if they failed to do so.