COMMON C.A.S. INTERVIEW QUESTIONS



What is a C.A.S. program?
          C.A.S  stands for corporal alternative sentencing.  These proposed 
     programs would offer both the defendant and the courts an intermidiary 
     sanction.



How would they work?
          The defendant, through his or her attorney, would offer to sign 
     affidavits waiving their rights against corporal sentencing under all 
     current interpretations of the Eighth Amendment.  The court would 
     then have the option of either rejecting this option; or, acceptong it 
     and sentencing the defendant to a C.A.S. program, in lieu of prison.



Then this is only a voluntary system?
          For now...  The first step in bringing in any corporal sentencing 
     system is to implement a four to six year period of 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."



Is this legal now???
          Yes, it is, even without the proposed legislation ever being 
     passed, any defendant currently has the well established right to 
     waive any other right; or, protection under law, other than a single 
     appeal of a sentence of death.  As long as the defendant offers them 
     of their own free will and with no duress or coercion (aside from the 
     otherwise appropriate prison sentence), the court is free to accept 
     this sentencing option.



What determines if you'll take a case?
          Whether we agree to accept a case depends on a number of 
     variables, including just how good a "test case" it would make, the 
     sincerity of the candidate, the circumstances of the case, locale, 
     availability of staff and facilities, and other such variables. 
     There is more information posted on the  "Charged with a crime?" page.



If these people are released through your "C.A.S." programs, won't they just return to crime?
          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!



Have any of these sentences been carried out?
          Yes.  We are occassionally able to arrange for corporal 
     sentencing to substitute for prison, as a part of the plea bargain 
     negotiation process.  These numbers are limited; but, growing.  
     We currently accept only people who are charged with non-violent 
     crimes and who have no violent history.  If we agree to try to 
     assist them, they must talk their attorney into helping them 
     pursue this alternative and (s)he must persuade either the judge 
     or prosecutor assigned to the case to agree to a formal sentence 
     of probation or to a deferred adjudication of the charge.  If 
     there are grounds for substance abuse treatment, restitution, 
     community service, etc. these elements are ordered as elements 
     of that formal order.
          We refer to these as "waiver cases," instead of C.A.S.



Why bother with the legislation, then?
           Many judges have rather strong resevations against accepting 
     these waivers without this legislation first being passed.  Also, 
     it would make it possible for inmates who are currently in prison 
     to volunteer for resentencing under these programs guidelines.  This 
     would free up that bed space for housing the more violent criminals 
     (who would not qualify for these programs) and for those people who 
     preferred going to prison...



What would be the short-term benefits of 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.



What would be the benefits of a nonvoluntary program?
     1) If judges were able to impose corporal sentences, most would 
        choose to do so in cases where the person really does NOT belong 
        in prison; but, consequences are warranted.  Faced with this 
        prospect, 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.



Do you really think you can get rid of crime and the need for prisons?
          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.



Women too; or, just men men?
          Women too...  Any sentencing which is predicated upon gender 
     is not only wrong; but, could result in constitutional arguements, 
     as well.  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 can 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.  The only 
     differences between the way men and women would be handled in these 
     programs are relatively minor ones.  Whenever possible, female staff 
     will be used and, when this is not possible, at least one female 
     staff member will be in very close proximity whenever a male staff 
     member is working with the inmate.  Also, a female inmate would be 
     given a garment closely resembling a one-piece swimsuit (fastening 
     across the back of her neck) to wear.  This garment has "pockets" in 
     the area of the outer breast, in which she is allowed to insert rather 
     thick protective pads, prior to the sentence being carried out.  
     Otherwise, no distinction is made based upon gender.



What do you mean by the term "prison sub-culture"?
          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.



Isn't it a contradiction to argue that corporal punishmentis a better deterrent; but,that prison is a far worse punishment?
          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.



What do you mean by "working with" an inmate?
          These programs involve FAR more than JUST corporal punishment....  
     During the (approx.) 24 to 72 hours before and (approx.) 24 hours 
     after the sentence being carried out, a specially trained staff 
     member would be giving the inmate written assignments, related to 
     their crime, to complete and spending a considerable number of hours 
     talking with them.  The goal of this, combined with the punishment 
     and any appropriate, court mandated, follow-up rehabilitaion programs, 
     is to effect a change in inmate's attitudes and views regarding their 
     crime / criminal lifestyle.



Why should taxpayers have to pay for rehabilitaion?!?
          Because, when the inmate is sufficiently motivated (which these 
     folks WOULD be) rehabilitation programs really DO work!   Punishment 
     alone, for many of these people, would not be sufficient.  Many of 
     them have tried desparately, sometimes for years, to escape things 
     such as substance abuse problems.  Once they are willing to really 
     apply themselves to rehabilitative programs, they should have access 
     to them.  The goal is to assist them in becoming productive members 
     of our society -- a goal which would more than pay for itself in the 
     long run...
          When rehabilitation is 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!



Do you support caning?
          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.



Why the back, instead of the buttocks?
          Aside from the fact that this could make staff screening an 
     absolute nightmare (because it would be more likely to attract 
     people with very questionable motives), there are numerous other 
     problems involved.  Other than caning, most methods of inflicting 
     corporal punishments upon the buttocks simply would not be painful 
     enough to be all that effective on an adult.  Caning is FAR more 
     damaging than the methods which I advocate and could pose a signif-
     icant risk of internal injury to females (especially if they were 
     pregnant.)  Also, being forced to bare ones buttocks in the presence 
     of strangers is inherently humiliating and humiliation tends to be 
     extremely counter-productive when dealing with people who already 
     have very low self-images.  On a less significant note,  using the 
     methods which I do greatly reduces problems relating to witnesses 
     and simplifies staffing (since gender becomes less of a factor.)



What is this SPT-3, 14/2 utility cord;and, what does it do to the person?
          SPT-3, 14/2 utility cord is the heavy, well insulated, flat 
     wire which is used to connect landscape lighting.  It resembles 
     flat, household extension cord; but, it's considerably heavier 
     and has a higher rubber insulation to wire ratio than the house-
     hold cord does.
          Some people (over)react emotionally when they first realize 
     what it is that I'm talking about using.  They should bear in mind 
     that this reaction is something which will be shared by the criminal 
     who is facing being the prospect of being whipped with this material.  
     Part of "the idea" behind the use of corporal sentencing is the fact 
     that it's INTENDED TO scare the daylights out of the person who is 
     contemplating committing a crime...  Just how much deterrent effect 
     would something have if, when this person contemplated its effects, 
     they came to the conclusion of, "It won't be all that bad..."  It's 
     far better to have them think, "THAT, across my back?!?!? YIKES!!!  
     Maybe I want to reconsider doing what I was thinking about doing..."
          When this choice is looked at with the emotional factors removed, 
     it really is the logical choice...  Anything porous not only has a 
     tendency to "grab and rip;" but, also, would be virtually impossible 
     to sterilize.  These problems eliminate a lot of the other choices.  
     More standard "light cord," isn't as heavy; but, has a lot more of a 
     tendency to cut the person's skin.  It would also be harder for the 
     person applying the punishment to adequately control. Anything heavier 
     and / or wider (such as the 12 gauge) would be too heavy and could 
     cause injury.
          From the perspective of "effectiveness," this material causes 
     an extremely painful, "burning type" of stinging, as it welts the 
     person from the beginning.  From there, it "gets worse," as the 
     earlier, very tender, welts are crossed back over.  Even though the 
     "damage" is superficial, this experience is painful enough to cause 
     even the "toughest" person to have a real aversion to having to go 
     through such an ordeal again...
          The "bottom line" for my advocating this material is that it 
     produces a lot of (temporary) pain for the lowest possible "cost" in 
     terms of longer-term damage.



Variations of: "Isn't that torture?!?""How can our society be so cruel and still claim to be civilized?" etc.
          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.



By using corporal sentencing aren't wereducing ourselves to the criminal's level?
          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...



What about people who are wrongfully convicted?
          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.



Won't flogging scar a person for life?
          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.



You're hiring right now?
           Not "hiring", per se; but, I am in the process of screening and training 
     people to work the occassional waiver cases we take, in the meantime.  
     There is more information posted on the TRAINING APPLICATION page.
           I get quite a few inquiries about the possibility of using 
     waivers; but, a shortage of staff has caused me to turn down some 
     of the cases which I might, otherwise, have accepted.  Also, we 
     are pretty well limited to very "low profile" cases until I have 
     enough people trained to handle the additional cases which accepting 
     a high-profile case would bring.



Do I have to have a college degree to train?
           No, you do not; although I do require at least a high school 
     diploma or a G.E.D. and I do prefer some college.  I'd rather take 
     a person with a lot of life experience and no college over a person 
     who has all sorts of degrees and very little time spent out in the 
     real world, any day of the week!  The primary requirements are that 
     you have good people skills, can work with all sorts of people in 
     stressful situations, and are motivated by a desire to help, rather 
     than to hurt.  A strong pragmatic attitude and an ability to see 
     beyond the short-term / to see the larger picture is also very 
     helpful.



How much does this training cost?
           I don't charge anything for my part of it; however, if you 
     have not already completed a Red Cross approved "Community First 
     Aid and Safety" (formerly called "First Responder") course and a 
     self-defense class, you will need to arrange to take these in your 
     own community, at your own expense.  Both of these are very useful 
     to have, anyway; so, I don't feel as though it's an imposition to 
     require them...  If you have already completed either of these, 
     let me know.  If they are reasonablly current, that requirement 
     will be waived.



What is your political affiliation?
          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.



What are your qualifications for writing this book?
          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...



Publishers and bookstores?
          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.

 

How would someone get more information or contact you?
          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.)