Debate Over Parole Reform

* Re “Parole Reform a Must,” editorial, Nov. 4: I am within a few days of being paroled from a California prison work furlough program. If you were able to view the system from the inside, the recidivism rate would not surprise or be a mystery to you. Rehabilitation or preparation for release into society is virtually nonexistent within California prisons.

For the extremely few inmates sent to work furlough programs, the situation is essentially the same. The majority of work furlough (halfway house) programs offer no preparation, counseling or treatment options for the inmate. The particular facility that I am housed in is an exception to the rule. Here, the intentions are honorable but fall woefully short of preparing the average inmate for release.

A stunning number of inmates have never had legitimate employment. The majority of inmates in a work furlough program take temporary, transitory jobs simply to fulfill the requirements. I would surmise that a minuscule percentage of work furlough inmates remain in their jobs once released. It is no surprise why the vast majority of inmates return to prison shortly after their release.

EDWARD MOORE

Los Angeles

* If 70% of 125,000 paroled felons commit new crimes within 18 months, why do we let them out? We could prevent 87,500 crimes. We could save the cost of 87,500 investigations, arrests and prosecutions. We could save the injuries, the lives and property lost and all the ancillary damage to families and victims of 87,500 crimes. Insurance rates would plummet. Police departments would shrink. It has to be cheaper to keep these people away from society.

Parole reform? Sure. Don’t have it. We wouldn’t need the parole board and all those parole officers. And we wouldn’t have to be concerned about losing track of 31,250 paroled felons.

RAYMON C. RIORDAN

Arcadia