Letters to the editor for Jan. 5

Is incarceration revenge or restitution?

What is the purpose of incarceration? The primary factors should be to protect society and administer justice. Unfortunately, many released felons are not rehabilitated. Confinement and depersonalization seem to be very prominent characteristics of our corrections. And unfortunately, restitution is a term frequently absent or misused.

Criminals receive a sentence imposed by a judge after a decision has been made concerning guilt or innocence. Those convicted serve time that varies greatly by where the crime was committed and contributing circumstances. All too often, once released, the parolee finds themselves gravitating back to behavior that led to their initial imprisonment. The recidivism rate is both disturbing and frustrating to officers of the court and our penal system.

And equally frustrating is to note how often the victims of crime receive very little in terms of restitution.

We as a society seem to get so wrapped up in punishment and retaliation that we overlook factors that would improve our safety, justice and constructive consequences. For instance, white-collar crimes cost victims and taxpayers exorbitant amounts of money. If the victims try to sue in a civil court, it could cost them thousands of dollars. These people are not dangerous to society and many cases involve fraud, check forgery or embezzlement. It would seem logical to give them probation with the condition that they serve time improving the community and paying the victim back.

We could save money by avoiding needless incarceration and emphasize rehabilitation and restitution.

James MacDicken, Olympia

Compassion for people who are homeless

I know there is no real answer for the people who are homeless, but there is the need for compassion and being kind.

We of faith beliefs are willing to step up with that act of compassion. I would like the rest of Olympians to do the same along, with our law enforcement.

Mark Kremen, Olympia

King, Tutu and opportunities for peace

President Eisenhower told us: “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.”

Yet each year, regardless of the party in control, the Pentagon requests funds and the president and Congress increase it even more. Other needs go unmet and we are facing existential crises: the risk of nuclear war, worsening climate change, a lack of affordable housing, and a worldwide pandemic.

Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who died Dec 26, told us: “A treaty to outlaw and eradicate these ultimate (nuclear) weapons of terror … is not out of the question. Entrenched systems can be turned on their head almost overnight if there’s the will.”

Jan. 17 is the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. Day. In 1957, he said: “I definitely feel that the development and use of nuclear weapons should be banned.”

Now there is an international treaty in effect to prohibit nuclear weapons, just as land mines have been prohibited by international treaty.

Why does the U.S. not initiate an effort to join the treaty along with Russia and China and bring around other nations with nuclear weapons to reach real security? Fifty-seven nations including Ireland and the Vatican have already signed. All it takes to solve many of our crises is reordering priorities — or as King called us to a revolution of values. Can we do this? “Yes We Can” — or stronger in Spanish: “Si Se Puede!”

Bob Zeigler, Olympia