DEBATE CONTINUES ON PRISON ALTERNATIVE

Officials Differ On Rules For Strict Probation

With 13 Community Corrections centers open and 22 more planned, the state
is jumping with both feet into intensive probation programs as an
alternative to prison for nonviolent offenders, even as prosecutors,
lawmakers, and state officials differ over who should be eligible.

As the debate continues, with defense lawyers claiming that prosecutors are
using the state's tough drug laws to keep their clients out of the program,
and lawmakers balking at diluting mandatory drug sentences for fear of
looking weak on crime, many wonder whether the probation programs will fall
short of expectations.

''A lot of prosecutors won't touch [the programs] with a 10-foot pole,''
said defense attorney James Dilday.

Dilday said one of his recent clients is a case in point. The 27-year-old
man, a college graduate with a steady job as a bank teller and no prior
criminal record, was caught selling $50 worth of crack cocaine after
falling in with the proverbial ''wrong crowd'' in his neighborhood, Dilday
said.

''He's no major player,'' said Dilday, who thought he had a perfect
candidate for the new Community Counseling Center in Cambridge. ''He would
have been great for it.''

Yet where Dilday saw someone who would benefit from the kind of strict
monitoring used in the program - daily drug testing and electronic
bracelets - the prosecutor saw only a drug dealer caught peddling crack
near a school.

With the state's strict minimum mandatory drug sentences, the prosecutor's
view prevailed and Dilday's client is headed for prison.

Those familiar with the programs say Dilday's experience illustrates a
philosophical schism among state officials and county sheriffs - who insist
that the programs are less costly and more effective than prison - and
prosecutors and politicians - who say declining crime rates prove that the
get-tough, lock-up policies of the 1990s are working.

''What we don't want is for this program to be used to keep dangerous
people out of prison,'' said William Fallon, an assistant district attorney
in Essex County.

In the face of resistance, state parole and probation officials are
embracing the concept of strict probation as an alternative to prison.

The new centers would nearly triple the capacity of the current system,
which can handle about 500 of the estimated 5,000 eligible nonviolent
offenders who are in prison on drug or drug-related crimes.

Those in the program are closely monitored: they are tethered to electronic
bracelets, forced to undergo daily drug tests or to submit to home-based
breath-analysis machines that transmit results to probation officers in
seconds via modem.

They are required to perform community service, attend classes or
counseling sessions for drug or alcohol addiction or anger management, or
earn their high school equivalency degree. Job and life skills are also taught.

''In lieu of incarceration, we try to change behavior,'' said Paul Lucci,
supervisor of field services for the Office of the Commissioner of Probation.

In theory at least, both sides agree that the Community Corrections
centers, jointly run by the Parole Board, the Probation Commission, the
Department of Correction, and the state's sheriffs, are a good idea. But
they disagree on who should be enrolled.

Some officials and defense attorneys say the program should be open to
anyone convicted of a nonviolent, drug-related crime. But many prosecutors
say the program is best suited for first offenders, providing a stricter
form of probation for those getting out of jail, rather than a prison
substitute for repeat offenders.

''It's a misconception that drug dealing is a nonviolent crime,'' said
Middlesex District Attorney Martha Coakley.

Supporters of alternative sentencing counter that the real misconception is
that strict probation programs coddle criminals.

''A lot of offenders view this as tougher and more onerous. They would
rather go to jail where they can sit around, smoke cigarettes, play cards,
and watch TV all day,'' said Boston lawyer Peter Elikann, former chairman
of the Massachusetts Bar Association's Criminal Justice Section and author
of ''The Tough on Crime Myth.''

Elikann cites statistics from Connecticut - where use of strict probation
as an alternative to jail is widespread - that show it is cheaper and more
cost-effective than prison for large numbers of nonviolent offenders.

James Green, a deputy director in Connecticut's Office of Alternative
Sanctions, said a recent three-year study of 1,500 offenders found that
those given strict probation and life-skills training were 35 percent less
likely to be re-arrested than those sent to jail or prison.

It is also cheaper. The yearly cost to house an inmate in prison is about
$30,000, Green said, vs. about $8,000 annually for offenders sent to the
alternative programs.

In Massachusetts, according to figures provided by the state's Office of
Community Corrections, about 25 percent of the available slots in community
corrections centers remain unfilled, in part because some programs are new.

Whether the concept will reach its full potential may depend on whether the
philosophical gap can be bridged.

Legislators appear to be in no rush to tinker with the laws that give
tough-minded prosecutors the upper hand. The House Committee on Criminal
Justice recently sent back for further study a 2-year-old proposal that
would ease sentencing guidelines to allow more offenders to receive
intensive probation instead of prison time.

''I understand that it's not a slap on the wrist. But does the public
believe that? No,'' said chairman Stephen A. Tobin, a Quincy Democrat and a
lawyer who does criminal defense work.

''The public's appetite for criminal justice is strong,'' he said. ''How do
I know that the headline the next day isn't going to be `House Frees Drug
Offenders?'''