Invitation to a Dialogue - Alternatives to Prison - NYTimes.com Re "How to Cut Prison Costs" (editorial, Nov. 10): I was taught in law school that prison sentences have two purposes: to ensure public safety and to punish the offender. For the past few decades, meeting those goals has meant long prison terms even for nonviolent offenders, leading to soaring incarceration rates. A few states are now realizing that they can cut prison sentences (and thus, costs) without sacrificing public safety. Reforms include expanding re-entry programs to curb recidivism and developing alternatives to incarceration. Although state budget crises spurred these changes, more than money is at stake. With continued reform, an American prison system that shocked Dickens in 1842 for its cruelty could finally begin to meet international standards, helping to restore America as a country of just authority and moral leadership. But first, we need to stop using punishment as a principal justification for lengthy prison terms and, instead, reserve prison for those who pose a grave risk to public safety. Punishment, where productive, could still be employed through sanctions and local supervision of graduated intensity. But instead of going to prison, low-risk offenders should stay in the community. This emphasis on results over retribution would bring many benefits. Not only would it help redeem America's image abroad, but it would also help restore many communities that have come to regard prison as a rite of passage. Also, offenders not in prison are better able to pay restitution to victims. And, finally, reform could frustrate the private prison industry's unconscionable efforts to profit off mass incarceration. Some think the existence of long prison terms for nonviolent offenders is a myth. That is not the case in many states. In Louisiana, writing a bad check can be worth up to 10 years. Even in Minnesota, a leader in community corrections, the time served for drug offenses has increased 99 percent since 1990. It's time to reverse these trends, and not just because it's cheaper. The writer is a third-year student at the University of Wisconsin Law School. We plan to publish responses and Mr. Corwin's rejoinder in the Sunday Review.