Readers respond to Question of the Week:

How will you vote on Proposition 36?

I would tend to support Proposition 36

Given the rise in property and retail theft, it’s clear to me that we’ve gone a bit too far to the side of what sure seems like letting folks off. We need to adjust the balance in light of circumstances, leaning toward the tougher side, and I think Prop. 36 would do that.

We need folks to take responsibility for bad behavior, and if criminal sanctions are necessary to be part of that — and from the current stats on retail theft, it looks like that is the case — then so be it. Prosecutors should have discretion, though, depending on an individual’s record and the circumstances. Sometimes a one-time bad judgment should be recognized and treated as such, as should a series of bad deeds.

— P.A. Brown, Pasadena

Yes to Prop. 36

I will be voting for Prop. 36, but wish it included prison reform as well. Too many criminals continue to run their crime operations from prison and drugs are too readily available. Felons should not be able to buff up in prison gyms so that they come out even more violent and stronger than before. If it is exercise they want, teach them ballet.

Then when they come out, they can go to the barre instead of the bar. Criminals are certainly aware of laws because that is why gang leaders used children under age 18 to carry out their crimes because they knew those under 18 would get a lighter sentence. Crime is definitely more brazen with gangs of 50 or more criminals robbing businesses. Naturally putting more people in prison will increase costs.

But what is the cost of incarceration compared to the cost of innocent lives and property destroyed by these thugs? If it takes big corporations helping us get control of crime, I say go for it.

— Shirley Conley, Gardena

Prop. 36: Who knows

Is sleeping in a prison cell and getting three square meals a day better than sleeping in a box on the street and scrounging for food? Maybe yes, maybe no, I don’t know. Will incarcerating people be more or less costly than providing mental and health services and shelters? Should cost even be a consideration? Maybe yes, maybe no. I just don’t know.

— Ron Garber, Duarte