In this view, the public in Philadelphia would feel safer if the community, the police and the courts worked together as they could on creative, pragmatic solutions.

What’s needed, proponents of this choice say, is a more respectful and resourceful alliance among the three sectors. Under the status quo, this choice argues, each sector tends not to appreciate the complexity of the others’ roles. This breeds mistrust and a habit of harping on past mistakes; it blocks cooperation and hampers the search for flexible tools to revamp policing and the justice system.

For example, this choice says, police and some in the public tend to undervalue judges’ role in fixing just punishments and preserving individual liberties. This leads to a push to limit judges’ options in sentencing, when what judges need most is more ways to make the punishment fit the criminal. Similarly, some in the public and courts become so obsessed with preventing police brutality and corruption that erect a maze of rules that prevent good cops from doing their job well. And police become so used to regarding a community as an alien territory full of crimes waiting to happen - e.g. the Badlands _ that they fail to make partners of the many residents and civic institutions who want to work with them to make the neighborhood safer.

With greater trust and a greater understanding of how each sector’s role fits into the overall mission, this choice argues, the public, police and courts could fashion flexible, interdependent strategies to increase safety without busting the city’s budget.

• Spread the philosophy of community policing. Create stable contingents of officers familiar with given neighborhoods. They should get out from behind their desks and steering wheels to walk the streets, treat the average citizen as a potential asset, not a potential criminal, know how plug into local resources to solve and prevent crimes and how to connect troubled youths to services. Citizens, in turn, should treat police as allies.

• Use technology - computerized mapping of crime reports, in-cruiser computer terminals - to foster sharper deployment and smarter police work.

• Curb the strain on the 911 emergency system by setting up another number for non-urgent calls, and training the public to use it.

• Have police partner with community organizations on crime prevention e.g. spotting early when a vacant building is becoming a drug den.

• Expand block watch programs.

• Increase police training in dealing with minority populations; set up citizen panels in minority neighborhoods to advise police.

• To combat recidivism, expand options for alternative sentencing of first-time offenders - including house arrest, community service, victim restitution, work programs and "drug courts."

• Promote new technologies - instant background checks, owner-I.D. guns etc - as methods to curb illegal and violent use of guns without restricting constitutional rights.

• Reform court procedures to make them more considerate of the time and stress to victims, witnesses and police who testify.

• Go to a merit selection system for judges, so the public can be more confident it has qualified judges who will use discretion wisely.

• Get media to cover safety – and successful solutions for promoting it _ as the really big story, not just sensational crimes.

• Expand school programs like "teen court" that teach young people the balancing act that undergirds law enforcement.

• Police should not see themselves or be seen by citizens as a hostile occupying force. Philadelphia needs an explicit strategy to rebuild trust between minority communities and law enforcement.

• Having police walk the beat makes neighborhoods feel and be safer.

• Communities are full of law-abiding citizens who can be assets to law-enforcement if police know how to work with them.

• Technology has been shown elsewhere to transform police work for the better and to bolster effective strategies against gun-violence. Philadelphia until recently was slow to copy such best practices.

• Only judges who’ve heard and weighed all factors in a case are qualified to decide the best sentence. The more options judges have, the better judgments they render. Mandatory sentencing rules lead to injustices and unintended consequences.

• The city simply can’t afford to imprison everyone whose behavior deserves some form of punishment. Prison cells are primarily for serious criminals. Creative punishments should be found for minor offenders that won’t enroll them in "the schools for crime" our prisons have become.

• Citizens need to take appropriate responsibility for their safety and that of their communities.

• Fighting crime is dangerous, complicated work. Citizens who try to "play cop" put themselves and police at risk.

• Police need to be able to regard the public with an appropriate suspicion based on experience, without being accused of stereotyping or brutality.

• Police commanders need to deploy officers as their experience and expertise dictates - not to satisfy the whims of community leaders.

• Giving judges too much discretion just encourages them to coddle criminals - and criminals know it.

• Appointed judges are unaccountable to the public whose safety they put at risk.

• Gun I.D. gimmicks and background checks cause hassle for legitimate gun owners, but do nothing to deter criminals.

• Giving house arrest or another alternative sentence for assault or robbery is an insult to the victims of the crime.

• People won’t feel or be safer as long as the social ills that breed crime are allowed to fester.