Welcome home Stew Leonard Sr.!

The entrepreneur whose business prowess was world acclaimed after his unmatched success at the Westport Avenue store bearing his name is out of prison after serving 44 months on a tax-fraud conviction in connection with his dairy store.

Mr. Leonard made a mistake, a big mistake. But he was charged, indicted, convicted and served the time our judicial system determined to be appropriate for the offense.

As a community, we can rightfully be indignant that one of our leaders betrayed us, as can his friends and his family and, no doubt, himself.

But, now, Mr. Leonard has "paid his debt to society," as the cliche goes; it's time to heal the wounds.

Mr. Leonard's son, Tom, who faces charges of his own related to a grand jury indictment in connection with alleged under reporting of personal income and alleged preparation of false tax returns, is an entirely separate issue. Tom Leonard has pleaded not guilty to the charges, and our justice system will have the last word on that.

As a civilization, which has been imprisoning people for centuries, we need to re-think our entire justice system.

It served little purpose for the United States to put Stew Leonard behind bars. Aside from vengefulness, all we did was keep a man away from his family for nearly four years.

Mr. Leonard was not likely to do any further harm to society. He certainly posed no threat of violence. A more appropriate government action in such cases may be to require those convicted of crimes to apply their particular skills toward some project beneficial to society.

Prisons make more sense when dealing with sociopaths, who have nothing to contribute to society, as well as those who are likely to be violent -- or otherwise break the law again.

Our justice system is plagued with deficiencies; these begin the moment a crime is committed, and do not end until the person who committed the crime is dead, either naturally or through capital punishment.

Few criminals are tried for the crime they actually commit; charges that would specifically match the crime are often plea-bargained (when lesser charges are filed to make it easier for the prosecution to get a conviction.)

Then, during jury selection, prosecutors and defense attorneys try to find jurors sympathetic to their sides. After a jury is selected, the judge tells the jury what evidence it can consider and how it can be applied. Jurors do not determine questions of law; that's reserved for the judge.

If there is a conviction, family members of the accused are paraded before a jury to suggest how severely the defendent should be treated. The impact of this will, of course, be uneven.

We need to find a better way!

The way trials are conducted has evolved over the years, encompassing myriad judicial decisions endorsed by one court or another -- including the Supreme Court. But many changes could be made while retaining the constitutionality of the procedure.

We should take a close look at these judicial decisions and, until improvements are put into effect, let's give convicts who have served their time an even break.

Good luck, Stew! I, for one, wish you well.

I wrote this column as a "My View" for The Hour newspaper of Norwalk, Conn., on July 12, 1997. I now write my views on a wide variety of topics on HubPages. You can, too. It's easy, and free! Get paid for writing about what you love, or whatever interests you!. HubPages makes the technical part easy. Make friends and get help on its active forum. Take a quick tour to see how easy it is to get started today Click Here -- To view my HubPages Profile Click Here