Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Source Description
This file contains press releases.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
1075748
label
Crime Legislation
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
1075748
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Crime Legislation
description
This file contains press releases.
citationUrl
collections
Vernon C. Loen and Charles Leppert Files
Vernon Loen's and Charles Leppert's General Subject Files
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
1075748
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1975-06-30
month
6
year
1975
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1975-06-01
month
6
year
1975
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
fd0b02ddf2cf2d75
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 6, folder "Crime Legislation" of the Loen and
Leppert Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald Ford donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box 6 of the Loen and Leppert Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
JUNE 19, 1975
OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
ON HIS
MESSAGE ON CRIME
THE BRIEFING ROOM
3:32 P.M. EDT
Mr. Attorney General, two months ago, at Yale
University Law School, I spoke about a subject that
touches the lives of all Americans -- crime.
Today, I am sending to the Congress a special
message spelling out in concrete terms the program for
curbing crime and insuring domestic tranquility, which
I advocated in that speech.
First, and foremost, our effort should be
directed toward the protection of law-abiding citizens.
For too long, the law has centered its attention more
on the rights of the criminal than on the victim of crime.
It is high time that we reverse this trend and
put the highest priority on the victims and potential
victims.
Even though the chief responsibility in com-
bating crime lies with State and local officials, the
Federal Government can provide leadership. It can
improve the quality of existing Federal laws and the
Federal judicial system.
It can enact and vigorously enforce new laws
governing criminal conduct at the Federal level, and it
can provide financial and technical assistance to State
and local governments in their efforts to stem lawlessness.
For example, I propose that the Congress
enact mandatory prison sentences for Federal offenses
committed with firearms or other dangerous weapons, and
for highjackers, kidnappers, traffickers in hard drugs
and repeated Federal offenders who commit crimes of
violence.
I urge State and local authorities to take
similar steps.
MORE
GERALD
Page 2
I am unalterably opposed to Federal registration
of guns or gun owners. I do propose that the Congress
enact legislation to deal with those who use handguns
for criminal purposes.
I also propose further Federal restrictions
on so-called Saturday night specials.
We can and must make our legal system what it
was always intended, a means of insuring domestic
tranquility in making America safe for decent and
law-abiding citizens.
This is a matter of deep personal concern to
all Americans. So, I urge the Congress to reflect
this concern for the victims of crime by acting on this
message in a prompt, positive and nonpartisan spirit.
To provide more details concerning the message
and the program that we have put together, I will now
ask the Attorney General, Mr. Edward Levi, to fill you
in on the details.
Thank you very, very much.
END (AT 3:35 P.M. EDT)
EMBARGOED FOR RELEASE UNTIL 6:00 P.M., EDT
THURSDAY, JUNE 19, 1975
Office of the White House Press Secretary
THE WHITE HOUSE
FACT SHEET
CRIME MESSAGE
The President is today transmitting to the Congress a special
message on crime in which he advocates enactment of mandatory
minimum sentences for offenders who commit violent Federal crimes.
In addition, he asks the Congress to improve Federal fire arms
laws and their enforcement. The President also recommends the
extension of the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration through
1981.
BACKGROUND
The Federal Bureau of Investigation has estimated that the rate
of serious crime was 17 percent higher in 1974 than in 1973. This
is the largest annual increase in the 44 years the Bureau has been
collecting statistics. Moreover, these figures reflect only the
reported crimes. A study of unreported crime sponsored by the
Law Enforcement Assistance Administration indicates that the actual
level of crime in some cities is three to five times greater than
that reported. Significantly, and tragically, the number of crimes
involving threats of violence or actual violence has also increased.
Two months ago, at the celebration of the 150th anniversary of
the Yale Law School, the President delivered a speech on the
problem of crime in America. In that address, the President
stressed his concern for the innocent victims of crime and the
impact which crime -- particularly violent crime -- has had on
domestic tranquility in America. The message which the President
is sending to Congress today spells out his program for combatting
crime.
HIGHLIGHTS OF MESSAGE
While acknowledging that the Federal role in the fight against
crime is a limited one, the President sets forth three important
responsibilities of the Federal government in this vital area:
i
Providing leadership to State and local governments
by improving the quality of Federal laws and the
criminal justice system.
--
Enacting and vigorously enforcing laws covering
criminal conduct that cannot be adequately regulated
at the State or local level.
-
Providing financial and technical assistance to State
and local governments and law enforcement agencies,
and thereby enhancing their ability to enforce the
law.
I. PROVIDING FEDERAL LEADERSHIP
A. Improving the Quality of Federal Laws
Noting that Federal criminal laws should be a model
upon which State and local governments can pattern
more
2
their own laws, the President recommends to the
Congress the enactment of a comprehensive criminal
code.
In codifying the Federal criminal law, the President
recommends that criminal fines be increased from a
maximum of $10,000 to a maximum of $100,000 if the
defendant is an individual, and $500,000 if the de.-
fendant is an organization.
The President also recommends the enactment of
mandatory minimum sentences for persons who:
(1) commit Federal offenses involving the use of a
dangerous weapon,
(2) commit such extraordinarily serious offenses as
aircraft hijacking, kidnapping and trafficking
in hard drugs, and
(3) are repeat offenders who commit Federal crimes that
cause or have the potential to cause personal injury
to others. Limited exceptions to the imposition
of mandatory minimum sentences would be set forth
in the statute.
The President recommends that Federal appeals courts
be given limited authority to review sentences imposed
by Federal trial court judges.
B. Improving the Federal Criminal Justice System
In addition to reform of the criminal law, the President
believes that we must improve the manner in which our
criminal justice system operates. In the message, he
makes numerous suggestions and recommendations designed
to improve the quality of the Federal criminal justice
system. These include:
1. Establishment of "career criminal" programs
designed to assure quick identification and
prosecution of persons who repeatedly commit
serious offenses.
2. Continuation and expansion of programs designed
to divert certain first offenders into rehabili-
tation prior to trial.
3. Creation by the Congress of additional Federal
District Court judgeships and expansion of the
criminal jurisdiction of United States Magistrates.
4. Up-grading of prison facilities, including the
replacement of large, outdated prisons with
smaller, more modern ones.
5. Directing that the Attorney General, as Chairman
of the Cabinet Committee on Crime Prevention and
Rehabilitation, ensure that the Federal govern-
ment is making the best possible use of its re--
sources in the area of offender rehabilitation.
6. Enactment by the Congress of legislation to
provide limited compensation to victims of
Federal crimes who suffer personal injury.
more
3
Additionally, the President calls upon employers,
including Federal agencies, to keep open minds on
the hiring of persons formerly convicted of crimes.
II. BETTER LAWS AND ENFORCEMENT
A. The President is unalterably opposed to Federal regis-
tration of guns or gun owners. He has directed the
Attorney General to prepare legislation prohibiting the
manufacture, assembly or sale of "Saturday Night Specials."
The President also proposes to strengthen current law so
as to strike at the illegal commerce in handguns and to
emphasize the responsibility of dealers to adhere to the
law. He has also ordered the Treasury Department's
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to double its
investigative efforts in the nation's ten largest metro-
politan areas and to immediately employ and train an
additional 500 firearms investigators for this priority
effort.
B. The President believes there are several other areas
in which Federal law and enforcement can be improved to
strike at those who have made crime a business. Laws
relating to organized crime, consumer fraud, white-
collar crimes and protection of civil rights can and
should be improved.
C. The President also has directed the Domestic Council to
conduct a comprehensive, priority review of the Federal
effort in the treatment and prevention of drug abuse,
to ensure that Federal programs and policies are appro-
priate to meet the current and mounting threat.
III. PROVIDING FINANCIAL AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
The Federal government must continue to help State and local
governments in carrying out their law enforcement respon-
sibilities. Therefore, the President will submit to the
Congress a bill that will continue the Law Enforcement Assis-
tance Administration through 1981.
The Bill will authorize $6.8 billion for the Law Enforcement
Assistance Administration to continue its work through 1981.
Further, the bill will increase LEAA's annual funding authori-
zation of $1.25 billion to $1.3 billion so that additional
funds may be made available to urban areas with high crime
rates. Finally, the bill will place additional emphasis on
improving State and local court systems.
####
EMBARGOED FOR RELEASE UNTIL 6:00 P.M. EDT
June 19, 1975
THURSDAY, JUNE 19, 1975
Office of the White House Press Secretary
THE WHITE HOUSE
TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES:
I address this message to the Congress on a subject
that touches the lives of all Americans: crime.
Two months ago, at the celebration of the 150th anniversary
of the Yale Law School, I spoke about law and respect for the
spirit of the law.
Law makes human society possible. It pledges safety to
every member so that the company of fellow human beings can be
a blessing instead of a threat. It is the instrument through
which we seek to fulfill the promise of our Constitution: "to
insure domestic tranquility."
But America has been far from successful in dealing with
the sort of crime that obsesses Americ day and night -- I mean
street crime, crime that invades our neighborhoods and our
homes -- murders, robberies, rapes, muggings, hold-ups, breakins --
the kind of brutal violence that makes us fearful of strangers
and afraid to go out at night.
I sense, and I think the American people sense, that we
are facing a basic and very serious problem of disregard for
the law. Because of crime in our streets and in our homes, we
do not have domestic tranquility.
Ever since the first Presidential message on crime, in
1965, strenuous Federal efforts, as well as State and local
initiatives, have been undertaken to reduce the incidence of
crime in the United States. Yet, throughout this period, crime
has continued to increase. Indeed, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation's latest estimates are that the rate of serious
crime -- murder, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault,
burglary, larceny and auto theft -- was 17 percent higher in
1974 than in 1973. This is the largest increase in the 44 years
the Bureau has been collecting statistics.
Since 1960, although billions of dollars have been spent
on law enforcement programs, the crime rate has more than
doubled. Moreover, these figures reflect only the reported
crimes. A study of unreported crime sponsored by the Law
Inforcement Assistance Administration indicates that the actual
level of crime in some cities is three to five times greater
than that reported.
More significantly, the number of crimes involving threats
of violence or actual violence has increased. And the number
of violent crimes in which the perpetrator and the victim are
strangers has also increased. A recent study indicates that
approximately 65 percent of all violent crimes are committed
against strangers.
The personal and social toll that crime exacts from our
citizens is enormous. In addition to the direct damage to
victims of crime, violent crimes in our streets and in our
homes make fear pervasive.
more
2
In many areas of the country, especially in the most
crowded parts of the inner cities, fear has caused people to
rearrange their daily lives. They plan shopping and recreation
during hours when they think the possibilities of violent attacks
are lower. They avoid commercial areas and public transit.
Frightened shopowners arm themselves and view customers with
suspicion.
The individual, political and social costs of crime cannot
be ignored. They demand our attention and coordinated action.
With the firm support of the American people, all levels of
government -- Federal, State and local --- must commit themselves
to the goal of reducing crime.
For too long, law has centered its attention more on the
rights of the criminal defendant than on the victim of crime.
It is time for law to concern itself more with the rights of the
people it exists to protect.
In thinking about this problem, I do not seek vindictive
punishment of the criminal, but protection of the innocent
victim. The victims are my primary concern. That is why I
do not talk about law and order and why I turn to the
Constitutional guarantee of domestic tranquility. The emphasis
in our efforts must be providing protection for the victims of
crime.
In this message, I shall address myself to what I believe
the Federal government can and should do to reduce "crime. The
fact is, however, that the Federal role in the fight against
crime, particularly violent crime, is a limited one.
With few exceptions, the kinds of crimes that obsess
America --- murders, robberies, rapes, muggings, hold-ups,
breakins -- are solely within the jurisdiction of State and
local governments. Thus, while the programs that I will propose
in this message will, if enacted, contribute to a safer America,
the level of crime will not be substantially reduced unless
State and local governments themselves enact strong measures.
I see three ways in which the Federal government can play
an important role in combating crime:
First, it can provide leadership to State and local govern-
ments by enacting a criminal code that can serve as a model for
other jurisdictions to follow and by improving the quality of
the Federal criminal justice system.
Second, it can enact and vigorously enforce laws covering
criminal conduct within the Federal jurisdiction that cannot
be adequately regulated at the State or local level.
Third, it can provide financial and technical assistance
to State and local governments and law enforcement agencies,
and thereby enhance their ability to enforce the law.
I.
Providing Leadership
Law Enforcement in a democratic society depends largely
upon public respect for the laws and voluntary compliance with
them. We do not have and do not want a police state. Respect
and compliance are undermined if individuals conclude that law
more
3
enforcement efforts are ineffective and that crimes may be
committed with impunity -- conclusions which are buttressed
by rapidly rising crime rates and by statistics showing only
one arrest for every five serious crimes committed.
& decline in respect for the law leads to the commission
of more crimes. The necessity to investigate these additional
crimes, prosecute those accused, and punish those convicted
places even greater strain on the already overburdened capacities
of police, prosecutors, public defenders, courts, penal institu-
tions and correctional authorities. As a consequence, the
percentage of offenders apprehended, prosecuted and appropriately
sentenced is further reduced. This leads to an even greater
decline in respect for the law and to the commission of even
more crimes. To succeed in the effort to reduce crime, we
must break this spiral.
There are two direct ways to attack the spiral of crime.
One is through improvements in the law itself. The other is
through improvement of the criminal justice system so that it
functions more swiftly, surely and justly.
Federal criminal laws should be a model upon which State
and local governments can pattern their own laws. At the
present time, they are not. These Federal statutes developed
haphazardly over the decades. They have been revised here
and there in response to changing judicial interpretation.
They are complicated, and sometimes conflicting, leaving gaps
through which criminal activity too often slips unpunished.
Because of their complexity, the laws invite techniqal
arguments that waste court time without ever going to the
heart of the question of the accused's guilt or innocence.
For several years, the Federal government has engaged
in a massive effort to reform the Federal criminal laws into
a uniform, coherent code. The product of this effort was
recently introduced in Congress, with wide bipartisan support,
as S. 1, the "Criminal Justice Reform Act of 1975. 11
Since it covers every aspect of criminal law, some of the
proposals in this Act have stirred controversy and will un-
doubtedly precipitate further debate. For instance, concern
has been expressed that certain provisions of the bill designed
to protect classified information could adversely affect freedom
of the press. While we must make sure that national security
secrets are protected by law, we must also take care that the
law does not unreasonably restrict the free flow of information
necessary to our form of government. Responsible debate over
this and other provisions of S. 1 will be very useful. Issues
can be clarified and differing interests accommodated.
I think everyone will agree, however, that comprehensive
reform of the Federal criminal code is needed. Accordingly,
as a legislative priority in the Federal effort against crime,
I urge the 94th Congress to pass the kind of comprehensive
code reform embodied in the Criminal Justice Reform Act.
In connection with this overall effort, let me suggest
some specific reforms I believe essential.
The sentencing provisions of current Federal law are,
in my judgment, inadequate in several respects, often erratic
and inconsistent. Defendants who commit similar offenses may
receive widely varying sentences. This lack of uniformity is
profoundly unfair and breeds disrespect for the law.
more
4
The revision of the criminal code should restore a sense
of consistency in sentencing, so that the fine or term of imprison-
ment imposed by the law relates directly to the gravity of the
offense. For example, criminal fines are woefully inadequate
and provide little deterrence to offenders whose business is
crime -- a business profitable enough to support current
levels of criminal fines as an ordinary business expense.
Other than under the antitrust laws, the maximum fine which
can be imposed on serious violators is usually $10,000. That
amount is too often not commensurate with the crime. The maximum
level should be increased to $100,000, if the defendant is an
individual, and $500,000, if the defendant is an organization.
The sentencing provisions of the proposed code should be
modified to provide judges with standards under which prison
sentences are to be imposed upon conviction. Imprisonment
too seldom follows conviction, even for serious offenses. It
is my firm belief that persons convicted of violent crime should
be sent to prison. Those who prey on others, especially by
violence, are very few in number. A small percentage of the
entire population accounts for a very large proportion of the
vicious crimes committed. Most serious crimes are committed
by repeaters. These relatively few persistent criminals who
cause so much worry and fear are the core of the problem. The
rest of the American people have a right to protection from
their violence.
Most of the victims of violent crimes are the poor, the
old, the young, the disadvantaged minorities, the people who
live in the most crowded parts of our cities, the most defense-
less. These victims have a valid claim on the rest of society
for protection and personal safety that they cannot provide
for themselves; in a phrase, for domestic tranquility.
Imprisonment too seldom follows conviction for a felony.
In the 1960's, crime rates went higher, but the number of criminals
in prison, state and federal, actually went down. A study of one
major jurisdiction showed that of all convicted robbers with a
major prison record, only 27% were sent to prison after conviction.
There should be no doubt in the minds of those who commit
violent crimes -- especially crimes involving harm to others ---
that they will be sent to prison if convicted under legal processes
that are fair, prompt and certain.
I propose that incarceration be made mandatory
for (1) offenders who commit offenses under Federal
jurisdiction using a dangerous weapon; (2) persons com-
mitting such extraordinarily serious crimes as aircraft
ijacking, kidnapping, and trafficking in hard drugs: and
(3) repeat offenders who commit Federal crimes -- with or
without a weapon -- that cause or have a potential to cause
personal injury. Exceptions to mandatory imprisonment should
apply only if the judge finds and specifies in writing one or
more of the following: that the defendant was under 18 when
the offense was committed, or was mentally impaired, or was
acting under substantial duress, or was implicated in a
crime actually committed by others and participated in the
crime only in a very minor way. I have asked the Attorney
General to assist the Congress in drafting this modification
to the sentencing provisions of S. 1. Since most violent
crime is in the jurisdiction of State and local criminal
more
5
courts, I call upon the States to establish similar mandatory
sentencing systems. Too many persons found guilty of serious,
violent crimes never spend a day in prison after conviction.
I would emphasize that the aim of this program of
mandatory imprisonment is not vindictive punishment of the
criminal, but protection of the innocent victim by separating
the violent criminal from the community. These victims --
most of whom are old or poor or disadvantaged -- have a valid
claim on the rest of society for the protection and the per-
sonal safety that they cannot provide for themselves.
Reasonable mandatory minimum sentences can restore the
sense of certainty of imprisonment upon which the deterrent
impact of criminal law is based. Mandatory sentences need not
be long sentences; the range of indeterminacy need not be
great. In fact, wide disparities in sentences for essentially
equivalent offenses give a look of unfairness to the law. To
help eliminate that unfairness, Federal appeals courts
should be given some authority to review sentences given
by Federal trial court judges -- to increase or reduce them
so that the punishments will be more nearly uniform through-
out the Federal system. I am also asking the Attorney
General to review this problem to ensure that the Federal
sentencing structure, which is now based on the indeterminate
sentence, is both fair and appropriate. Among other things,
it may be time to give serious study to the concept of so-
called "flat time sentencing" in the Federal law.
In addition to reform of the criminal law, we must
improve the manner in which our criminal justice system
operates. Effective deterrence to law-breaking is currently
lacking, in part because our criminal justice system simply
does not operate effectively.
A logical place to begin discussion of such improvement
is the prosecutor's office, for it is there that important
decisions are made as to which offenders should be prosecuted,
what cases should be brought to trial, when plea bargains
should be struck and how scarce judicial resources should be
allocated. Many prosecutors' offices currently lack the
manpower or management devices to make those decisions
correctly. Prosecutors often lack information on a defendant's
criminal history and thus cannot identify habitual criminals
who should be tried by experienced prosecutors and, if convicted,
sent to prison. In too many cases, they lack efficient systems
to monitor the status of the numerous cases they handle. If
improved management techniques could be made available to prosecu-
tors, the likelihood of swift and sure punishment for crime would
be substantially increased.
At the Federal level, last September I directed the
Department of Justice to develop and implement a program to
deal with career criminals, with the objectives of (1) providing
quick identification of persons who repeatedly commit
serious offenses, (2) according priority to their prosecu-
tion by the most experienced prosecutors, and (3) assuring
that, if convicted, they receive appropriate sentences to
prevent them from immediately returning to society once
again to victimize the community.
Programs to deal with habitual criminals will be
encouraged at the State and local levels through the use
more
6
of the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration model pro-
grams and discretionary grants already underway.
To illustrate the nature of this problem, let me point
out that in one city over 60 rapes, more than 200 burglaries
and 14 murders were committed by only 10 persons in less than
12 months. Unfortunately, this example is not unique.
The results of a repeat offender project recently launched
in the Bronx County District Attorney's Office, City of New
York, are hopeful. The first year's experience showed a 97
percent felony conviction rate and a reduction of time in case
disposition from an average of 24 months to an average of
three months. In addition, prison sentences resulted in 95
percent of the career criminal cases prosecuted.
A second improvement in the criminal justice system may
be obtained by diverting certain first offenders --- not all,
but some -- into rehabilitation programs before proceeding to
trial. The Department of Justice has begun a pilot program of
this kind designed to achieve two important goals. First, it
will seek to reduce the caseloads of Federal courts and prose-
cutors through expeditious treatment of offenders who are good
prospects for rehabilitation. Second, it will seek to enable
the offenders who successfully satisfy the requirements of the
diversion programs to avoid criminal records and thus increase
the likelihood that they will return to productive lives.
Experimentation with pretrial diversion programs should
continue and expand. However, careful efforts must be taken
to prevent these programs from either treating serious offenders
too leniently, or, on the other hand, violating defendants'
rights. By coupling this pretrial diversion program with a
mandatory term of imprisonment for violent offenders, we will
make sure that offenders who deserve to go to prison will go
to prison. At the same time, those who may not need imprison-
ment will be dealt with quickly and in a way that minimizes
the burden on the criminal justice system.
The criminal and civil caseloads in trial and in appellate
courts have grown over the years, while the number of judges
assigned to handle those cases has not kept pace. In 1972,
the Judicial Conference of the United States recommended the
creation of 51 additional Federal District Court judgeships
in 33 separate judicial districts across the country. Senate
hearings on legislation incorporating this proposal were
conducted in 1973. To date, however, the legislation has not
been scheduled for floor action. The increasing needs of the
Federal courts make this measure an urgent national necessity
of a nonpartisan nature -- for justice delayed is too often
justice denied. In addition, seemingly technical but important
reform in the Federal criminal justice system can be achieved
by expanding the criminal jurisdiction of United States
Magistrates. This reform will enable the relatively small
number of Federal judges to focus their efforts on the most
significant criminal cases. The Criminal Justice Reform Act
contains a provision that will achieve that result, and I am
giving it my specific support.
When a defendant is convicted, even for a violent crime,
judges are too often unwilling to impose prison sentence, in
part because they consider prison conditions inhumane. Moreover,
a cruel and dehumanizing penal institution can actually be a
more
7
breeding ground for criminality. In any case, a civilized
society that seeks to diminish violence in its midst cannot
condone prisons where murder, vicious assault and homosexual
rapes are common occurrences.
The Federal Bureau of Prisons has embarked on a program
to replace large, outdated prisons with smaller, more modern
ones. The Bureau has seven new corrections institutions of
this sort under construction. All are designed to be civilized
places that can be governed effectively by the wardens and
correctional officers rather than by the most brutal and inhuman
prisoners. In addition, the Bureau is opening new institutions
in three major cities to replace overcrowded, antiquated local
jails which formerly housed Federal prisoners awaiting trial.
The program to improve Federal prisons must be paralleled by
State efforts, because the problem of decrepit prison facilities
that are hothouses of crime is worst at the State and local level.
Unless prisons are improved, many judges will only reluctantly
commit convicted offenders to them, even if they are guilty of
serious crimes and have previous criminal records.
I know that grave questions have been raised by qualified
experts about the ability of the corrections system to rehabilitate
offenders. These are important and serious questions. They
go to the very heart of the corrections system. While the
problem of criminal rehabilitation is difficult, we must not
give up on our efforts to achieve it, especially in dealing with
youthful offenders. Crime by young people represents a large
part of crime in general. The 1973 statistics indicate that
45 percent of persons arrested for all crimes are under 18 years
of age. Whatever the difficulty, we must continue our efforts
to rehabilitate offenders, especially youthful offenders. To
do less would be to write off great numbers of young people as
unsalvageable before they have even come of age. I have
directed the Attorney General, as Chairman of the Cabinet
Committee on Crime Prevention and Rehabilitation, to work
in close cooperation with the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary
of Health, Education, and Welfare and other concerned agencies
of the Executive Branch to ensure that the Federal government
is making the best possible use of its resources in this
crucial area.
Whatever the corrections system might accomplish in
rehabilitating offenders while they are in prison will be lost
if the individual leaves prison and cannot find a job, simply
because he has been convicted of a crime. I urge employers
to keep an open mind on the hiring of persons formerly convicted
of crimes. The U. S. Civil Service Commission currently
administers a program designed to prevent Federal employers
from unjustly discriminating against ex-felons. I am directing
the Commission to review this program to ensure that it is
accomplishing its objectives. I am also calling on the
National Governors Conference to consider steps the States can
take to eliminate unjustified discriminatory practices. Giving
ex-offenders who have paid their penalty and seek to "go straight"
a fair shake in the job market can be an effective means of
reducing crime and improving our criminal justice system.
In addition to this general effort to reform and improve
the criminal Justice system, the Federal law should be specifically
revised to take into greater account the needs of victims of
crime. They, as well as the general public, must be made aware
that the government will not neglect the law-abiding citizens
whose cooperation and efforts are crucial to the effectiveness
of law enforcement.
more
8
I urge the Congress to pass legislation to meet the
uncompensated economic losses of victims of Federal crimes
who suffer personal injury. In order to promote the concept
of restitution within the criminal law, the monetary benefits
should come from a fund consisting of fines paid by convicted
Federal offenders.
II. Better Laws and Enforcement
As I pointed out initially, except in limited circumstances,
street crime is a state and local law enforcement responsi-
bility. There is a dimension to this problem, however, that
cannot be adequately dealt with on just the state and local
levels. Criminals with handguns have played a key role in the
rise of violent crime in America. Hundreds of policemen have
been killed in the past decade through the use of handguns
by criminals. The most effective way to combat the illicit
use of handguns by criminals is to provide mandatory prison
sentences for anyone who uses a gun in the commission of a
crime.
In addition, the federal government can be of assistance
to state and local enforcement efforts by prohibiting the
manufacture of so-called Saturday Night Specials that have
no apparent use other than against human beings and by im-
proving Federal firearms laws and their enforcement.
At the same time, however, we must make certain that
our efforts to regulate the illicit use of handguns do not
infringe upon the rights of law abiding citizens. I am
unalterably opposed to federal registration of guns or the
licensing of gun owners. I will oppose any effort to im-
pose such requirements as a matter of federal policy.
Nonetheless, we can take steps to further guard against
the illicit use of handguns by criminals.
Current Federal gun laws should be revised to provide that
only responsible, bona fide gun dealers be permitted to obtain
Federal licenses to engage in the business of selling firearms.
Licenses to sell firearms should also be withheld from persons
who have violated State laws, particularly firearms laws.
Additional administrative controls over the sale of handguns,
including a ban on multiple sales, will help to establish
dealer responsibility in stopping illicit gun trafficking.
A waiting period between the purchase and receipt of a handgun
should be imposed to enable dealers to take reasonable steps
to verify that handguns are not sold to persons whose possession
of them would be illegal under Federal, State or applicable
local laws.
Second, I have ordered the Treasury Department's Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, which has primary responsibility
for enforcing Federal firearms laws, to double its investigative
efforts in the Nation's ten largest metropolitan areas. This
action will assist local law enforcement authorities in con-
trolling illegal commerce in weapons. I have directed,
therefore, that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
employ and train an additional 500 investigators for this
priority effort.
Third, the domestic manufacture, assembly or sale - as
well as the importation of cheap, highly concealable
handguns should be prohibited. These so-called "Saturday
Night Specials" are involved in an extraordinarily large
number of street crimes. Most have no legitimate sporting
purpose. They are such a threat to domestic tranquility
that we should eliminate their manufacture and sale entirely.
more
9
These recommendations go to the very heart of the problem
of handgun abuse. If enacted, they should add significantly to
the efforts of State and local law enforcement authorities to
prevent the criminal use of handguns.
There are several other areas in which Federal law and
enforcement can be improved to strike at those who have made
crime a business.
The leaders of organized crime can be prosecuted under
current Federal law only when it can be shown that they
participated in a specific offense, such as gambling, loan-
sharking or narcotics. A reformed criminal code should strike
directly at organized criminal activity by making it a Federal
crime to operate or control a racketeering syndicate. This
revision will make the criminal law apply to organized crime
leaders who seek to conceal their role in the syndicate's
criminal activities.
Since current Federal laws restrict the government's ability
to attack consumer frauds, the statutes punishing fraud and
theft should be revised to make Federal prosecution more ef-
fective. Pyramid sales schemes - clever confidence games,
in other words - should be specifically prohibited. Federal
jurisdiction over these frauds should be extended to enable
the government to move against them on a nationwide basis.
The protection of constitutionally guaranteed civil rights
is a primary duty of the Federal government. Yet, a private
citizen can be punished for violating constitutional rights
only if he acted in concert with others. Under current law,
even if a State official intentionally commits acts that violate
an individual's constitutional rights, proof of these acts
alone may be insufficient to secure a conviction. Restrictions
which prevent our laws from protecting the constitutional rights
of Americans should be eliminated.
I am particularly concerned about the illegal
trafficking in narcotics and dangerous drugs. These crimes
victimize the entire Nation, bringing personal tragedy and
family destruction to hundreds of thousands. In addition to
the human toll, the property crimes committed to finance
addicts' drug habits are estimated at $15 billion each year.
Federal, State and local governments must continue their
vigorous law enforcement efforts aimed at major traffickers in
narcotics and dangerous drugs. This Administration is committed
to maintaining a strong Federal Drug Enforcement Administration
to provide leadership in this fight. At the same time, I
continue to recognize our responsibility to provide compassionate
treatment and rehabilitation programs for the hapless victim
of narcotics traffickers.
Recent evidence suggests an increase in the availability
and use of dangerous drugs in spite of the creation of special
Federal agencies and massive Federal funding during the past
six years. I am deeply concerned over these developments and
have, therefore, directed the Domestic Council to undertake a
comprehensive review and assessment of the overall Federal
drug abuse prevention, treatment and enforcement effort to
ensure that our programs, policies and laws are appropriate
and effective.
Finally, white-collar crime is taking an increasing toll
in terms of financial and social costs. The United States
Chamber of Commerce recently reported that in 1974 white-collar
crime cost the public approximately $40 billion, excluding
the costs of price-fixing and industrial espionage. In
more
10
addition to direct economic losses, white-collar crime can
destroy confidence in and support for the nation's economic,
legal and political institutions. In recognition of the
gravity of the impact of white-collar crime, I have directed
the Attorney General to undertake new intitiatives to
coordinate all Federal enforcement and prosecutorial efforts
against white-collar crime.
III. Providing Financial and Technical Assistance
The Federal government must continue to help State and
local governments in carrying out their law enforcement
responsibilities. Therefore, I will submit to Congress a
bill that will continue the Law Enforcement Assistance
Administration through 1981.
The LEAA annually provides millions of dollars of
support to State and local governments in improving the
overall operation of their criminal justice systems. Ad--
ditionally, the LEAA serves as a center for the development
of new ideas on how to fight crime. Examples of several
LEAA innovations have already been noted in this Message.
The bill that I will submit will authorize $6.8 billion for
LEAA to continue its work through 1981.
Several aspects of the reauthorization bill deserve special
mention. It will increase the annual funding authorization for
LEAA from $1.25 billion to $1.3 billion. The additional $250
million over five years will enable the agency's discretionary
program to place greater emphasis on programs aimed at reducing
crime in heavily populated urban areas. It is in these areas
that the problem of violent street crime has reached critical
proportions. The LEAA "High Impact program, which is designed
to provide additional assistance for cities and counties with
high crime rates, has had encouraging success. This additional
authorization will permit LEAA to build upon that success.
The bill will also place special emphasis on improving
the operation of State and local court systems. Specifically,
it will include such improvement within the statement of purposes
for which LEAA block grant funds can be utilized. Too often,
the courts, the prosecutors and the public defenders are
overlooked in the allocation of criminal justice resources.
If we are to be at all effective in fighting crime, state and
local court systems, including prosecution and defense, must
be expanded and enhanced.
In conclusion, I emphasize again that the Federal government
cannot, by itself, bring an end to crime in the streets. The
Federal government can seek the cooperation and participation of
State and local governments. Such cooperation is vitally im-
portant to this effort. The cumulative effect of persistent
Federal, State and local efforts to improve our laws and eliminate
difficulties that encumber our criminal justice system offers
the only hope of achieving a steady reduction in crime.
I am confident that, if the Congress enacts the programs
that I have recommended, the means available for an effective
attack on crime will have been substantially strengthened. I
call upon the Congress to act swiftly on these recommendations.
I also call upon State and local governments to move rapidly
in strengthening their processes of criminal justice. Together,
we will restore to this nation that sense of domestic tranquility
so essential to the pursuit of happiness.
GERALD R. FORD
THE WHITE HOUSE,
June 19, 1975.
#####
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
JULY 19, 1975
OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
PRESS CONFERENCE
OF
EDWARD H. LEVI
ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF THE UNITED STATES
THE BRIEFING ROOM
3:26 P.M. EDT
MR. NESSEN: Mr. Attorney General, may I just
make clear that the message, which you do not have in your
hands, but you will very shortly, the fact sheet, which
you do have in your hands, the Attorney General's briefing
and the President's statement, which we have in writing
for you and will pass out at the end of this briefing,
are all embargoed for 6 o'clock.
Q
How about the bill itself?
Q
Will the President's remarks still stand
in all cases?
MR. NESSEN: Yes.
The bill itself, actually three separate
bills will go to Congress by June 25. The draft legis-
lation, the message to Congress, will spell out --
Q
Will we get that today?
MR. NESSEN: No, because it isn't ready yet.
Q
Do you have the message, Ron? We don't
have that.
MR. NESSEN: You will by the end of this briefing.
Mr. Attorney General?
ATTORNEY GENERAL LEVI: I will run quickly
through the principal points of the message, and then
be glad to answer questions, if I can, about particular
items.
I think it is fair to say that, at least in
my view, this is a strong message, concerned, as the
President has said, about domestic tranquility and
concerned about the victims of crime.
I think it is a balanced message, which tries
to look at the entire system of criminal justice.
MORE
- 2 -
As the President said, the message calls for
mandatory minimum prison sentences in three areas, the
first being where there is a crime of violence, or the
use of a dangerous weapon; the second, where there are
specific crimes, such as trafficking in hard drugs and
skyjacking and the like; and the third where there is a
crime committed by a recidivist, a crime with the great
potentiality for personal injury, whether or not there
has been the use of a dangerous weapon.
Now, in connection with these mandatory prison
sentences, a judge is permitted not to give them under
very specific conditions where he must make specific
findings; namely, that the offender was under 18 years
of age, under mental difficulty, or duress, or was not
very much involved.
With the exception of those very specific find-
ings, mandatory sentences are required, and I believe it
is correct to say that the intention is that these
mandatory prison sentences cannot be cut down through
parole.
Secondly, the message calls for the revision of
the criminal code. The Senate has before it S. 1, which
is a revision. The message indicates that there are parts
of that revision which are controversial and needs a
great deal of discussion, and the message specifically
refers to the attempt to recodify the Espionage Act and to
control the leakage of national security information, as
one of the areas requiring further work and discussion
and revision.
The message says -- and I think quite correctly --
that we need a model Federal criminal code in this
country, that the way our Federal law has grown up has
resulted in great inequities, different kinds of punish-
ments for similar offenses, a crazy quilt, in fact.
We have the opportunity now to provide a revision
which will not only operate for the Federal system, but
can be a model for State systems.
The message calls particularly for further laws
to make the prosecution of commercial fraud easier, to
prevent what is called pyramiding, to make possible an
offense of owning or operating a racketeering syndicate
so that convictions can be obtained without proof of the
specific crime in each case; that is, the participation
by the owner of the syndicate in the specific criminal
act, other than running the syndicate. as such.
It calls for a clarification and strengthening
of laws protecting civil rights so that it will not be
necessary to prove a conspiracy where there has been
an intentional act to deprive a citizen of his civil
rights.
MORE
- 3 -
Then the message calls for better enforcement
throughout the whole criminal law system. In that
connection, it asks for the renewal of the authorization
for the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration -- the
LEAA program -- giving it a five-year extension to 1981,
and the authorization to start with the amount of
$1,250,000,000, increasing over the five-year period
by $50 million a year, that added $50 million a year
to be specifically used to increase law enforcement
efforts in the great urban centers where the crime
problem is most serious.
The message calls for a better use of statistical
and computerized information for prosecutors in order
to weed out and to pay special attention to the
recidivists or habitual criminals, pointing out that
this is the area where one can do probably the most good
in eliminating people from the system who do commit
the most crimes.
As I have said before, throughout the message
there is an emphasis, regional emphasis, on trying
to help the situation in the urban areas. It calls for
more judges; it also asks for the increased use of
magistrates. Federal magistrates strictly limited in
their jurisdiction will have their jurisdiction under
this message, if it is enacted into law, greatly increased
for the handling of misdemeanors.
It refers to the work that has been carried
out in the Justice Department, in some of the U.S.
Attorney offices, starting in Chicago, in pretrial
diversion, as a way of doing two things -- keeping the
criminal system from being clogged by so many cases,
and also taking care of first offenders who in this
way can be saved from being sent through the criminal
system.
The message warns that this has to be handled
carefully, both to be fair to the punitive defendant
and to make sure that it is not a way of removing actual
criminals from the reach of the law.
The message, because of its emphasis on
protection of the victim, calls for a Federal compensation
system for victims of personal injury crimes under the
Federal law. I should add that the amount of money that
we think that this will cost is comparatively, considerably
less than the amount of fines paid into the criminal
system from convicted criminals, and from a small share
of the amount of money earned on the work of offenders
in the penitentiary system.
MORE
- 4 -
The message points to the necessity for doing
more work in the field of juvenile justice and with
juvenile offenders. It comments that the system has
not been too successful in terms of rehabilitation. It
points to the area of youth offenders as an area where
the emphasis has to continue to be on rehabilitation.
Similarly, the message calls for the upgrading
of prisons, specifically for the upgrading of prisons
in the Federal system, to bring them up to minimum
standards.
The message does not mention, I think, the
figure, but over time that would cost $200 million.
Since this is a message which recognizes the narrow
scope of the Federal system, but its leadership role
for the whole country, one has to recognize that the
upgrading of prisons so that they do reach minimum
standards throughout the country, would cost a great
deal more, somewhere above, apparently, $12 billion
a year, as we figure it. Of course, that is not the
kind of expenditure which can easily be made.
I should go back to say that the contributions
by LEAA to the enforcement system of the States would
be in the form of matching grants, but the amount from
LEAA would provide 90 percent.
The message also asks for better treatment
of ex-prisoners, offenders who have served their time
and are now back in society and who, if they are
excluded from society unjustly, are likely to become
recidivists.
And finally, the message, while it is quite
clear, as the President said, it does not provide for
the registration of guns, or the licensing of gun-
owners, it does call for the prohibition of the
manufacture and sale of what are called "Saturday Night
Specials," which will have to be defined.
Treasury regulations have defined them and
they will have to be redefined in terms of length of
the barrel, cheapness of the construction, the absence
of various safety devices.
And it also calls for an improved administration
and some slight modification of the present law, or
improvement in the law dealing with the dealers in guns,
providing that dealers who are now subject to the Federal
law should go through a waiting period before a sale is
consummated to make sure that the purchaser is authorized
by the place where he will have the gun, and the terms
of other laws, whether he is an ex-felon and so on, to
make sure that the dealers live up to these obligations.
MORE
- 5 -
It also provides that the dealer will have
to scrutinize and be careful that he is not making
multiple sales to the same purchaser, so as to suggest
that the purchaser is in fact a dealer himself, and
that the purpose of the purchase is a purchase for
resale as an unlicensed dealer.
And the message also calls for a substantial
increase in the Treasury staff dealing with the enforce-
ment of the present gun control law, adding 500 agents
to the Treasury staff for that sole purpose, to operate
in the 10 major cities of the country -- again, I would
say regional approach recognizing that these urban
areas are the areas where their own gun control laws
have to be backed up by making sure that illegal
shipments, illegal under the present law, do not come
in. to thwart the present law.
That is a once-over-lightly of what I think
is a rather strong and complete message, and I would be
glad to try to answer questions.
Q
Mr. Attorney General, do you take a
position on the death sentence?
ATTORNEY GENERAL LEVI: The message does not
take a position on the death sentence. The death
sentence is included in S. 1 and I suppose it would have
to be regarded as among those provisions which the
President referred to, various provisions, as being
controversial for discussion.
Q
Doesn't the Administration have a position
on it, though, for some time?
ATTORNEY GENERAL LEVI: I can't answer that
question. I personally have said that I was in favor
of the death sentence under special circumstances.
Q Mr. Attorney General, attempts have been
made from time to time to impose mandatory minimums,
most controversially in New York State in narcotics
cases. Can you cite any instances in which mandatory
minimums have worked?
ATTORNEY GENERAL LEVI: I don't think I can
cite an incidence where the attempt has been made in this
way. This is a mandatory minimum. By the way, it doesn't
necessarily call for enormously severe penitentiary
sentences. It does take away a good deal of the
discretion of the judge so that he will not impose any
penitentiary sentence. But it does not require long-
term sentences and it does permit, as I have said,
these four categories of particular findings where the
judge can avoid the imposition.
MORE
- 6 -
Q
What makes you think it will work? That
is my question.
ATTORNEY GENERAL LEVI: I think it will work
because I think it is a moderate approach. I think
that the four categories are sufficient so as to allow
a judgewho takes his job seriously to make a proper
finding and I think that we have come to a time in our
society where people do realize that something has to be
done to toughen up the enforcements.
Q
How many Federal crimes are there committed
in a year, to which these mandatory sentences would
apply?
ATTORNEY GENERAL LEVI: I can't answer that, but
I can say that our belief is in comparison with the
more or less 25,000 prisoners in the Federal system
at the moment, if.we had had this law, this proposed
law in effect now, there would be about an additional
900 in one year added to that.
Q Mr. Attorney General, does the message
make any recommendation regarding the laws on marijuana,
such as decriminalization?
ATTORNEY GENERAL LEVI: No, it does not. It
does refer to the commercial traffic in hard drugs, but
does not refer to the
---
Q
Is there going to be a recommendation in
the future? The reason I ask this is that we have been
told by the Present recently at the press conference
that that matter was under study in your office, and he
was going to withhold his decision until you had a
recommendation. Do you have a recommendation?
ATTORNEY GENERAL LEVI: It is in my office and
I have asked Mr. Dogin, the Acting Director, the Administrator
of DEA, to give me the recommendation of his agency.
I should say, or add, that that S. 1 the President
talks about in his message does provide for a minor
in the categories of S. 1 -- penalty for the possession
of small amounts of marijuana --- and I have at various
times said that it seemed to me this was the direction
in which one might well go.
The problem of decriminalization is complicated
because the drug enforcement program requires the
cooperation of Government officials, really, around the
world, because we are trying to keep out the supplies
of drugs, and I don't think anyone wants to take a
position which is going to convince people in other
countries that while we want to be tough on them we
want to be very soft on ourselves.
MORE
- 7 -
I just mention that as the kind of problem
we face, and I frankly don't know what my recommendation
will be because I don't think I should make it, for
one thing, until I have heard what the DEA people
have to say.
Q
Mr. Attorney General, since so many of
the crimes do involve fire arms, why doesn't the
President call for stricter control of handguns, and
why is he so unalterably opposed to registration?
ATTORNEY GENERAL LEVI: I think the President
has thought this through, as I have tried to think it
through. Since I don't want to quote the President --
he speaks for himself -- let me say, on a television
program which is rather dull that I was on some nights
ago, I did hear myself saying that I thought the problem
was to do the minimum amount which would be effective.
I think that that is what this message does.
As you know, I was urging a regional approach.
I think this message adopts that approach in the sense
that its heavy emphasis is on enforcement in the
greater urban areas. The problem in the urban areas
is not to get tougher laws they have tough laws --
but to do something about the interstate commerce.
There the weakness, I think -- I believe the
President thinks -- has been that the present legislation,
which involves the dealers, has in fact really not
been enforced. And the way to enforce it is to get
this rather large group of agents who will not be
doing anything else but will center their attention
in the 10 major cities and will be concerned with
the illegal flow from dealers into these areas.
Now, I have discussed this matter with the
group that probably knows most about it; namely, the
U.S. Attorneys, and they regard this as a helpful
solution.
Q
Mr. Attorney General, how does your
proposal on Saturday Night Specials differ from
Senator Bayh's proposal?
ATTORNEY GENERAL LEVI: Well, I am not sure,
except in a very general way, that I know what Senator
Bayh's proposal is.
Q
He has a bill in that has been in for
some weeks. Didn't you people look at that when you
were drafting yours?
ATTORNEY GENERAL LEVI: No, we had been working
on this for a long time and Senator Bayh and I have had
some discussions from time to time. I would suppose
that the banning of Saturday Night Specials may be
very much the same, but I don't know.
MORE
- 8 -
Q
Mr. Attorney General, previous questions
have referred to the fact that the President was
inalterably opposed to gun control and registration.
I am not sure the question was answered, sir. Nobody
who advocates gun control and gun registration wants
to eliminate illegal flow -- in your words -- of guns.
They wanted to eliminate, they wanted to just register
these guns and where they were and who was selling them,
all that.
I would appreciate a little more illumination
on the question.
Also, sir, the President in his talk -- I wonder
if he was not talking in slogans now -- the law centers
its attention more on the rights of the criminal
than the victim of the crime.
This is the second question: Aren't the
rights of the criminal, sir, the rights -- at least
until he becomes a criminal -- at least the same rights
you and I have and must be protected?
ATTORNEY GENERAL LEVI: Of course.
Answering the second question first, the
problem is not only does our system operate so that it
does not detect the criminal, and when it detects him
he is not convicted; but when he is convicted, nothing
very much happens to him, and we have had, I think,
a notion that we had other ways of rehabilitating
and preventing this kind of harm, which is harm both
to the criminal and to the society at large.
I think the general feeling of criminologists
today is that a much tougher approach, one which
recognizes for the kind of dangerous conduct with a
dangerous weapon which is killing our cities, that that
kind of conduct has to be met with a quick sentence,
and normally a penitentiary sentence. That is the
approach.
Now, as to the first question, which I am not
quite sure I understand, but that deals with, I think,
registration and the objections to registration, the
President has always said that he was opposed to
registration and the licensing of each owner of a gun.
Of course, the argument is always made and
it has something to it, that when the criminal wishes
to have a gun he isn't going to be worried about whether
he is registered or whether he is licensed.
MORE
- 9 -
The problem which the 1968 Act tried to get
at was the interstate sales by dealers, and the dealer
is not under the present law supposed to sell a handgun
to a purchaser who lives in another State, nor is he
supposed to sell it to a purchaser who lives in a place
where the local law makes his possession illegal, but
that has not been enforced, at least it has not been
effectively enforced.
So until one starts talking about the needs
for legislation, one has to really look at what we
presently have, and this is what we presently do have.
If we can enforce that and cut down the flow from the
dealers to people who do live in other States, or who
do live where they should not have them, if we can
do that, then I think we have made a considerable
step forward.
Q
The message apparently calls for the
compensation of victims of crime.
ATTORNEY GENERAL LEVI: Yes.
Q Has any thought been given to the innocent
victims of, apparently, false crimes? They apparently
lose their freedom if they don't fight it, and if they
fight it they lose their fortune?
ATTORNEY GENERAL LEVI: I am sure many of
us have given thought to that, from time to time. It
is not in the message, and I don't know where that would
take us. It obviously is a point, but a different kind
of point.
Q
On that point, how much is your proposed
appropriation for the victim's compensation program,
and how did you arrive at your estimate?
ATTORNEY GENERAL LEVI: What we did was to
look at the kindsof injuries and the crime statistics
for the Federal system, and so far as we could tell,--
I think it was two years ago here the statistics came
from-it would have been on the order of $7 million-
plus, but not including such compensation as might be
paid for loss of wages.
There is a formula for that purpose where some-
one has been out of work for a 90-day period. But we
are confident that it will not rise to the $15 million
level, which is the amount of money paid in through
penalties and fines, and a 20 percent take from peni-
tentiary industries.
Q
What are those fines for now, Mr. Attorney
General?
MORE
- 10 -
ATTORNEY GENERAL LEVI: They just go into the
coffers of the Treasury. We wish to make the point
that if you wish to make the point it costs money,
of course it does.
Q
Is the President asking for $7 million
for that, sir?
ATTORNEY GENERAL LEVI: Well, the message
does not state that, but the legislation -- we will have
to assume that this fund will be adequate.
I am giving you the background papers, at the
moment, which convinced me that it will.
Q
Do you ask for a specific authorization?
ATTORNEY GENERAL LEVI: Well, you set this up
as a specific program. It will have to be authorized;
it will have to have an awarding panel created, I believe,
in the Department of Justice, appointed by the President.
It will follow to a considerable extent the laws which
now exist in ll-plus States, at the present time.
Q
Mr. Levi, would you be a little more
specific about the size of the minimums, please? You
said they were quite low in some instances. Can you
tell us ---
ATTORNEY GENERAL LEVI: No, I can't.
Q
Six months?
ATTORNEY GENERAL LEVI: It might very well be.
The message does not cover that. The message, however,
at one point, does talk about the fact of the unequal
sentencing which now goes on, in part as a result of
the discretion of judges, and in part as a result of
the hodge-podge of the Federal laws, and then makes
the point that in asking for a codification, clarification,
regularizing of this, that it is not advocating necessarily
severe penalties, so that a one-year penalty would, I
think, fit very much, many of the things we are talking
about.
Q
Why do you call this a tough message, then?
ATTORNEY GENERAL LEVI: I think it is tough to
take criminals who have been convicted and behaved this
way and who, as our present system operates, are really
not punished. I think the tone of this message -- and
it keeps coming through all the time -- is that it is
intended to be an effective approach. It is not what
would be called a law and order approach. The President
has referred to it as a domestic tranquility approach,
in his presentation.
MORE
- 11 -
Q
What are the three pieces of legislation
that are going to go up? How is this going to be packaged?
ATTORNEY GENERAL LEVI: The LEAA extension and
the indication of the increased emphasis on more judges,
the use of its funds in the judicial and prosecutorial
system, and in the usual areas, will be in the legislation.
The S. 1, of course, is before the Congress.
The mandatory prison sentences could either be handled in
a separate bill or as part of S. 1. The mandatory prison
sentences, which the President has proposed, is a
deviation from the proposals which are now in S. 1.
In that sense, it is a tougher approach because
S. 1 allows paroling and, as I understand it, this would
not, and the gun control question will require legislation.
Q
You don't have specific mandatory minimums
in mind yet? They have not been drafted? Is that what
you are saying?
ATTORNEY GENERAL LEVI: The precise amount has
not been drafted.
Q
Mr. Levi, would anything in the mandatory
minimums legislation preclude the use of plea bargaining
in those cases and, if not, would you expect plea bargaining
to become more widespread?
ATTORNEY GENERAL There may be some greater
effort at plea bargaining because of the tougher conse-
quences, and this is recognized in the message itself
in calling for additional judges.
Q
Earlier, you mentioned the tougher approach
being taken by sociologists or criminologists. One of
these approaches is flat time sentences, the theory being
if nothing else will work, at least removing from the streets
those who commit most crimes should have some effect.
If, in fact, that is one of the thoughts in
here, would you explain it a little bit?
ATTORNEY GENERAL LEVI: It seems to pop out
from the words. The notion is that rather than given
determinate sentences or given sentences which have time
off for good. behavior or any uncertainty of that kind,
or parolable, it might be better just to say this is the
sentence, it is a year, and you know it is a year, and
that is what it is going to be..
That is what the judge will have to give and
the prisoner will know what he is up against. The message
discusses that, and I guess asks the Department of
Justice to give it further study.
MORE
- 12 -
Q
Is the idea to get these people off the
streets?
ATTORNEY GENERAL LEVI: It is partly that.
It is partly that, but it is also partly to make sure that
we have an opportunity to sort out the recidivists or
deal with the recidivists.
Recidivists ought to be kept off the streets
until we find some better way of handling them.
It also, I must say on the notion that this
kind of toughness, which I don't think, as I say, is
so terribly tough, will deter. I believe that, and I
think criminologists believe it.
Q
Sir, will you tell me why the President
deliberately avoided a law and order approach, which many
people associate with President Nixon and John Mitchell
and some of the figures of the past and took, I believe
you called it, a domestic tranquility approach?
ATTORNEY GENERAL LEVI: My own view of it is
that the President -- that is the kind of President he
is.
Q
He is not for law and order? (Laughter)
ATTORNEY GENERAL LEVI: I think it is the part
of wisdom to view this kind of national problem we have.
It is a national problem. It is one that is not just
solved by being vindictive. There is nothing vindictive
in this message. I think vindictiveness would really
destroy the objective that the President had in mind,
which is to find a workable solution to a very severe
problem, which our society has.
Q
Mr. Levi, in the consideration of S. 1,
will the Administration have a position on the subject
of confidentiality in the protection of classified
information?
ATTORNEY GENERAL LEVI: I am sure it will. I
think the problem is that it is terribly complicated to
thread through -- if you have tried to do it, I am sure
you would agree -- the recodification attempts which
appear in S. 1.
S. 1, in recodifying the espionage and other
laws, left out much of the judicial gloss on the legis-
lation, which I think in fact would be the gloss if
S. 1 were to be enacted. It would really not do what
it seems to say it would do.
MORE
- 13 -
You have to read it with the cases. It was
an extremely difficult and technical job of trying to
take statutes from various places and put them together,
and I think, my own view is, it was overkill and that
it doesn't accomplish what most of us would agree ought
to be accomplished.
So, it is going to have to be reworked, and it
is going to have to be reworked so that we do have a
law which is enforcable under some circumstances but
is not overkill.
Q
I wonder if I could ask you to project
just a little bit. If this entire bill as proposed were
enacted by the Congress, could you make any estimates of
what kind of a cut in the crime rate you could expect
and how soon could the American people expect to see it?
ATTORNEY GENERAL LEVI: No, I can't do that.
We don't have the figures for the crime rate for the
first quarter of the year as yet, but we will have them
and I assume that they will show a further increase over
last year.
The crime rate is going up. What I would say
is that the enactment of this program will, so far as
we believe, have a decisive effect in minimizing an
increase, and it ought to result in a decrease.
Q
What do you say to judges that say
mandatory sentences tie their hands by taking away a good
deal of discretion from their sentencing power?
ATTORNEY GENERAL LEVI: I would say they are
right, and I am for it.
Q
Why?
ATTORNEY GENERAL LEVI: Because they have, in
my view, failed to live up to a very hard part of their
job; namely, dealing with a problem which they have not
handled very well and which is threatening to destroy
American society.
Q
Mr. Levi, do you have any assessment on
whether or not this bill will be easier to get through
now that we are headed into a Presidential election in
1976?
ATTORNEY GENERAL LEVI: I thought I was supposed
to be a nonpolitical Attorney General, and I don't really
know about those matters.
MORE
- 14 -
Q
Do you have any people who are involved
in liaison within the Justice Department or within the
Administration that have discussed this with you?
ATTORNEY GENERAL LEVI: No, I am proud to say
there has been no one who has discussed that problem
with me.
Q
Mr. Attorney General, aren't you in
fact reducing Federal aid to local communities for crime
fighting by increasing the amount only $15 million a year,
which is much less than the rate of inflation?
ATTORNEY GENERAL LEVI: What this bill does
is to build on an authorization of $1 billion 250 million
for LEAA. The reference which I think you are making
is to the present budget of LEAA, which is around the
$800 million level.
LEAA was cut back so that we could give con-
sideration to the program. This program developed
enormously quickly. You can't give away that much money
without making mistakes.
We think it has been very effective, and we
think that this period of somewhat reduced amounts, giving
us time to rethink and to evaluate the LEAA program -- I
have on my desk a study which is about so high evaluating
the whole program -- would put LEAA on a much better
basis. Some of the recommendations in the President's
report, in fact, build on those recommendations.
Q
How much does the Administration believe
the recession is responsible for the increase in crime,
and how much more has it contributed to crime?
ATTORNEY GENERAL LEVI: I don't know what the
Administration believes. My own belief is that when
people are without work, either because there are so
affluent that they don't have to work, or because they
can't find jobs, that that is one of the factors leading
to crime.
So, I would expect crime during an unemployment
period.
Q
Dr. Levi, is any thought being given
to the kind of aid that LEAA is going to be emphasizing
now? There had been, sir, as you know, considerable
criticism of LEAA's earlier policies when seemingly a
lot of hardware was shoveled out.
MORE
- 15 -
ATTORNEY GENERAL LEVI: I think it will be
much more targeted and directed in seeing to it that
the criminal justice system can operate much more
quickly and decisively, and I think we are beyond what
we call the hardware approach.
Q
Thank you, Mr. Attorney General.
MR. NESSEN: I have one other announcement.
As you know, right about now the President is
beginning his meeting with Secretary General Luns of
NATO and other representatives of NATO.
Around 5 o'clock, Secretary General Luns will
be available here in the briefing room.
THE PRESS: Thank you, gentlemen.
END (AT 4:08 P.M. EDT)