Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "23812640",
    "label": "Crime - General (2)",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/23812640"
}

{
    "id": "23812640",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/23812640",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Crime - General (2)",
    "description": "This file contains law Enforcement, Commissions, Capital Punishment.",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/23812640",
    "collections": [
        "Philip W. Buchen Files",
        "Philip Buchen's General Subject Files"
    ],
    "subjects": [
        "Speeches, addresses, etc.",
        "Crime",
        "Administration goals and achievements",
        "Legislation"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0019/574067/Batch0002/38-0019-f-23812640.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0019/574067/Batch0002/38-0019-f-23812640.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0019/574067/Batch0002/38-0019-f-23812640.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/23812640",
    "naId": 23812640,
    "coverageEndDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1976-12-01",
        "month": 12,
        "year": 1976
    },
    "coverageStartDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1975-08-01",
        "month": 8,
        "year": 1975
    },
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0019/574067/Batch0002/38-0019-f-23812640.pdf",
    "mediaId": "04ad74adf461c151",
    "ocrText": "The original documents are located in Box 8, folder \"Crime - General (2)\" of the Philip\nBuchen Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nCopyright Notice\nThe copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of\nphotocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald R. Ford donated to the United\nStates of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.\nWorks prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public\ndomain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to\nremain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid\ncopyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nSome items in this folder were not digitized because it contains copyrighted\nmaterials. Please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library for access to\nthese materials.\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nCrime\nWASHINGTON\nSend to\nKen Lazarus\nTO:\nRICHARD CHENEY\nROBERT HARTMANN\nPHILIP BUCHEN\nJERRY JONES\nJAMES CONNOR\nJAMES CANNON\nJAMES CAVANAUGH\nRICHARD PARSONS\nFROM:\nROBERT GOLDWIN Rag\nThe President's crime speeches and crime message hit hard on\nevery one of the themes in this Reston column. Crime con-\ntinues to be the #1 noneconomic domestic issue. Shouldn't\nwe be repeating and repeating the President's stand on\ncrime?\nAttachment\n11/25/75\nFORD i LIBRARY 9ERALD\nDigitized from Box 8 of the Philip Buchen Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library\nWASHINGION\nhis cap pistol demonstrating against.\nRonald Reagan or Patty Hearst,\nSqueaky Fromme, or Sara Jane Moore\nwho lost confidence m the legal and\nNY Times\npolitical integrity. of the nation but.\nalso some of the most respectable per-\n11/21/75\nsons and institutions in the nation, in-\ncluding the F.B.I. and the C.I.A.\nOn the- same day that this silly.,\nThe\nyoung man, Michael Carvin, pulled his\ncap pistol on Ronald Reagan, Senator.\nFrank Church's. intelligence committee\nPolitics\nwas announcing that it had \"solid evi-\ndence\" that past Governments of the\nUnited States-from Eisenhower, Ken-,\nnedy and Johnson to Nixon, had con-\nOf Anarchy\nnived at the murder of Castro in Cuba;\nDiem in Vietnam, Trujillo in. the Do-\nminican Republic; Sukarno in Indo-\nnesia and Lumumba in the Congo.:\nBy James Reston\nSenator Church testified that no Presi-\ndent of the United States had planned\nthese monstrosities, but they were ap-\nYou can hardly pick up the papers\nparently planned anyway by their\nthese days without reading about the\nelement of madness and-even of an-\nunderlings.\nMeanwhile, the Ford Administration\narchy in our national life: The latest\nin Mismi\nhas released the official records on\nOF OF STATES DISTRICT\nStorfiling\nAMOUNT\nDepartment of Justice\nJUSTITIA\nFOR RELEASE AT 7:30 P.M., E.S.T.\nMONDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 1976\nADDRESS\nBY\nTHE HONORABLE EDWARD H. LEVI\nATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES\nBEFORE\nTHE GOVERNOR'S CONFERENCE\nON\nEMPLOYMENT AND THE PREVENTION OF CRIME\n6:30 P.M.\nCRYSTAL BALLROOM\nMARC PLAZA HOTEL\nMONDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 1976\nMILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN\nFORD is LIBRARY GERALD\nAMERICAN REVOLUTION WEENTENNING\n1776-1976\nI am glad to be with you at this symposium on\nemployment and the prevention of crime. As you know,\nPresident Ford believes the intolerable level of crime\nin America can most effectively be reduced if all segments\nof society join in the effort. I bring you President\nFord's warm greetings and his appreciation for the concern\nyou are showing and the responsibility you are accepting\nin this important area.\nAs the title of your symposium suggests, the\nproblem of crime is inseparable from the problem of\nreuniting ex-offenders with society. I want to explore\nthat theme with you tonight and to indicate some implications\nit may have for government policy and for the responsibility\nof society.\nIt is a mistake to think of reunification as the\nlast step in the criminal justice system. The process\nof reunification begins as soon as an individual is brought\ninto the system. The whole criminal justice system must\nbe viewed in light of its effect on the offender after he\nis released from prison.\nRehabilitation as a goal of criminal punishment has\nbeen called into question recently, in part because recidivism\nrates are high. We really do not have statistics good\nenough to measure the rehabilitative effect of imprisonment.\nFORD is LIBRARY\n- 2 -\nBut the data we do have are taken to support the conclusion\nthat persons who have spent time in prison are not less\nlikely to commit crime again. Perhaps, indeed, they are\nmore likely to do so. Studies such as the one published\nin 1964 by Daniel Glaser indicate that the two most\nimportant factors in the success of an ex-offender in\navoiding criminal conduct after he is released from prison\nare his ability to return to a stable family situation\nand his ability to get a job. These are taken as proof\nthat the offender's experience after imprisonment rather\nthan his experience in prison is determinative. The\nrehabilitative ideal, proclaimed in the 19th Century as a\ngreat reform in the theory of punishment, has been proclaimed\na failure by contemporary prison reformers. But there is\na narrowness in this view. It looks only to the prison\nitself as the medium of rehabilitation.\nIf the whole criminal justice system is analyzed\nwith respect to its role in rehabilitation and reunification,\nthe perceived failure of the rehabilitative ideal is a failure\nof the entire process. The imposition of imprisonment is\nan extraordinary assertion of government authority over the\nindividual. If the imposition of punishment appears to be\nfickle--a matter of chance--or if it appears to be unequal\nwith respect to socio-economic groups, offenders who do\nsuffer punishment for crimes may be left with an emotional\nscar that itself makes reunification very difficult.\n- 3 -\nThe need for decency and fairness in the criminal\njustice system does not derive solely from the instrumental\neffect indecency and unfairness have upon their victims.\nBut the bitterness a sense of unfairness breeds must be\ntaken into account. Today there is an accidental quality\nto the imposition of punishment. Some 400,000 men, women\nand young people are in some form of corrections institution.\nNevertheless, inefficiency in the criminal justice system\nhas meant that a very small percentage of persons who commit\ncrimes ever spend time in jail. The inefficiency shows\nitself at every step. Police, overcome by the high level\nof crime, cannot actively investigate every report of\ncriminal conduct. People become cynical about the likelihood\nthat criminals will be punished, so they often do not bother\nto report crime. Even after an offender is arrested,\noverworked prosecutors' offices may be forced to strike\ndeals in which a defendant agrees to plead guilty in exchange\nfor a sentence that does not include incarceration.\nThese problems build upon themselves. The inefficiency\nof the criminal justice system makes it less likely to\nserve a deterrent effect. The result is more crime and\nmore burden on police, prosecutors and courts.\nEven when an offender is brought to trial, there is\na great element of chance in whether he will ever serve\ntime in prison. A study in Pittsburgh in 1966 indicated\n- 4 -\nthat nearly half of all persons convicted of a second\noffense of aggravated assault and more than one-fourth of\nall second offenders convicted of robbery were not sent\nto prison but were rather placed on probation. Research\nin Wisconsin showed that 63 per cent of all second-time\nfelony offenders and 41 per cent of all persons with two\nor more felony convictions received no prison term upon\ntheir last conviction. James Q. Wilson of Harvard concluded\nthat this evidence \"suggests that the judges did not\nbelieve that jail had a deterrent effect. \" At least\none reason for this perception is that judges themselves\nhave not imposed prison sentences with enough consistency\nto make the deterrent effect work. Deterrence requires\nconsiderable certainty, and we do not have that certainty.\nThe offenders who are sent to jail recognize the\ndegree to which they have been losers in a game of chance.\nSuch a recognition is bound to make their reunification with\nsociety more difficult. Not only may it appear to an\noffender that his imprisonment was just bad luck rather\nthan the inevitable consequence of wrongdoing, the unfairness\nbred of inefficiency and unwillingness to impose uniform\npunishment may make the society outside the prison wall\nseem mean and hostile, a society that itself does not follow\nthe rules of conduct it expects the ex-offender to follow.\n- 5 -\nThe problem of inefficiency must be solved by\nnew devices and methods that will facilitate rational\ndecisions about prosecution. It also will require a\ngreater degree of citizen cooperation in the detection and\ninvestigation of crime. The problem of unwillingness of\njudges to impose sentences is a separate and complicated\nmatter for which special approaches are required.\nThe President has proposed a system of mandatory\nminimum sentences for various sorts of particularly serious\ncrime. Mandatory minimums would apply to extraordinarily\nheinous crimes such as aircraft hijacking, to all offenses\ncommitted with a dangerous weapon, and to offenses involving\nthe risk of personal injury to others when those offenses\nare committed by repeat offenders. The President's\nmandatory minimum sentence proposal also includes provisions\nto ensure fairness by allowing a judge to find, in certain\nnarrow categories of circumstances, that an offender need\nnot go to prison even though he has been convicted of a\ncrime normally carrying a mandatory minimum sentence. A\nmandatory minimum sentence must not be imposed if the\noffender was less than 18 years old when the offense was\ncommitted, or was acting under substantial duress, or was\nimplicated in a crime actually committed by others and\nparticipated in the crime only in a very minor way. Under\nproposals now before Congress, the trial judge's sentencing\ndecision would be reviewable by appellate courts.\n- 6 -\nThe President's proposal does not require long\nprison terms for persons sentenced under the mandatory\nminimum provisions. The need for mandatory minimum\nsentences is based upon the concept of deterrence and\nthe need for swift and certain punishment following an\noffense. It is also based on the recognition that the\nfairness of punishment depends upon a degree of uniformity\nin sentencing decisions.\nIt may be time to consider an even more sweeping\nrestructuring of the sentencing system, which United States\nDistrict Court Judge Marvin E. Frankel calls the most\ncritical part of the criminal justice system. There have\nbeen proposals to abolish the federal parole system as it\nnow exists and to allow trial judges to determine the\nprecise sentence an offender would be required to serve.\nThe trial judge would operate within a set of sentencing\nguidelines fashioned by a permanent Federal Sentencing\nCommission.\nThis idea is consistent with the President's\nmandatory minimum sentence proposal. Indeed, it is an\nextension of the same concept. Sentences would be required\nto meet the mandatory minimums set forth by statutes for\ncertain crimes. Sentences for all other crimes would\ngenerally be expected to fall within the range set forth\nby the guidelines. If a judge decided to impose a sentence\ninconsistent with the guidelines, he would have to accompany\n- 7 -\nthe decision with specific reasons for the exception, and\nthe decision would be subject to appellate review. The\noffender would be required to serve the sentence imposed\nby the judge, with a specific amount of time off for good\nbehavior.\nCurrently very few offenders are required to serve\nanything close to the time imposed as a sentence by the trial\njudge. Parole eligibility after serving one-third or less\nof the sentence may create a lack of credibility in sentencing\nwhich undermines the deterrent effect of criminal law and\nadds to the sense of unfairness.\nMany prisoner groups and others point out that\nuncertainty about parole and good time allowances creates\nenormous tension among prisoners. A prisoner may well not\nknow what he must do to please the prison and parole\nauthorities. Uncertainty may actually hinder rehabilitation\nin that prisoners may volunteer for institutional self-\nimprovement programs without any real commitment to the\ngoal of the programs but instead with a feeling that to\nvolunteer might please the parole authorities.\nIt may be too early to decide whether to adopt\nvast reforms in sentencing along these lines. Corrections\nhas been an area in which great new ideas emerge with\nregularity--ideas full of promise--only to lead to failure\nand despair. We do not know enough about the effect of\n- 8 -\nthe criminal justice system and corrections upon crime.\nBut even without conclusive data--which may never be\nobtainable in this area--reason suggests that the failure\nof the criminal law to deter crime sufficiently and the\nperceived unfairness of accidental justice requires considerable\nreform. In my view the President's mandatory minimum\nproposal and consideration of a Federal Sentencing Commission\nis an important and necessary first setp.\nI do not agree that the ideal of rehabilitation--\nwhich was an earlier medium of reform--should be abandoned\nalthough it is fashionable in some quarters to say so. But\nit is also nonsense to say that the purpose of prison is\nonly to rehabilitate. Imprisonment also has deterrence\nand protection of society as goals. It is also nonsense\nto say that rehabilitation never occurs. As Attorney General\nI review all applications by federal prisoners for pardons.\nMany of those applications attest to the possibility that\noffenders can change for the better in prison. Decent\ntreatment of prisoners is itself a kind of rehabilitation,\nand decency should most certainly remain as one of our\nideals. Decency can reinforce decency in return just as\nmuch as substandard, inhumane conditions of confinement\ncan reinforce a negative effect. Especially with respect\nto the young, we simply cannot give up on the effort to\nbring those who have broken the law back into harmony with\nthe society. We can hold out the opportunity to inmates to\nimprove themselves and their chances of success outside\n- 9 -\nthe walls, and this is itself a form of rehabilitation.\nJob training within prison is important. It\nprepares for an offender's reunification with society.\nSociety also has a great responsibility in this regard--\nand a great opportunity as well. As your symposium\nrecognizes, employment after release from prison is\nextraordinarily important in the process of reunification.\nThe composition of our prison population today makes it\nessential that, both inside prison and outside, steps are\ntaken to facilitate the transition.\nMost serious crimes are committed by young people.\nThose most likely to commit crime are between the ages of\n20 and 30. This group will reach its maximum in numbers\nin about 1985, when it will be about 50 per cent greater\nthan in 1970. The economic and educational characteristics\nof today's prison population are consistently below those\nof inmates' counterparts outside the walls. It is against\ntheir counterparts that ex-offenders must compete if they\nare to have productive employment after their release.\nThe average male prisoner more than 25 years old today has\n2.1 fewer years of education than the average of all U.S.\nmales in the same age group. Only 44.2 per cent of all\nmale prisoners are skilled or semi-skilled as compared\nwith 80.7 per cent of the total male population. These\nfigures indicate the challenge ex-offenders present to the\nAmerican labor market. But it is a challenge that can be met.\n- 10 -\nThe American labor market has always had a need to retrain\nindividuals for employment. This has never been an easy\ntask but it is one with which the free market must be\nconcerned. There are of course special considerations\nwhen ex-offenders are involved. These special considerations\ndo not diminish the importance of the task. Rather, they\nemphasize the importance of the goal.\nFederal prisons themselves have programs to help train\ninmates for productive work. The Federal Prison Industries,\nan agency of the Department of Justice which was established\nin 1934 to employ and train federal inmates, has 51 industrial\noperations in 23 correctional institutions. About 25 per\ncent of all federal prisoners volunteer to participate in\nFederal Prison Industries programs. Many of these programs\ndo not train inmates for jobs in segments of industry\nthat are thriving today. More than a quarter of all Federal\nPrison Industries workers today, for example, are employed\nin the shoe and textile industries. But new programs to\ntrain inmates in skills that are more in demand are under\nway and expanding. Three federal corrections institutions\nnow have training programs in computer technology. Two\ninstitutions have auto mechanic training programs, and\nanother institution will open one soon. Better training\nprograms in federal prisons must be initiated, but they alone\nwill not guarantee that an ex-offender's reunification with\nsociety will be a success.\nThere is a problem of acceptance of the ex-offender\nboth by his employer and by his co-workers. Deep prejudices\nare directed toward an ex-offender, and they stand as a\n- 11 -\nbarrier to his success in society. President Ford has\ndirected the U.S. Civil Service Commission to review a\nprogram it administers, a program designed to prevent\nfederal employers from unjustly discriminating against\nex-offenders. The President has also asked the National\nGovernors Conference to study steps the states can take\nto eliminate discrimination in their hiring of ex-offenders.\nThe private sector must take similar steps. Some\n100,000 offenders are being discharged by federal and\nstate prisons and local jails each year. The unemployment\nrate for ex-offenders is three times what it is for the\nregular work force. Groups such as the National Alliance\nof Businessmen have recognized that high unemployment among\nex-offenders bodes ill for the recidivism rate. The Alliance\nis one of the sponsors of your forum, so permit me to\ndwell a moment on its important program. The Alliance does\nnot do job placement work. It goes to businessmen and\nsolicits from them job openings for ex-offenders. These\nopenings are then turned over to other agencies that actually\nplace individuals in jobs. The Alliance's ex-offender\nprogram in a little more than two years has resulted in the\nplacement of 20,000 ex-offenders in jobs.\nThis program and others seem to be working, but more\nlike them are needed. As I indicated at the outset, the\nFORD\nentire criminal justice system needs to be viewed in light\nof its impact upon the final reunification of the offender\nLIBRARY\nwith society. Society bears a great burden. Through the\n- 12 -\nsystem of criminal justice it imposes upon individuals\nthe dramatic loss of liberty that is involved in\nimprisonment. Society must insist that the system\noperate with fairness and decency. But its responsibility\nis much greater. Society must itself be prepared to\nreunite with the ex-offender if he is to have a chance\nof succeeding outside the walls.\nI have often said that high crime rates will exist\nSO long as society stands for it. I mean by this more than\nsimply that citizens must cooperate with law enforcement\nofficials in reporting crime and doing their part in the\ncriminal justice process. I mean also that crime rates\nwill continue to be high so long as society does not\nrealize that it cannot treat as outcasts the persons whose\nliberty it has once curtailed in the name of the law.\nThe glory of the American system, despite all the\nskepticism and self doubts which are at times to be\nexpected, is that we have an open society in which many\ninstitutions, public and private, and individual citizens,\npublic and private, can voluntarily work together for the\ncommon good. The open society relies heavily on the\nindividual decisions and commitments of each one of us.\nIt is based on the leadership which each one of us in\nour own way can give. In the complex order of the modern\nday it is often difficult to recapture the sense of community\nupon which so much depends. A realization of our common\n- 13 -\npurpose and necessity, and the importance of the values\nof human dignity, must bring us together. The problem\nof crime cannot be solved if we do not see the eventual\nreunification of the offender into the fruitful walks\nof our society as an imperative. In this endeavor there\nwill be successes and failure. But each instance of\nsuccess is a reason for celebration -- a reaffirmation of\nthe ideals which give meaning to our own lives.\nI congratulate you upon the work in which you are\nengaged. It is among the important items in the agenda for\nour times.\nDOJ-1976-01\nCrime\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nJune 9, 1976\nDear Mr. Wanger:\nThank you for taking the time to express your views to me in\nwriting on the death penalty.\nAs you are aware, the President supports the imposition of the\ndeath penalty under certain limited circumstances. As you also\nnote, the issue is presently before the Supreme Court which has\nheard extensive arguments on the subject. The decision of the\nCourt will, in all likelihood, occasion a general reexamination\nof the issue. Let me assure you that when that time comes\nyour views, and the views of many others who have expressed\nthem to the President, will be considered anew.\nThank you again for your time and your thoughtful counsel.\nSincerely,\nThey W. Buchen\nPhilip W. Buchen\nCounsel to the President\nMr. Eugene C. Wanger\n1202 Michigan National Tower\nLansing, Michigan 48933\nFORD is LIBRARY BERRAD\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nMay 12, 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nKEN LAZARUS\nFROM:\nPHIL BUCHEN P.\nAttached is correspondence from a man who was\nreferred to me by Rogers Morton dealing with\nthe subject of death penalty.\nI would appreciate your framing an answer\nfor me.\nAttachment\nFORD is LIBRARY DERALD\nEUGENE G. WANGER\nATTORNEY AT LAW\n202-MICHICAN NATIONAL TOWER\nLANGING, MICHAN 48033\nTELEPHONE 322 184-9497\nMay 7, 1976\nMr. Philip W. Buchen\nThe White House\nWashington, D. C.\nDear Mr. Buchen:\nPursuant to our conversation yesterday, this letter\nis to summarize why the President should reconsider his\nposition on the death penalty, and to briefly explain the\nenclosed supporting material.\nThe guts of the matter is that capital punishment\nis useless in fighting crime and damages law enforcement.\nIt is useless for two reasons: First because the\ndeath penalty is unnecessary to prevent paroled first-degree\nmurderers from killing again. Contrary to popular belief,\nthe facts show that there is almost no recidivism of any\nkind by this group of convicts. Second, because it fails\nto deter capital crime better than life imprisonment.\nWhether you are a policeman, prison guard or other citizen,\nthe evidence clearly shows that you are no safer from being\na victim of homicide where they have capital punishment.\nIt damages law enforcement in several ways. I think\nthese three are the most significant: First, it severely\nimpairs that certainty and swiftness of conviction and punish-\nment, which is society's best deterrent to crime. Juries\noften refuse to convict where the penalty is death; where\nthe penalty is life imprisonment, more convictions are possible\nwith less delays. Second, it incites additional killings by\nthe mentally disturbed, the weak-minded and the growing group\nof fanatical extremists who actually seek martyrdom in\nfurtherance of their cause. Third, it occasionally executes\nthe innocent by mistake. These horrors are immensly destruct-\nive to public confidence in government and to the morale of\nthe officials who must administer our criminal laws.\nBecause the press so consistently treats capital pun-\nishment as a political rather than a factual issue, I emphasize\nthat none of the above reasons are based on speculation.\nThey are based on known facts, and the same kind of analysis\nsuccessful businessmen and public officials use every day.\nThis is shown by the following enclosures:\nFORD is LIBRARY\nBuchen 5/7/76 - 2.2\nFirst is the 1971 pamphlet by the Washington Research\nProject entitled THE CASE AGAINST CAPITAL PUNISHMENT. It is\nthe best pamphlet treatment I have seen in the more than\nfifteen years that I have been a student of the subject.\nSecond is the 1975 booklet LETTERS ON THE PENALTY\nOF DEATH, by the Michigan Committee Against Capital Punish-\nment. It includes more Michigan information pertaining to\nthe subject than is elsewhere available. This has special\nnational significance because Michigan has been without\nthe death penalty longer than any other state.\nThird is my recent article on CAPITAL PUNISHMENT AND\nLAW ENFORCEMENT, published last September. It draws together\nalmost all of the law enforcement aspects of the question,\nwhich I have not seen done in any other place.\nBecause of the approaching Supreme Court decision,\nI believe that a reconsideration of the President's position\non capital punishment is urgent, and I stand ready to get\nyou any further information or documentation on the subject\nthat you desire.\nWith good wishes,\nSincerely,\nEugure G. Wangor\nEugene G. Wanger\nEGW:m\nInclosures\nFORD : LIBRARY 07V830\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nDate 7/6/76\nTO:\nPHIL BUCHEN\nFROM:\nKEN LAZARUS\nACTION:\nXX\nApproval/Signature\nComments/Recommendations\nPrepare Response\nPlease Handle\nFor Your Information\nFile\nREMARKS:\nI am advised that the President this morning\nrequested a memorandum of this sort. I\nspoke with the AG's Office and Dick Parsons,\nneither of whom had any recommendations\nto make with regard to the options presented\nhere.\nThe AG would like to see a copy of the memo\nbefore it goes in.\ncc: Ed Schmults\nFORD : OERALD LIBRARY\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nHOLD FILE\nWASHINGTON\n(Original\nJuly 6, 1976\nreturned\nto Ken to be\nredome.\nMEMORANDUM FOR\nTHE HONORABLE EDWARD H. LEVI\nATTORNEY GENERAL\nSUBJECT:\nMemorandum for the President on\nCapital Punishment\nAttached is draft of a memorandum prepared for my signature\nand submission to the President. I would very much appreciate\nhaving your comments and suggestions before it is put into\nfinal form.\nR.W.B.\nPhilip W. Buchen\nCounsel to the President\nAttachment\nFORD & LIBRARY 0ERALD\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nDRAFT\n7/6/76\nMEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT\nFROM:\nPHILIP W. BUCHEN\nSUBJECT: Capital Punishment\nAs you know, the Supreme Court on July 2 decided five cases involving\nthe imposition of the death penalty. This is to present a brief back-\nground and analysis of these cases in the context of current Federal\nstatutory law and to offer two options relative to the issue of capital\npunishment which are available to you at this time.\nPresent Federal Statutes\nThe death penalty is presently specified as an authorized sentence upon\nconviction under at least ten sections of Federal law, including\noffenses proscribing murder, treason, rape, air piracy, and delivery\nof defense information to aid a foreign government: 18 U.S. C. 34\n(destruction of motor vehicles or motor vehicle facilities where death\nresults); 18 U.S. C. 351 (assassination or kidnapping of a Member of\nCongress); 18 U.S. C. 794 (gathering or delivering defense information\nto aid a foreign government); 18 U.S. C. 1111 (murder in the first\ndegree within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the\nUnited States); 18 U.S. C. 1716 (causing the death of another by mailing\ninjurious articles); 18 U.S. C. 1751 (Presidential and Vice Presidential\nmurder and kidnapping); 18 U.S. C. 2031 (rape within the special\nmaritime or territorial jurisdiction of the United States); 18 U.S. C.\n2381 (treason); and 49 U.S. C. 1472(i) (aircraft piracy).\nAs drafted, however, the death penalty provisions in these sections,\nexcept for the recently revised provision relating to aircraft piracy\nwhich is discussed below, are unconstitutional under the U. S. Supreme\nCourt's decision in the case of Furman V. Georgia [408 U.S. 238 (1972)].\nThe Furman Case\nIn Furman, a five-justice majority of the Supreme Court held that the\nimposition and carrying out of the death penalty in the cases in question**\nwould constitute \"cruel and unusual punishment\" in violation of the GERAD\nLIBRARY\n- 2 -\nEighth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court did not hold that\ncapital punishment per se is unconstitutional. Rather, they concluded\nthat the application of statutes leaving the imposition of the death\npenalty to the unfettered discretion of a judge or jury was consti-\ntutionally infirm.\nReferring to the \"wanton and freakish imposition\" of the death\npenalty, which was noted with disfavor in the pivotal concurring\nopinions of Justices Stewart and White, the Chief Justice in his dissent\nnoted:\n\"Since the Court's decision turns on the assumption\nthat the punishment of death is now meted out in a\nrandom and unpredictable manner, legislative bodies\nmay seek to bring their laws into compliance with\nthe Court's ruling by providing standards for juries\nand judges to follow in determining the sentence in\ncapital cases or by more narrowly defining the crimes\nfor which the penalty is to be imposed. If such\nstandards can be devised or the crimes more meticu-\nlously defined, the result cannot be detrimental.\"\n(Emphasis added.) (at 396-401)\n* *\nAs articulated in the Furman decision, then, it appeared clear that\nthe objection of the Supreme Court to the death penalty as a punishment\nfor certain crimes went not to its nature but to the manner of its\nimposition.\nPost-Furman Legislative Initiatives\nIn the wake of the Furman decision, there developed three different\napproaches to the reinstatement of the death penalty: (1) mandatory\nimposition of the death penalty upon conviction of certain offenses;\n(2) establishment of exclusive and determinative criteria to be applied\nby the sentencing authority to determine whether the penalty is to be\nimposed; and (3) establishment of designated criteria to serve as a\nguideline for the discretionary imposition of the penalty.\nBy a literal reading of Furman, some argued that mandatory death\nwould be able to withstand the test of constitutionality by precluding\nGENAL\nLIBRARY\n- 3 -\nthe exercise of any discretion on the part of the sentencing authority\nand thereby eliminating the danger of \"wanton and freakish\" appli-\ncation. Such penalties would attach to the conviction of specified\noffenses, e.g., murder, and would preclude the consideration of\nany mitigating circumstances that might justify a lesser punishment\nin a particular case. This concept was embraced in legislation\nenacted in a number of states.\nThe second approach would allow for the imposition of the death penalty\nupon conviction of certain classes of heinous offenses, but only when\none or more of certain designated aggravating circumstances is found\nto exist (e.g., if the defendant were shown to be a hired killer) and\nnone of certain specified mitigating circumstances is found to exist\n(e.g., immaturity, duress, etc.). This concept was advanced by the\nDepartment of Justice and incorporated into Pub. L. 93-366, enacted\non August 5, 1974, which relates, however, only to murder incident\nto aircraft piracy [49 U.S. C. (i) (n) (Supp. IV)]. Additionally, the\nDepartment supported the same concept in the context of a general\ncapital punishment measure which passed the Senate in 1974 (S. 1401,\n93d Cong.) by a margin of over 3 to 2, but received no attention in the\nHouse. The same approach is included in the bill to recodify the\ntotality of Federal criminal law (S. 1, 94th Cong.), but has not been\nintroduced as a separate measure in the current Congress.\nThe third approach to reinstatement of the death penalty involved the\nestablishment of criteria to serve as a guide in the discretionary\nimposition of the penalty. This was the course originally adopted before\nthe Furman opinion by the American Law Institute (ALI) in its Model\nPenal Code. Under this scheme even if several aggravating and no\nmitigating circumstances are found to exist, the death penalty need not\nbe imposed. This discretionary element distinguishes the ALI approach\nfrom the Justice Department concept.\nIn your speech before the Federal Bar Association in Miami, Florida,\non February 14, 1976, you stated:\n* * *\n\"I favor the use of the death penalty in the Federal\ncriminal system in accordance with proper Constitu-\ntional standards. The death penalty should be imposed upon\nthe conviction of sabotage, murder, espionage and treason.\ni\nOf course, the maximum penalty should not be applied if\nFORD\nthere is duress or impaired mental capacity or similar\nGERALD\nLIBRARY\n- 4 -\nextenuating circumstances, But in murders involving\nsubstantial danger to the national security, or when\nthe defendant is a coldblooded hired killer, the use of\ncapital punishment is fully justified. \"\n* * *\nThus, you are on record in support of a limited reinstatement of the\ndeath penalty in accordance with the Supreme Court's teachings in\nFurman. More specifically, your statement is supportive of both the\nALI and Justice approaches.\nThe Gregg Case\nIn the lead case decided last week [Gregg V. Georgia, 44 LW 5230],\nthe Supreme Court held that a statutory scheme similar to that advanced\nby the ALI and applied to the offense of first-degree murder was con-\nsistent with the constitutional requirements announced in Furman. *\nThe Gregg case established the jury as the sentencing authority, but in\na companion case the Court also sustained a statute allowing for impo-\nsition by a judge under the same standards [Profitt V. Florida, 44\nLW 5256].\nA third case involved a state statutory scheme which made reference to\na series of aggravating circumstances but did not explicitly speak of\nmitigating circumstances. However, since the statute had been judicially\nconstrued to embrace the jury's consideration of such circumstances,\nits validity was also sustained [Jurek V. Texas, 44 LW 5262].\nTwo state capital punishment statutes were struck down by the Court.\nThese required a mandatory death penalty upon conviction of first-\ndegree murder and a range of other homicidal offenses without reference\nto any aggravating or mitigating circumstances. The Court concluded\nthat both were inconsistent with the requirements established by Furman.\n[Woodson V. North Carolina, 44 LW 5267 and Roberts V. Louisiana,\n44 LW 5281]\n*\nThe Georgia statute contained provision for the automatic appellate\nreview of death penalty cases. Although this does not appear to be\na constitutional necessity, it should be noted that the Justice Department\nmodel contains a similar provision. Additionally, both the Georgia\nstatute and the Justice Department bill required a bifurcated trial and\na criminal evidentiary standard, i. e., \"beyond a reasonable doubt\" at\nLIBRAR\nthe sentencing proceeding.\n- 5 -\nOptions\nThe Supreme Court's ruling is entirely consistent with your expressed\nviews on the matter of capital punishment. It also logically invites\nenactment of legislation (incorporating either the ALI or Justice\nDepartment model) to reinstate the death penalty as an available\nsanction on the Federal level. The question now posed is to what\nextent do you personally wish to become involved in an attempt to\nexpedite Congressional consideration of an appropriate legislative\nproposal? Two options arise:\n1. Merely have the Press Office issue a statement\nsupporting the Court's decision and calling for the\nenactment of appropriate legislation restoring the\ndeath penalty on the Federal level.\n2.\nSchedule a meeting with the Attorney General and\nCounsel's Office to review specific legislative\nproposals and to explore further your role in\nenacting an appropriate measure.\nApprove:\nOption 1\nOption 2\nFORD LIBRARY\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\n7/9- Copy atty. sent ber'l\nJuly 8, 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT\nFROM:\nPHILIP W. BUCHEN\nT.\nSUBJECT:\nCapital Punishment\nAs you know, the Supreme Court on July 2 decided five cases involving\nthe imposition of the death penalty. This is to present a brief back-\nground and analysis of these cases in the context of current Federal\nstatutory law and to offer two options relative to the issue of capital\npunishment which are available to you at this time.\nPresent Federal Statutes\nThe death penalty is presently specified as an authorized sentence upon\nconviction under at least ten sections of Federal law, including\noffenses proscribing murder, treason, rape, air piracy, and delivery\nof defense information to aid a foreign government: 18 U.S. C. 34\n(destruction of motor vehicles or motor vehicle facilities where death\nresults); 18 U.S. C. 351 (assassination or kidnapping of a Member of\nCongress); 18 U.S. C. 794 (gathering or delivering defense information\nto aid a foreign government); 18 U.S. C. 1111 (murder in the first\ndegree within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the\nUnited States); 18 U.S. C. 1716 (causing the death of another by mailing\ninjurious articles); 18 U.S.C. 1751 (Presidential and Vice Presidential\nmurder and kidnapping); 18 U.S. C. 2031 (rape within the special\nmaritime or territorial jurisdiction of the United States); 18 U.S. C.\n2381 (treason); and 49 U.S. C. 1472(i) (aircraft piracy).\nAs drafted, however, the death penalty provisions in these sections,\nexcept for the recently revised provision relating to aircraft piracy\nwhich is discussed below, are unconstitutional under the U. SteSupr eme\nCourt's decision in the case of Furman v. Georgia [408 U.S. 238 (1972)].\nThe Furman Case\nIn Furman, a five-justice majority of the Supreme Court held that the\nimposition and carrying out of the death penalty in the cases in question\nwould constitute \"cruel and unusual punishment\" in violation of the\nGERALD LIBRARY\n2 -\nEighth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court did not hold that\ncapital punishment per se is unconstitutional. Rather, they concluded\nthat the application of statutes leaving the imposition of the death\npenalty to the unfettered discretion of a judge or jury was\nconstitutionally infirm.\nReferring to the \"wanton and freakish imposition\" of the death\npenalty, which was noted with disfavor in the pivotal concurring\nopinions of Justices Stewart and White, the Chief Justice in his\ndissent noted:\n\"Since the Court's decision turns on the assumption\nthat the punishment of death is now meted out in a\nrandom and unpredictable manner, legislative bodies\nmay seek to bring their laws into compliance with\nthe Court's ruling by providing standards for juries\nand judges to follow in determining the sentence in\ncapital cases or by more narrowly defining the\ncrimes for which the penalty is to be imposed. If\nsuch standards can be devised or the crimes more\nmeticulously defined, the result cannot be\ndetrimental. \" (Emphasis added.) (at 396-401)\n*\nAs articulated in the Furman decision then, it appeared clear that\nthe objection of the Supreme Court to the death penalty as a punishment\nfor certain crimes went not to its nature but to the manner of its\nimposition.\nPost-Furman Legislative Initiatives\nIn the wake of the Furman decision, there developed three different\napproaches to the reinstatement of the death penalty: (1) mandatory\nimposition of the death penalty upon conviction of certain offenses;\n(2) establishment of exclusive and determinative criteria to be applied\nby the sentencing authority to determine whether the penalty is to be\nimposed; and (3) establishment of designated criteria to serve as a\nguideline for the discretionary imposition of the penalty.\nBy a literal reading of Furman, some argued that mandatory death\nwould be able to withstand the test of constitutionality by precluding\nGERALD\nLIBRARY\n3\nthe exercise of any discretion on the part of the sentencing authority\nand thereby eliminating the danger of \"wanton and freakish\" appli-\ncation. Such penalties would attach to the conviction of specified\noffenses, e.g., murder, and would preclude the consideration of\nany mitigating circumstances that might justify a lesser punishment\nin a particular case. This concept was embraced in legislation\nenacted in a number of states.\nThe second approach would allow for the imposition of the death penalty\nupon conviction of certain classes of heinous offenses, but only when\none or more of certain designated aggravating circumstances is found\nto exist (e. g., if the defendant were shown to be a hired killer) and\nnone of certain specified mitigating circumstances is found to exist\n(e. g., immaturity, duress, etc.). This concept was advanced by the\nDepartment of Justice and incorporated into Pub. L. 93-366, enacted\non August 5, 1974, which relates, however, only to murder incident\nto aircraft piracy [49 U.S. C. 1472 (n) (Supp. IV)]. Additionally, the\nDepartment supported the same concept in the context of a general\ncapital punishment measure which passed the Senate in 1974 (S. 1401,\n93d Cong. ) by a margin of over 3 to 2, but received no attention in the\nHouse. The same approach is included in the bill to recodify the\ntotality of Federal criminal law (S. 1, 94th Cong. ), but has not been\nintroduced as a separate measure in the current Congress.\nThe third approach to reinstatement of the death penalty involved the\nestablishment of criteria to serve as a guide in the discretionary\nimposition of the penalty. This was the course originally adopted before\nthe Furman opinion by the American Law Institute (ALI) in its Model\nPenal Code. Under this scheme even if several aggravating and no\nmitigating circumstances are found to exist, the death penalty need not\nbe imposed. This discretionary element distinguishes the ALI approach\nfrom the Justice Department concept.\nIn your speech before the Federal Bar Association in Miami, Florida,\non February 14, 1976, you stated:\n\"I favor the use of the death penalty in the Federal\ncriminal system in accordance with proper Constitu-\ntional standards. The death penalty should be imposed upon\nthe conviction of sabotage, murder, espionage and treason.\nOf course, the maximum penalty should not be applied if\nthere is duress or impaired mental capacity or similar\nis\nFORD\nCENALT\nLICHRRY\nextenuating circumstances. But in murders involving\nsubstantial danger to the national security, or when\nthe defendant is a coldblooded hired killer, the use of\ncapital punishment is fully justified. \"\nThus, you are on record in support of a limited reinstatement of the\ndeath penalty in accordance with the Supreme Court's teachings in\nFurman. More specifically, your statement is supportive of both the\nALI and Justice approaches.\nThe Gregg Case\nIn the lead case decided last week [Gregg V. Georgia, 44 LW 5230],\nthe Supreme Court held that a statutory scheme similar to that advanced\nby the ALI and applied to the offense of first-degree murder was con-\nsistent with the constitutional requirements announced in Furman. *\nThe Court expressly reserved judgment with respect to possible\napplication of the sanction to other crimes, e.g., rape and kidnapping.\nThe Gregg case established the jury as the sentencing authority, but in\na companion case the Court also sustained a statute allowing for\nimposition by a judge under the same standards [Profitt V. Florida,\n44 LW 5256].\nA third case involved a state statutory scheme which made reference to\na series of aggravating circumstances but did not explicitly speak of\nmitigating circumstances. However, since the statute had been judicially\nconstrued to embrace the jury's consideration of such circumstances,\nits validity was also sustained [Jurek V. Texas, 44 LW 5262].\nTwo state capital punishment statutes were struck down by the Court.\nThese required a mandatory death penalty upon conviction of first-\ndegree murder and a range of other homicidal offenses without reference\nto any aggravating or mitigating circumstances. The Court concluded\nthat both were inconsistent with the requirements established by* Furman.\n[Woodson V. North Carolina, 44 LW 5267 and Roberts V. Louisiana,\n44 LW 5281]\n*\nThe Georgia statute contained provision for the automatic appellate\nreview of death penalty cases. Although this does not appear to be\na constitutional necessity, it should be noted that the Justice Department\nmodel contains a similar provision. Additionally, both the Georgia\nstatute and the Justice Department bill required a bifurcated trial and\na criminal evidentiary standard, i. e., \"beyond a reasonable GERAD doubt'\nat the sentencing proceeding.\nLIBRARY\n- 5 -\nOptions\nThe Supreme Court's ruling is entirely consistent with your expressed\nviews on the matter of capital punishment. It also logically invites\nenactment of legislation (incorporating either the ALI or Justice\nDepartment model, both of which are constitutional under Gregg) to\nreinstate the death penalty as an available sanction on the Federal\nlevel. The question now posed is to what extent do you. personally\nwish to become involved in an attempt to expedite Congressional\nconsideration of an appropriate legislative proposal? Two options\narise:\n1. Direct the Attorney General to forward a bill to\nCongress incorporating the features of S. 1401 as\npassed by the Senate during the 93d Congress and\nto work with the key committees of Congress on a\npriority basis toward enactment. [Supported by the\nAttorney General and Counsel's Office. ]\n2. Schedule a meeting with the Attorney General and\nCounsel's Office to review specific legislative\nproposals and to explore further your role in\nenacting an appropriate measure.\nApprove:\nOption 1\nOption 2\nFORD\n9783\nLIBRARY\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nInstice\nWASHINGTON\nJuly 31, 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR\nTHE ATTORNEY GENERAL\nI have reviewed the attached 1970 memorandum by former\nSolicitor General Erwin Griswold on the death penalty cases\nwhich Doug Marvin sent to me. In Griswold's memorandum,\nhe indicated that in 1976 there were over 600 persons under\nsentence of death within the United States and that he was very\nconcerned about the spectre of several hundred executions\ntaking place within a short period of time.\nWhile Justice Powell's ruling stays executions pending a decision\non rehearing, it is possible that we eventually may be faced with\na large number of executions taking place within a short time\nframe. However, I disagree with Griswold's conclusion that\nthe Attorney General should emphasize the \"responsibility of the\nchief executives of the states to take account of the special\nsituation which is presented in the exercise of executive clemency.\"\nIt is my opinion that if and when all avenues of appeal to the\nSupreme Court have been finally concluded and rejected, the\ngovernors of the individual states should make decisions on\nexecutive clemency without public or private advice from the\nFederal government. Doug indicated to me in his memorandum\nthat you did not believe that Griswold's proposal was desirable.\nI thought you would want to know that I agree with your assessment.\nPhilip W. Buchen\nCounsel to the President\nFORD is GERALD LIBRARY\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nwashington\nSeptember 1, 1976\nFOR: PHIL BUCHEN\nJACK MARSH\nJIM CANNON\nRON NESSEN\nDICK PARSONS\nFROM: KEN LAZARUS\nFYI\nFORD is LIBRARY GERALD\nCrime\nGun Control in the District of Columbia\nBazeling\n7\nSome confusion has arisen regarding a series of events\nrelating to a gun control law recently enacted by the\nCouncil of the District of Columbia and approved by the\nMayor. Hopefully, this will serve to clarify the series\nof events which may be outlined as follows:\nAct.1-142, approved by Mayor Washington on\nJuly 23, 1976, would prohibit the possession\nof a handgun by any person within the District\nof Columbia on and after its effective date,\nexcept for police officers, special officers,\nor persons owning handguns which had been\nproperly registered under the old law.\nAct. 1-142 was grounded upon the authority of\nthe District\n\"\nto make and modify\n...\nand enforce / certain7 usual and reasonable\npolice regulations \" /D. C. Code, Sec.\n1-2247. Congress amplified this grant of\nauthority in D. C. Code, Sec. 1-227 which\nprovides that\nthe District\nis\nauthorized and empowered to make\n...\nreasonable police regulations\nas the\n/D. c.7 Council may deem necessary for the\nregulation of firearms, projectiles,\nexplosives, or weapons of any kind\".\n(Emphasis added)\nOn August 27, Congress forwarded to the\nPresident, H.R. 12261 which would postpone\nfor two years more the authority to be\ndelegated to the D. C. government by Section\n602 (a) (9) of Pub. L. 93-198 /the so-called\n\"Home Rule Act\"7. Section 602 (a) (9) authorizes\nthe D. C. government to enact amendments to\ntitle 22 or 24 of the D. C. Code /relating to\ncrimes and treatment of prisoners/after\nJanuary 3, 1977.\nH.R. 12261 also contains the so-called \"Dent\nAmendment\" /after Rep. John Dent (D.-Pa.)7\nwhich purports to disapprove of Act.1-142 and\nthus make the local gun control law a nullity.\nHowever, under Section 602 (e) (1) of the \"Home\nRule Act\", the exclusive method of disapproving\nan enactment of the D. C. government is by\n\"concurrent resolution\" within a period of\n30 legislative days after final D. C. action.\nTherefore, the so-called \"Dent Amendment\"\nitself would appear to be a nullity.\nOn September 1, the House is scheduled to take\nup H. Con. Res. 694 to disapprove of Act. 1-142.\nUnder the \"Home Rule Act\", this concurrent\nresolution would also require the approval of\nthe Senate but would not come to the President\nfor his signature.\nThe President has not, to date, expressed\nhimself on any of the particulars discussed herein.\nSince H. Con. Res. would not require Presidential approval,\nthere is simply no gun control issue currently under review at\nthe White House. September 7 is the last day for action on\nH.R. 12261.\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nACTION MEMORANDUM\nWASHINGTON\nLOG NO.:\nDate: December 7, 1976\nTime:\nFOR ACTION:\nCC (for information):\nPhil Buchen\nJack Marsh\nFROM THE STAFF SECRETARY\nDUE: Date:\nTime:\nTuesday, December 7, 1976\n2:00 P.M.\nSUBJECT:\nJim Cannon memo, 12/6/76 re\n60 Minutes on the Victims of Crime\nACTION REQUESTED:\nFor Necessary Action\nX For Your Recommendations\nPrepare Agenda and Brief\nDraft Reply\nX For Your Comments\nDraft Remarks\nREMARKS:\nSuggest Attorney General be asked to contact\n60 Minutes, since the erroneous remark relates\nto the Department of Justice.\nP.W.B.\nPhilip W. Buchen\nCounsel to the President\nFORD is LIBRARY 07V870\nPLEASE ATTACH THIS COPY TO MATERIAL SUBMITTED.\nJim Connor\nIf you have any questions or if you anticipate a\nFor the President\ndelay in submitting the required material, please\ntelephone the Staff Secretary immediately.\nINFORMATION\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nDecember 6, 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT\nFROM:\nJIM CANNON\nIm\nSUBJECT:\n60 Minute. on the Victims of Crime\nAs you requested, I looked into the report on the 60 Minutes\ntelevision show on the victims of crime. Morley Scafer's\nquote at the very end of the show was: \"The chief opposi-\ntion came from the Justice Department on financial grounds\"\n(script at Tab A).\nIn your proposal to the Congress, you advocated a Federal\nVictims Compensation Program for the victims of federal\ncrimes. The first year cost was estimated at about $7.5\nmillion.\nHowever, the Senate passed a bill which:\n(a) established a Federal Victims Crime Program, such\nas you advocated; and\n(b) authorized states to utilize LEAA bloc grant\nmonies to fund state victims compensation programs\non a 90% (federal)/10% (state) basis.\nLEAA Administrator Velde testified in favor of your program.\nHowever, he testified against federal funding of state and\nlocal victims compensation programs, the beginning cost of\nwhich would have been about $20 million annually.\nI recommend that someone on your behalf make the point to 60\nMinutes that you supported the principle of compensating\nvictims and proposed specific federal funds for it.\nWe could ask Attorney General Levi to do this or I could do\nit for you.\nFORD\nAsk Attorney General Levi to contact 60 Minutes\nCannon to contact 60 Minutes\nGERA\nLIBRARY\nDiscuss\n\"VICTIMS\"\nOPEN\nSAFER:\nWe don't have to remind you that this country is in the\nmiddle of a wave of violent crime -- all the statistics do\nis reconfirm what we know, only too well.\nWith this nightly news of muggings, hold-ups, rapes and mur-\nders, more and more attention has been focused on reforming\nprisons\non rehabilitation of violent offenders. In a\nsense, criminals have been cast as a deprived and under-\nprivileged minority.\nAll this attention has tended to cast into the shadows\nanother group of Americans who are closely related to\ncriminals and crime. The victims. They make very few\ndemands -- very little noise. Often they are too hurt --\nemotionally and physically to speak out for their rights.\nIt's something worth thinking about\nbecause one thing all\nof us share is\nthe chance to become the victim of a crime,\nany time, any place.\nFor example, a shopping center in the suburbs of Minneapolis.\nFORD : LIBRARY\n- 1 -\n60 MINUTES\n\"VICTIMS\"\nVOL. IX, No. 11\nFINAL CUT\n12/5/76\nSAFER:\nIN NOVEMBER, 1974, THIS WAS A BASEMENT RECORD\nSHOP, THE KIND OF PLACE THAT YOUNG PEOPLE\nHANG OUT IN. ONE SATURDAY NIGHT THERE\nWERE FOUR PEOPLE DOWN HERE, A YOUNG WOMAN,\nA CLERK, AND THREE YOUNG MEN,\nONE OF THE MEN AFTER BROWSING AROUND LEFT,\nWENT ACROSS THE STREET, BOUGHT HIMSELF A HAMBI\nBROUGHT IT BACK HERE, SAT DOWN ON THE TOP\nSTEP AND ATE IT. WHEN HE WAS FINISHED HE\nPULLED OUT A GUN AND A MACHETE. WALKED\nBACK DOWN HERE SHOT ONE OF THE YOUNG MEN,\nKILLED HIM INSTANTLY; SHOT THE OTHER FOUR TIMI\nAND CRIPPLED HIM FOR LIFE, AND THEN HE CHASED\nTHE CLERK, THE YOUNG WOMAN, BACK HERE, BACK\nINTO THIS BACK ROOM\nHE SHOT HER FOUR TIMES\nWHAT WERE THE PERMANENT INJURIES?\nGERALD FORD LIBRARY\n- 2 -\nJENNY RANDELL:\nWELL, MY ARM'S PARALYZED,\nSAFER:\nIT'S YOUR LEFT ARM?\nJENNY RANDELL:\nYEAH. AND MY VOICE, IT USED TO BE A LOT\nWORSE THAN IT IS NOW.\nSAFER:\nWHAT HAPPENED?\nJENNY RANDELL:\nHIT ONE OF THE VOCAL CORDS, GOT SEVERED.\nAND I DON'T KNOW ALL THE SCARS I GOT, You\nKNOW, ....\nKEVIN FINNEMAN:\nHE COME BACK AFTER ME BECAUSE HE'D SEEN ME\nUP AND HE STUCK THE GUN UP TOWARDS MY HEAD\nAND I DUCKED A SHOT. LANDED ON MY STOMACH.\nAND HE STUCK ONE --STUCK THE GUN UP TO MY BAC\nAND SHOT ME SQUARE IN THE SPINAL CORD, WHICH\nPARALYZED ME.\nSAFER:\nTwo PEOPLE SCARRED HORRIBLY FOR LIFE, ONE\nYOUNG MAN DEAD, AND AS IN MOST CASES LIKE\nTHIS ONE, A KILLER STILL ON THE LOOSE.\nIDRARY\n- 3 -\nSAFER: ( CONTINUED)\nIN THE UNLIKELY EVENT THAT HE IS CAUGHT,\nTHE STATE WILL BEND EVERY EFFORT TO CURE HIM,\nTO MAKE HIM A BETTER MAN. BUT WHAT ABOUT\nTHE VICTIMS?\nKEVIN FINNEMAN, FOR EXAMPLE, HE WILL NEVER\nWALK AGAIN\nKEVIN IS A STRONG, DETERMINED TO BE INDEPENDENT\nYOUNG MAN. HIS NEIGHBORS HELD A DANCE TO\nRAISE MONEY FOR THIS ESPECIALLY EQUIPPED VAN.\nHE'S STUDYING MECHANICAL DRAFTING. AND IF\nYOU CAN BELIEVE IT, KEVIN IS LUCKY. HE\nLIVES IN MINNESOTA, ONE OF SIXTEEN STATES\nTHAT PROVIDES SOME COMPENSATION TO VICTIMS\nOF CRIMES. THE COMPENSATION BOARD GAVE\nHIM THE MAXIMUM, TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS TO\nCOVER MEDICAL BILLS, REHABILITATION AND THE\nLOSS OF HIS LEGS FOREVER. IT IS PAID IN\nMONTHLY INSTALLMENTS. LAST MONTH IT RAN\nOUT.\nKEVIN FINNEMAN, AGE TWENTY-ONE, IS\nPAID IN FULL.\nFORD is LIBRARY DERALL\n- 4 -\nSAFER:\nNEW YORK STATE TOO, HAS A VICTIM COMPENSATION\nBOARD. IT HEARS APPEALS, AND LIKE MOST BC\nIT AMOUNTS TO A VICTIM'S COURT. IN ORDER\nTO COLLECT REPARATIONS, THE VICTIM MUST\nPROVE HIS INNOCENCE, MUST PROVE HE OR SHE\nHAS NOT CONTRIBUTED TO THE CRIME. AND MOST\nSTATES VIEW COMPENSATION AS A FORM OF CHARITY\nRATHER THAN A RIGHT, FORCING THE VICTIM TO\nDEMONSTRATE FINANCIAL NEED. IF THE VICTIM\nALREADY HAS INSURANCE AND MEDICAL COVERAGE\nAND WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION, HE COLLECTS\nVIRTUALLY NOTHING, AND JUST LISTEN TO THE\nRESULTING STATISTICS\nONLY FOUR OF A HUNDRED VICTIMS ARE ELIGIBLE.\nAND ONLY A FIFTH OF THEM, FEWER THAN ONE PERS\nIN A HUNDRED, MAKE APPLICATION. THEY EITHER\nDO NOT KNOW ABOUT COMPENSATION OR DO NOT\nWANT THEIR LIVES INVESTIGATED,\nJENNY, THE CLERK AT THE MINNEAPOLIS RECORD\nSTORE, RECEIVED ONLY NINE HUNDRED DOLLARS\nFROM THE MINNESOTA BOARD, THAT'S BECAUSE\nJENNY WAS ELIGIBLE FOR WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION\nDRD LIORAPY\n- 5 -\nSAFER: (CONTINUED)\nBUT FINANCIAL PROBLEMS ARE NOT THE ONLY\nPROBLEMS THAT VICTIMS HAVE. JENNY WAS\nAN EXPERT WATER SKIER. Now SHE FINDS IT\nDIFFICULT TO WALK. HER SENSE OF BALANCE\nHAS BEEN IMPAIRED. AT TWENTY-ONE, JENNY RAN\nMUST TRY TO BUILD A NEW LIFE OUT OF A BROKEN\nBODY.\nWAS THERE ANY OTHER STATE AID OR STATE\nPROGRAM TO HELP YOU, TO REHABILITATE YOU?\nJENNY RANDELL:\nNo. THERE WASN'T.\nSAFER:\nNo PROGRAM TO TEACH YOU A JOB OR A TRADE OR\nEDUCATE YOU?\nJENNY RANDELL:\nNOTHING SPECIAL, NO.\nTHEY HAVE THE\nVO-TECH SCHOOLS, BUT THAT'S FOR EVERYONE.\nTHEY DON'T HAVE IT JUST FOR VICTIMS OF\nCRIME,\nSAFER:\nWHAT ABOUT ANY PHYSIOTHERAPY, THAT KIND OF\nTHING?\nJENNY RANDELL:\nLIBRARY\nNo.\n- 6 -\nSAFER:\nTo GET YOU OVER YOUR CURRENT PROBLEMS?\nJENNY RANDELL:\nNo, THERE'S NOTHING,\nSAFER:\nARE YOU BITTER IN ANY WAY JENNY, THAT\nI SUPPOSE YOU COULD GO INTO ANY PRISON IN THE\nCOUNTRY AND SEE FANTASTIC TECHNICAL SCHOOLS,\nTRADE SCHOOLS AND ALL KINDS OF METHODS BEING\nUSED TO \"REHABILITATE\" PEOPLE,\nJENNY RANDELL:\nYES, I AM.\nSAFER:\nAND YET, FOR YOU, AS A VICTIM, NOTHING?\nJENNY RANDELL:\nYEAH, THAT BOTHERS ME QUITE A BIT, THEY'RE\nTRYING TO HELP THEM SO MUCH, BUT THEY ---\nYOU KNOW, THEY DON'T REALLY DO: ANYTHING FOR\nANYBODY ELSE, You KNOW. THEY PAY MORE\nATTENTION TO THEM, THEY'RE MORE WORRIED ABOUT\nTHEM.\nJIM FOGARTY:\nTHERE STANDS THE VICTIM OUT IN THE STREET,\nBADLY BEATEN OR RENDERED DESTITUTE\nOR INGAPAC\nTATED EMOTIONALLY OR PHYSICALLY IN SORAL SOME WAY. HBRY\n- 7 -\nFOGARTY: (CONTINUED)\nNo ATTENTION HAD BEEN PAID TO THE VICTIM.\nAND I THINK ANYONE WHO HAS EVEN THAT AMOUNT\nOF HUMAN NATURE IN THEM CERTAINLY WOULD FEEL\nTHAT THAT REQUIRES SOME KIND OF ATTENTION\nPROMPTLY,\nSAFER:\nJIM FOGARTY IS THE SENIOR VICTIM ADVOCATE\nIN THE FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA, POLICE\nDEPARTMENT.\nIT'S ONE OF THE FEW SUCH\nPROGRAMS IN THE COUNTRY, HE'S A ONE-MAN\nBAND TRYING TO GIVE LEGAL ADVICE, DO SOCIAL\nWORK AND BE, GENERALLY, A HELPING HAND\nTO\nVICTIMS, IT'S A PITIFULLY SMALL, PITIFULL\nBUDGETED OPERATION, YET, HE IS A GREAT\nHELP TO THOSE VICTIMS HE GIVES COUNSEL TO\nVICTIMS LIKE RUTH PITT, WHOSE MISFORTUNE IT\nVIAS TO STOP INTO A TAVERN OWNED BY SOME FRIEND\nA ROBBERY TOOK PLACE AND SHE WAS STRUCK IN THE\nFACE BY A RICOCHETING BULLET.\nRUTH PITT:\nWHEN I WAS IN THE BAR AND THE MAN CAME IN\nAND SHOT, THE ONE BULLET BOUNCED OFF THE BAR,\nHIT MY CHEEK, CUTTING ALL THE NERVES ON THE\nFORD i LIBRARY GERALD\nSIDE OF MY FACE\nWENT THROUGH MY EAR WHICH\n- 8 -\nRUTH PITT: (CONTINUED)\nHAS MADE ME STONE DEAF IN THE ONE EAR AND\nLODGED AT THE BASE OF MY SKULL.\nJIM FOGARTY:\nCON PHONE) JIM FOGARTY, VICTIM ADVOCATE OFFIC\nOF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT\nSAFER:\nRUTH PITT WAS DESTITUTE AND WOULD HAVE REMAIN\nso HAD JIM FOGARTY NOT STEPPED IN AND CUT\nTHROUGH THE RED TAPE, AND FOUGHT THREE APPEAL\nBEFORE HE WON FOR HER, A SOCIAL SECURITY\nDISABILITY PENSION OF TWO HUNDRED AND TWENTY\nDOLLARS A MONTH,\nRUTH PITT:\nI FOUGHT SOCIAL SECURITY BY MYSELF BY GOING\nDOWN THERE AND BEING HASSLED, THE FOOD STAMPS\nWAS THE SAME WAY, I WAS HASSLED AND --- AND\nso\nAND I WAS READY TO GIVE UP, I REALLY WA\nNo ONE HAS ANY IDEA OF WHAT IT'S LIKE UNTIL\nYOU GO THROUGH IT.\nSAFER:\nTHERE ARE SOME FEDERAL FUNDS DESIGNED TO HELP\nVICTIMS, MONEY THAT COMES' FROM LEAA, THE\nFORD\npig\nLAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE ADMINISTRATION.\nLIBRARY\nBUT THAT MONEY CANNOT GO DIRECTLY TO VICTIMS.\n- 9 -\nSAFER: (CONTINUED)\nIT GOES INTO SUCH THINGS AS COURTHOUSE AMENITI\nLOUNGES FOR WITNESSES, PEOPLE TO HELP WITNESSE\nTHROUGH THE LAW'S DELAYS.\nBUT EVEN THIS INDIRECT HELP IS MINISCULE,\nONLY SIX MILLION DOLLARS FOR THE ENTIRE COUNTR\nAND WHILE ALL CRIMES PRODUCE VICTIMS, FEW\nCRIMES RESULT IN PROSECUTION, ONLY ABOUT\nONE IN TEN, WHEN THERE IS A REAL LIVE CRIMIN\nOUR JUSTICE SYSTEM IS DESIGNED TO ENSURE\nTHAT HIS RIGHTS ARE PROTECTED. AND ONCE A\nPROSECUTION IS MADE, OUR PENAL SYSTEM SPENDS\nBILLIONS TO EDUCATE, REHABILITATE OR SIMPLY\nOCCUPY THE TIME OF THE GUILTY,\nBUT ONCE A CASE IS CLOSED, WE RARELY HEAR.\nANYMORE ABOUT THE CRIMINAL AND HIS VICTIM,\nWE DECIDED TO FOLLOW UP ON ONE CRIME, TO LOOK\nINTO THE LIVES OF BOTH MEN.\nTHIS MAN, JAIME FIGUEROA, WAS SENTENCED TO\nTEN YEARS IN A NEW YORK STATE MEDIUM SECURITY\nPRISON. Two YEARS AGO, FIGUEROA AND A FRIEND\nBERALD FORD LIBRARY\nGOT A GUN AND HELD UP THIS MAN IN A NEW DRD YORK\nLIBRARY\n- 10 -\nSAFER: (CONTINUED)\nSUBWAY, HIS NAME IS SYLVESTER DAVIS,\nAGE THIRTY-NINE, SHOT IN THE HEAD AT CLOSE\nRANGE RESULTING IN BLINDNESS AND SOME BRAIN\nDAMAGE. HE WAS A WELL-PAID CONSTRUCTION\nWORKER, NOW HE VEGETATES, HE DID GET VICTIM\nCOMPENSATION. HIs WIFE DISCOVERED HE COULD\nALMOST BY ACCIDENT BECAUSE SHE WORKED FOR\nAN ANSWERING SERVICE THAT WORKED FOR A LAWYER\nWHO LED THE DAVIS' THROUGH THE PAPERWORK\nJUNGLE. HIS BENEFITS RUN TO JUST OVER FIVE\nHUNDRED DOLLARS A MONTH, As A WORKING MAN\nHE BROUGHT HOME NEAR A THOUSAND.\nMR. DAVIS:\nSo I WENT DOWN IN THE SUBWAY STATION, PUT MY\nTOLL IN THE SLOT, WALKED ON IN,\nMR. FIGUEROA:\nWE WENT TO THE TRAIN STATION. WE WAS ACTUALLY\nGOING TO TAKE OFF A PIMP, A SO-CALLED PIMP,\nSAFER:\nYou WERE GOING TO ROB A PIMP?\nMR. FIGUEROA:\nFORD\nYEAH, BECAUSE WE KNEW HE HAD MONEY THE WAY\nLIBRARY\nHE WAS DRESSING, HAD A LOT OF WHITE COAT\nBUT IT so HAPPENED THAT THIS MAN GOT IN THE\n- 11 -\nFIGUEROA: (CONTINUED)\nWAY.\nDAVIS:\nHE GRABBED ME FROM BEHIND. AND I TWIST, AND\nI TURNED, so I GOT A LOOSE FROM HIM.\nAND JUST AS QUICK AS I'D GOTTEN A LOOSE\nFROM HIM AND I LOOKED AT HIM AND THE OTHER\nGUY SAID, \"SHOOT, SHOOT.\"\nFIGUEROA:\nWE DIDN'T WANT TO SHOOT. WE TOLD HIM.\nBUT HE KEPT COMING AT US, YOU KNOW, HE JUST\nWANTED TO GET US, YOU KNOW, HE GOT TO THE\nSTATE WHERE IT WAS HIM OR US. THE WAY\nHE WAS FIGHTING, BECAUSE HE WAS BIGGER THAN\nUS.\nSAFER:\nBUT THERE WERE TWO OF YOU, HE WASN'T ARMED.\nFIGUEROA:\nRIGHT. THERE'S TWO OF US, WE'RE YOUNG, WE'RI\nIGNORANT, WE'RE SCARED, You KNOW, WE NEED,\nWE'RE HUNGRY\nYou KNOW, WE WANT TO GET\nMONEY TO EAT.\nDAVIS:\nI DIDN'T KNOW WHERE MORE MONEY WAS COMING FROM\n3 B. FORD LIBRACT\nso I HAD TO TRY AND WORK FOR IT. BUT I\n-12-\nDAVIS: (CONTINUED)\nWOULDN'T LET ANYBODY COME UP TO ME AND TAKE\nIT FROM ME,\nFIGUEROA:\nHE WANTED TO KILL US, THAT'S HOW IT SEEMS\nTO ME. So I SAID, \"IT's EITHER HIM OR ME.\"\nAND I DIDN'T WANT TO DIE SO YOUNG, I DIDN'T\nWANT TO GET HURT SO YOUNG,\nSAFER:\nBEFORE THIS HAPPENED WERE YOU A PRETTY STRONG\nFELLOW?\nDAVIS:\nVERY STRONG.\nMRS. DAVIS:\nTHEY HAVE TAKEN MY HUSBAND AWAY FROM ME IN\nEVERY WAY. LIKE I NEED HIM AND HE'S NOT\nTHERE,\nSAFER:\nSINCE YOU'VE BEEN OUT OF THE HOSPITAL, HAS\nANYONE -- HAS A THERAPIST COME AROUND,\nHAS A SOCIAL WORKER COME AROUND, HAS THE\nSTATE BEEN AROUND IN ANY WAY TO TRY AND ASK\n\"Do YOU NEED ANYTHING? CAN WE HELP YOU IN\nFORD LIBRAR\nANY WAY?\"\n-13-\nMRS. DAVIS:\nNO WAY. No, NOTHING.\nFIGUEROA:\nI WENT AND SPOKE TO MY COUNSELOR AND I\nTOLD HIM THAT I WANTED TO GO TO SCHOOL AND\nI WANTED TO HAVE A VOCATIONAL SHOP,\nBECAUSE I KNEW THAT IF I DIDN'T DO SOMETHING\nFOR MYSELF WHILE BEING IN HERE, WHEN I GO\nOUT THERE, YOU KNOW, I'M JUST GONNA FALL\nBACK INTO THESE CONDITIONS, AND WHEN I\nWENT TO THE SHOP --\nSAFER:\nYOU WENT TO SCHOOL FIRST, THOUGH, RIGHT?\nFIGUEROA:\nYEAH, SCHOOL AND SHOP\nSAFER:\nTHEY TRIED TO TEACH JAIME FIGUEROA A TRADE,\nWELDING, THE INSTRUCTOR SAYS HE SHOWED SOME\nAPTITUDE, BUT HE CHOSE TO DROP OUT. HAD HE\nCOMPLETED THE COURSE HE COULD EARN UP TO\nTWELVE DOLLARS AN HOUR WHEN HE'S RELEASED FROM\nSHALL FORD\nPRISON.\nTHERE ARE OTHER TRADES OPEN TO FIGUEROA, BUT\nNONE INTEREST HIM. THERE'S ALSO A HIGH\n-14-\nSAFER: (CONTINUED)\nSCHOOL WITHIN THE PRISON AND SOME COLLEGE\nDEGREE COURSES, FIGUEROA WENT TO SCHOOL\nBUT THEN DECIDED THAT HE WOULD DROP OUT. OF\nTHAT AS WELL, THE STATE GIVES HIM A CHOICE\nOF THE KIND OF WORK HE WILL DO IN PRISON\nAND HE CHOOSES THIS, 8 JANITOR WORK IN THE\nSCHOOL BUILDING, IT COSTS THE STATE\nFIFTEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS A YEAR TO KEEP\nJAIME FIGUEROA, BUT HE IS NOT IMPRESSED\nWITH THE FACILITIES,\nFIGUEROA:\nOKAY, THEY GAVE ME A PAIR OF PANTS TO WEAR,\nOKAY. BUT WHAT DO THEY GIVE ME TO REHABILIT\nME so THAT WHEN I GO OUT THERE I WON'T DO THE\nSAME THING?\nSAFER:\nTHEY TRIED TO TEACH YOU A TRADE,\nFIGUEROA:\nA TRADE? A TRADE, ANYBODY WITH A TRADE CAN\nGO OUT THERE AND COMMIT CRIMES AGAIN, BECAUSE\nYOU CAN USE THE TRADE TO COVER UP YOUR CRIMES\nSo WHAT'S A TRADE, A TRADE AIN'T NOTHING\nFORD LIBRARY\nIF THEY DON'T GIVE YOU SOMETHING FOR YOUR MIN\n- -15-\nSAFER:\nDOES IT BOTHER YOU THAT THOSE MEN INSIDE\nNOW, ARE BEING OFFERED OPPORTUNITY TO GO TO\nSCHOOL, OPPORTUNITY TO LEARN A TRADE?\nTHAT THE STATE IS PUTTING THAT KIND OF EFFORT\nINTO REHABILITATING, AS THEY CALL IT, THOSE\nMEN?\nMRS. DAVIS:\nI FEEL THAT IF THEY CAN DO IT FOR THEM\nTHEN THEY SHOULD DO IT FOR US. BECAUSE\nNUMBER ONE, WE WERE BOTH WORKING PEOPLE ALL\nOUR LIVES AND I WOULDN'T SAY THEY OWE US,\nYOU KNOW, ANYTHING, BUT AT LEAST THEY SHOULD\nIF THEY CAN OFFER THAT TO THEM, THEN, YOU\nKNOW, DO THE SAME TO SOMEONE THAT ARE\nUNPROTECTED.\nSAFER:\nDON'T YOU THINK THAT IT'S KIND OF UNFAIR THAT\nHERE YOU ARE IN HERE WITH THE STATE SPENDING\nA GREAT DEAL OF MONEY ON YOU WITH SCHOOLS, AND\nHOSPITALS AND A WARM PLACE TO SLEEP, AND ALL\nTHAT, AND THERE'S MR. DAVIS OUT THERE VIRTUALL\nBLIND, THE STATE'S DOING ALMOST NOTHING FOR HI\nRALE FORD LIBRARY\n-16-\nFIGUEROA:\nYOU SEE, IT'S NOT A POINT OF BEING FAIR OR\nNOT, OKAY, IF THE STATE PUT ME HERE so THAT\nI COULD SEE MY WRONG, So THAT WHEN I GO\nOUT THERE, THEN WON'T DO IT AGAIN\nTHEN IT'S FAIR FOR ME TO RECEIVE ALL THIS\nBECAUSE I KNOW WHAT I DONE WRONG AND I KNOW\nIT WAS WRONG, AND THERE'S NO WAY IN THE WORLD\nI COULD REPAY MY WRONG TO THAT PERSON BECAUSE\nHOW CAN I GIVE THAT MAN BACK HIS EYES, HIS\nEYESIGHT? I CAN'T DO THIS, I'M NOT GoD.\nONLY GOD COULD REPAY WHAT I'VE DONE WRONG,\nSAFER:\nTHE GOVERNMENT TAKES MUCH THE SAME ATTITUDE\nTO VICTIMS AS JAIME FIGUEROA, OF THE FIFTEEN\nBILLION DOLLARS SPENT EACH YEAR ON CRIMINAL\nJUSTICE, POLICE, COURTS, PRISONS AND REHABILI\nTATION PROGRAMS, LESS THAN ONE PERCENT GOES\nTO HELPING VICTIMS OF CRIMES,\nFORD\nLIBRARY\nCLOSE\nSAFER:\nA federal bill that would help states pay victims com-\npensation and promote more compensation boards failed\nonce again to clear the House of Representatives in the\nlast Congress. The chief opposition came from the Justice\nDepartment on financial grounds.\nis\nFORD\nLIBRARY\nForfiling\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nDecember 9, 1976\nADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nJIM CANNON\nFROM:\nJIM CONNOR JE be\nSUBJECT:\n60 Minutes on the Victims of Crime\nThe President reviewed your memorandum of December 6 on the\nabove subject and made the following decision:\n\"Ask Attorney General Levi to contact 60 Minutes\"\nPlease follow-up with appropriate action.\ncc: Dick Cheney\nPhil Buchen\nFORD is 07W839 LIBRARY"
}