Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "1534591",
    "label": "1975/06/13 - Crime Message Memorandum",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1534591"
}

{
    "id": "1534591",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1534591",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "1975/06/13 - Crime Message Memorandum",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1534591",
    "collections": [
        "James M. Cannon Files (Ford Administration)",
        "James Cannon's Meetings Files"
    ],
    "subjects": [
        "U.S. Congress. 1789-",
        "Crime",
        "Legislation",
        "Presidential messages"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635913/1534591.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635913/1534591.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635913/1534591.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1534591",
    "naId": 1534591,
    "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"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635913/1534591.pdf",
    "mediaId": "e281da16656e4eb0",
    "ocrText": "The original documents are located in Box 47, folder \"1975/06/13 - Crime Message\nMemorandum\" of the James M. Cannon 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 Gerald Ford donated to the United\nStates of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.\nWorks prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public\ndomain.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.\nDigitized from Box 47 of the James M. Cannon Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library\nJune 13, 1975\nMEMORANDUM TO THE PRESIDENT\nCRIME MESSAGE FROM JIM CANNON\nNow we have, in my judgment, a hard battle ahead of\nthe American people will support your enons\nus. But if you join with me, and we get the mayors and\nas we join with others.\nthe county officials to join with us, we can extend this pro-\nI think I understand the importance of State govern\ngram along the lines that I'm recommending. It's not\nment and some of the problems you face. And I can as\ngoing to be easy. You will have some people who will\nsure you that I and my Administration will do everythin;\nwant to change its character, reduce its money, put all\nwe can to be helpful. It's a mutual responsibility we hav\nkinds of limitations and strings on it. We cannot afford\nto our respective constituents, and if we work together\nto have that happen.\nwe can get the job done.\nThis program has justified itself. We had a hard time\nThank you very, very much.\ngetting it in the first instance, and we will probably have a\nNOTE: The President spoke at 2:08 p.m. in the East Room at th\ndifficult time in the months ahead for its extension. But\nWhite House to participants in a special leadership conference b\ning held in Washington, D.C., under the sponsorship of the N\non its merit, it can be justified. And I'm confident that\ntional Conference of State Legislatures.\nYALE UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL\nThe President's Remarks at the Sesquicentennial Convocation\nfrom\nDinner. April 25, 1975\nTwo\nThank you very much, President Brewster. Dean Goldstein, Governor\nwas\nGrasso, Justices Stewart and White, the Secretary of HUD, Carla Hills,\nyr\nthe Members of the House of Representatives with whom I served and\nothers who are now Members, but with whom I did not have that privi-\nlege and pleasure, good mayor, fellow alumni students, and guests of Yale\nLaw School:\nObviously, it's a very great privilege and pleasure to be here at the\nYale Law School Sesquicentennial Convocation. And I defy anyone to\nsay that and chew gum at the same time. [Laughter]\nEvery time I come back to Yale, I find myself almost overwhelmed\nby nostalgia. It's been SO long, and so much has happened since I first got\noff the train at the New Haven station in 1935.\nFor the first several years, I was an assistant football coach. But dur-\ning that period, I decided against a career in athletics and set my goal\nas a degree in law.\nAt that time, one of the entrance requirements to the Yale Law\nSchool was a personal interview with three distinguished members of the\nfaculty. In my case, one of them was Professor Myres McDougal, whom\nI'm delighted to see is with us tonight. It was wonderful to chat with you,\nMyres, before dinner.\nYou might be interested to know that Professor McDougal, in re-\nmarks given to the Yale Law School Association in Washington last\nyear, mentioned the fact that he still had his notes from that interview.\nHe said that under the appropriate headings there were entries like the\nfollowing: good looking, well-dressed, plenty of poise, personality-\nexcellent. Then, under another heading: informational background, not\ntoo good. [Laughter]\nWell, Professor McDougal doesn't know-or what he doesn't know is\nthat while he was keeping notes on me, I was keeping notes on him. And\nby coincidence, I just happen to have them with me here tonight. Under\nthe appropriate headings, I find entries like these: good looking, well-\ndressed, plenty of poise, personality-excellent. Then under another head-\ning: informational background about football, not so good. [Laughter]\nVolume 11-Number 17\n444\nPRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS: GERALD R. FORD, 1975\nAs I remember it, the only benchwarmer Professor McDougal took an in-\nterest in at that time was Oliver Wendell Holmes.\nI won't go into any more details about that interview. Suffice it to\nsay that Professor McDougal was extraordinarily impressed with my\ncapabilities and SO caught up with my capabilities and my vision of my\npotentialities that in a whirlwind of enthusiasm, he wrote: \"I see no rea-\nson why we should not take him.\" [Laughter]\nMy biggest problem at that time was convincing the school I could\ncontinue as a full-time assistant football coach and still carry on a full\nschedule in the law school. Fortunately, I was able to convince them, and\nI've always been very grateful for the help, the encouragement I consist-\nently received from such great educators as Gene Rostow, Thurman\nArnold, Jimmy James, Harry Shulman and, in particular, Myres\nMcDougal. And I thank you very much.\nMyres, all I can say is may your retirement provide you with the same\nriches of fulfillment and satisfaction your career has already brought to\nthe students of Yale. May God go with you.\nObviously, a lot has happened since I left Yale Law School in 1941.\nI practiced law. I joined the Navy. I was elected to Congress, became\nminority leader, Vice President, and now President. But no matter how\nfar I have traveled, something from Yale has always followed with me-\nand I'm not just referring to those letters from the Alumni Fund\n[laughter]-but something very special, something that adds to charac-\nter, something that clings to our character and, in time, something that\nbecomes our character.\nIt's rather hard to put feelings into words, but the motto of our school\nis, \"For God, for Country, and for Yale,\" and I think that says it all.\nThe 150th anniversary of this great law school, one of the outstand-\ning institutions of the world for the study of law, suggests better than I,\nthe subject for my remarks this evening. On May 1, we celebrate Law\nDay. Most of you in this audience have devoted your academic years and\na good part of your lives to the development and to the promulgation of\nthe law.\nToday, as President, I sense, and I think the American people sense\nthat we are facing a basic and a very serious problem of disregard for the\nlaw.\nand diseaser\nI would like to talk with you tonight about law and the spirit of abid-\nbo each other\ning by the law. I ask you to think along with me about the concern of so\nmany Americans about the problem of crime. And let us start with the\ngreat Preamble of our Constitution which seeks \"to insure domestic tran-\n11\nquility.\" Have we achieved on our streets and in our homes that sense of\ndomestic tranquility SO essential to the pursuit of happiness?\nWith the launching of our Bicentennial year, it has been argued that\nthe American Revolution was the most successful in history because the\nprinciples of the Revolution-liberty and equality under the Iaw-became\nthe functioning constitutional principles of our great Government.\nThe Founding Fathers governed well and governed prudently, with\nrestraint and respect for justice and law. There was no reign of terror, no\nrepression, no dictatorship. The institutions they have founded became\ndurable and effective. Because of all of this, we tend to think of them now\nas respectable and conservative. But the fact is that ours remains the great\nRevolution of modern history, and we should be proud of it.\nVolume 11-Number 17\nPRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS: GERALD R. FORD, 1975\n445\nA leading feature of the American Revolution was its devotion to\njustice under law. Once one gets past those two glorious opening para-\ngraphs, the Declaration of Independence reads very much like a legal\nbrief.\nThe argument was made that sound government and just laws had\nto be restored to the land. The theme was that independence was needed\nto restore a representative government of laws in order to secure liberty.\nOur revolutionary leaders heeded John Locke's teaching: \"Where\nthere is no law, there is no freedom.\" Law makes human society possible.\nIt pledges safety to every member so that the company of fellow human\nbeings can be a blessing instead of a threat. Where law exists and is re-\nspected and is fairly enforced, trust replaces fear.\nDo we provide that domestic tranquility which the Constitution\nseeks? If we take the crime rates as an indication, the answer has to be no.\nThe number of violent crimes rises steadily, and we have recently\nsuffered the national disgrace of lawbreaking in high places. Violent\ncrimes on our streets and in our homes make fear pervasive. They strike\nat the very roots of community life; they sever the bonds that link us as\nfellow citizens; they make citizens fear each other.\nCrime in high places, whether in the Federal Government, State gov-\nernment, local governments, or in business or in organized labor, sets an\nexample that makes it all the more difficult to foster a law-abiding spirit\namong ordinary citizens.\nAnd when we talk about obeying the law, we think of police and\ncourts and prisons and the whole apparatus of the law enforcement proc-\ness. But the truth is that most of us obey the law because we believe that\ncompliance is the right thing to do and not because the police may be\nwatching.\nAs far as law violations in high places are concerned, let me stress\nthis point: In the present Administration, I have made it a matter of the\nhighest priority to restore to the executive branch, decency, honesty, and\nadherence to the law at all levels. This has been done, and it will be con-\ntinued.\nI urge the same effort and the same dedication in State governments,\nwhere recently there have been too many scandals. I urge the same stand-\nards in local governments, also in industry and in labor. There is no way\nto inculcate in society the spirit of law if society's leaders are not scrupu-\nlously law-abiding.\nWe have seen how lawbreaking by officials can be stopped by the\nproper functioning of our basic institutions-executive, legislative, and\njudicial branches. But America has been far from successful in dealing\nwith the sort of crime that obsesses America day and night. I mean\nstreet crime, crime that invades our neighborhoods and our homes-mur-\nders, robberies, rapes, muggings, holdups, break-ins-the kind of brutal\nviolence that makes us fearful of strangers and afraid to go out at night.\nIn thinking about this problem, I do not seek vindictive punishment\nof the criminal, but protection of the innocent victim. The victims are\nmy primary concern. That is why I do not talk about law and order, and\nwhy I return to the constitutional phrase-insuring domestic tranquility.\nThe overwhelming majority of Americans obey the law willingly and\nwithout coercion, but even the most law-abiding among us are still hu-\nVolume 11-Number 17\n446\nPRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS: GERALD R. FORD, 1975\nman. And so it makes ordinary commonsense that we promulgate rules\nand that there be enforcement of the rules to buttress the normal inclina-\ntion of most people to obey the rules. As James Madison asked in The\nFederalist, and I quote, \"But what is government itself but the greatest\nof all reflections on human nature? If men were angels,\" said Madison,\n\"no government would be necessary.\"\nSince men and women are not angels, we must have the apparatus\nof law enforcement. Those who prey on others, especially by violence, are\nvery, very few in number. A very small percentage of the whole popula-\ntion accounts for a very large proportion of the vicious crimes committed.\nFor example, in one study of nearly 10,000 males born in 1945, it was\nfound that only 6 percent of them accounted for two-thirds of all of the\nviolent crimes committed by the entire group.\nMost serious crimes are committed by repeaters. These relatively few,\npersistent criminals who cause so much misery and fear are really the core\nof the problem. The rest of the American people have a right to protec-\ntion from their violence.\nMost of the victims of violent crime are the poor, the old, the young,\nthe disadvantaged minorities, the people who live in the most crowded\nparts of our cities, the most defenseless. These victims have a valid claim\non the rest of society for the protection and the personal safety that they\ncannot provide for themselves-in short, for domestic tranquility.\nHardly a day passes when some politician does not call for a massive\ncrackdown on crime, but the problem is infinitely more complex than that.\nSuch an approach has not proven effective in the long haul; it is not the\nAmerican style. We need a precise and effective solution.\nOne problem is that our busiest courts are overloaded. They're so\noverloaded that very few cases are actually tried. One study showed that\nin a county in Wisconsin, only 6 percent of the convictions resulted from\ncases which came to trial. According to another study, over a 3-year period\nin Manhattan, only about 3 percent of the persons indicted were convicted\nafter trial.\nI think this audience knows the explanation. It is plea bargaining—\nin many cases, plea bargaining required by the ever-growing pressure of\nan increased caseload. The popular notion that trial follows arrest is a\nmisconception in a vast majority of cases, and this audience will also be\nquick to guess one of the basic reasons.\nThe increase in arrests has been much more rapid than the increase\nin the number of judges, prosecutors, and public defenders. The most ob-\nvious response to this imbalance has been to accept pleas of guilt in return\nfor short prison terms or sentences, or no sentences at all.\nAccording to a recent authoritative report, half of the persons con-\nvicted of felonies in New York received no detention whatsoever. And of\nthe other half, only one-fifth were sentenced to more than one year of im-\nprisonment. Imprisonment, thus, too seldom follows conviction for a\nfelony.\nIn the sixties, crime rates went higher and higher, but the number\nof persons in prisons, State and Federal, actually went down. A Rand\nCorporation report of one major jurisdiction showed that of all convicted\nrobbers with a major, prior record, only 27 percent were sent to prison\nafter conviction.\nVolume 11-Number 17\nPRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS: GERALD R. FORD, 1975\n447\nNotice, please, that I'm speaking only of convicted felons. I am not\nchastising our system for determining guilt or innocence. I am urging that\nvirtually all of those convicted of a violent crime should be sent to prison.\nAnd this should be done especially if a gun was involved or there was other\nsubstantial danger or injury to a person or persons. There certainly should\nbe imprisonment if the convicted person has a prior record of convictions.\nMost serious offenders are repeaters. We owe it to their victims-\npast, present, and future-to get them off the streets. This is just everyday\ncommonsense, as I see it. The crime rate will go down if persons who ha-\nbitually commit most of the predatory crimes are kept in prison for a rea-\nsonable period, if convicted, because they will then not be free to commit\nmore crimes.\nConvicts should be treated humanely in prison. Loss of liberty should\nbe the chief punishment. Improvement in the treatment of, and facilities\nfor prisoners is long overdue. But it is essential that there be less delay in\nbringing arrested persons to trial, less plea bargaining, and more court-\nroom determination of guilt or innocence, and that all-or practically\nall-of those actually convicted of predatory CI ime be sent to prison.\nIn many other areas, it is the responsibility of the Federal Govern-\nment to augment the enforcement efforts of the States when it becomes\nnecessary.\nWhat else can we do? The Federal Code can be modified to make\nmore sentences mandatory and, therefore, punishment more certain for\nthose convicted of violent crimes.\nWhat can the White House do about this? The Federal role is limited,\nbecause most violent crimes are matters for State and local authorities.\nFurther, the creation of criminal sanctions and their interpretation are\nthe concerns of the legislative and judicial branches as well as the execu-\ntive branch.\nThe principal role of the Federal Government in the area of crime\ncontrol has centered in providing financial and technical assistance to the\nseveral States. However, while we are all aware that the actual control\nof crime in this country is a matter primarily of State responsibility\nunder the Constitution, there are several areas in which it is the chief\nresponsibility of the Federal Government.\nWe can provide leadership in making funds available to add judges,\nprosecutors, and public defenders to the Federal system. This Federal\nmodel should encourage States to adopt similar priorities for the use of\ntheir own funds and those provided by the Law Enforcement Assistance\nAdministration.\nWe can encourage better use of existing prison facilities to minimize\ndetention of persons convicted of minor crimes, thus making more room\nfor the convicted felons to be imprisoned. There are a number of esti-\nmates of how much the crime rate would be reduced if all convicted crim-\ninals with major records were sent to prison instead of being set free after\nconviction, as too many are today.\nAlthough we might expect the certainty of a prison sentence to serve\nas a deterrent, let us remember that one obvious effect of prison is to sep-\narate lawbreakers from the law-abiding society. In totalitarian states, it's\neasier to assure law and order. Dictators eliminate freedom of move-\nVolume 11-Number 17\n448\nPRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS: GERALD R. FORD, 1975\nment, of speech, and of choice. They control the news media and the edu-\ncational system. They conscript the entire society, and deprive people of\nbasic civil liberties. By such methods, crime can be strictly controlled.\nBut, in effect, the entire society becomes one huge prison. This is not a\nchoice we are willing to consider.\nEdmund Burke commented appropriately in his Reflections on the\nFrench Revolution. Burke said, and I quote, \"To make a government\nrequires no great prudence. Settle the seat of power, teach obedience, and\nthe work is done. To give freedom is still more easy. It is not necessary to\nguide; it only requires to let go the rein. But to form a free government,\nthat is, to temper together these opposite elements of liberty and re-\nstraint in one consistent work, requires much thought, deep reflection, a\nsagacious, powerful, and combining mind.\"\nSince these words were written, the world has changed profoundly.\nBut the old question still remains: Can a free people restrain crime with-\nout sacrificing fundamental liberties and a heritage of compassion?\nI am confident of the American answer. Let it become a vital element\non America's new agenda. Let us show that we can temper together those\nopposite elements of liberty and restraint into one consistent whole.\nLet us set an example for the world of a law-abiding America glory-\ning in its freedom as well as its respect for law. Let us, at last, fufill the\nconstitutional promise of domestic tranquility for all of our law-abiding\ncitizens.\nThank you very much.\nNOTE: The President spoke at 9:57 p.m. in Woolsey Hall at the Yale University Law\nSchool, New Haven, Conn.\nNow we have, in my judgment, a hard battle ahead of\nthe American people will support your enons\nas. But if you join with me, and we get the mayors and\nas we join with others.\nthe county officials to join with us, we can extend this pro-\nI think I understand the importance of State govern\ngram along the lines that I'm recommending. It's not\nment and some of the problems you face. And I can a\ngoing to be easy. You will have some people who will\nsure you that I and my Administration will do everythin\nwant to change its character, reduce its money, put all\nwe can to be helpful. It's a mutual responsibility we hav\nkinds of limitations and strings on it. We cannot afford\nto our respective constituents, and if we work togethe\nto have that happen.\nwe can get the job done.\nThis program has justified itself. We had a hard time\nThank you very, very much.\ngetting it in the first instance, and we will probably have a\nNOTE: The President spoke at 2:08 p.m. in the East Room at t\ndifficult time in the months ahead for its extension. But\nWhite House to participants in a special leadership conference 1\ning held in Washington, D.C., under the sponsorship of the N\non its merit, it can be justified. And I'm confident that\ntional Conference of State Legislatures.\nYALE UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL\nThe President's Remarks at the Sesquicentennial Convocation\nDinner. April 25, 1975\nThank you very much, President Brewster. Dean Goldstein, Governor\nGrasso, Justices Stewart and White, the Secretary of HUD, Carla Hills,\nthe Members of the House of Representatives with whom I served and\nothers who are now Members, but with whom I did not have that privi-\nlege and pleasure, good mayor, fellow alumni students, and guests of Yale\nLaw School:\nObviously, it's a very great privilege and pleasure to be here at the\nYale Law School Sesquicentennial Convocation. And I defy anyone to\nsay that and chew gum at the same time. [Laughter]\nEvery time I come back to Yale, I find myself almost overwhelmed\nby nostalgia. It's been so long, and so much has happened since I first got\noff the train at the New Haven station in 1935.\nFor the first several years, I was an assistant football coach. But dur-\ning that period, I decided against a career in athletics and set my goal\nas a degree in law.\nAt that time, one of the entrance requirements to the Yale Law\nSchool was a personal interview with three distinguished members of the\nfaculty. In my case, one of them was Professor Myres McDougal, whom\nI'm delighted to see is with us tonight. It was wonderful to chat with you,\nMyres, before dinner.\nYou might be interested to know that Professor McDougal, in re-\nmarks given to the Yale Law School Association in Washington last\nyear, mentioned the fact that he still had his notes from that interview.\nHe said that under the appropriate headings there were entries like the\nfollowing: good looking, well-dressed, plenty of poise, personality-\nexcellent. Then, under another heading: informational background, not\ntoo good. [Laughter]\nWell, Professor McDougal doesn't know-or what he doesn't know is\nthat while he was keeping notes on me, I was keeping notes on him. And\nby coincidence, I just happen to have them with me here tonight. Under\nthe appropriate headings, I find entries like these: good looking, well-\ndressed, plenty of poise, personality-excellent. Then under another head-\ning: informational background about football, not so good. [Laughter]\nVolume 11-Number 17\nGERALD\n444\nPRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS: GERALD R. FORD; 1975\nAs I remember it, the only benchwarmer Professor McDougal took an in-\nterest in at that time was Oliver Wendell Holmes.\nI won't go into any more details about that interview. Suffice it to\nsay that Professor McDougal was extraordinarily impressed with my\ncapabilities and so caught up with my capabilities and my vision of my\npotentialities that in a whirlwind of enthusiasm, he wrote: \"I see no rea-\nson why we should not take him.\" [Laughter]\nMy biggest problem at that time was convincing the school I could\ncontinue as a full-time assistant football coach and still carry on a full\nschedule in the law school. Fortunately, I was able to convince them, and\nI've always been very grateful for the help, the encouragement I consist-\nently received from such great educators as Gene Rostow, Thurman\nArnold, Jimmy James, Harry Shulman and, in particular, Myres\nMcDougal. And I thank you very much.\nMyres, all I can say is may your retirement provide you with the same\nriches of fulfillment and satisfaction your career has already brought to\nthe students of Yale. May God go with you.\nObviously, a lot has happened since I left Yale Law School in 1941.\nI practiced law. I joined the Navy. I was elected to Congress, became\nminority leader, Vice President, and now President. But no matter how\nfar I have traveled, something from Yale has always followed with me-\nand I'm not just referring to those letters from the Alumni Fund\n[laughter]-but something very special, something that adds to charac-\nter, something that clings to our character and, in time, something that\nbecomes our character.\nIt's rather hard to put feelings into words, but the motto of our school\nis, \"For God, for Country, and for Yale,\" and I think that says it all.\nThe 150th anniversary of this great law school, one of the outstand-\ning institutions of the world for the study of law, suggests better than I,\nthe subject for my remarks this evening. On May 1, we celebrate Law\nDay. Most of you in this audience have devoted your academic years and\na good part of your lives to the development and to the promulgation of\nthe law.\nToday, as President, I sense, and I think the American people sense\nthat we are facing a basic and a very serious problem of disregard for the\nlaw.\nI would like to talk with you tonight about law and the spirit of abid-\ning by the law. I ask you to think along with me about the concern of so\nmany Americans about the problem of crime. And let us start with the\ngreat Preamble of our Constitution which seeks \"to insure domestic tran-\nquility.\" Have we achieved on our streets and in our homes that sense of\ndomestic tranquility so essential to the pursuit of happiness?\nWith the launching of our Bicentennial year, it has been argued that\nthe American Revolution was the most successful in history because the\nprinciples of the Revolution-liberty and equality under the Iaw-became\nthe functioning constitutional principles of our great Government.\nThe Founding Fathers governed well and governed prudently, with\nrestraint and respect for justice and law. There was no reign of terror, no\nrepression, no dictatorship. The institutions they have founded became\n&\nFORD\ndurable and effective. Because of all of this, we tend to think of them now\nas respectable and conservative. But the fact is that ours remains the great\nGERALD\nRevolution of modern history, and we should be proud of it.\nVolume 11-Number 17\nPRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS: GERALD R. FORD, 1975\n445\nA leading feature of the American Revolution was its devotion to\njustice under law. Once one gets past those two glorious opening para-\ngraphs, the Declaration of Independence reads very much like a legal\nbrief.\nThe argument was made that sound government and just laws had\nto be restored to the land. The theme was that independence was needed\nto restore a representative government of laws in order to secure liberty.\nOur revolutionary leaders heeded John Locke's teaching: \"Where\nthere is no law, there is no freedom.\" Law makes human society possible.\nIt pledges safety to every member so that the company of fellow human\nbeings can be a blessing instead of a threat. Where law exists and is re-\nspected and is fairly enforced, trust replaces fear.\nDo we provide that domestic tranquility which the Constitution\nseeks? If we take the crime rates as an indication, the answer has to be no.\nThe number of violent crimes rises steadily, and we have recently\nsuffered the national disgrace of lawbreaking in high places. Violent\ncrimes on our streets and in our homes make fear pervasive. They strike\nat the very roots of community life; they sever the bonds that link us as\nfellow citizens; they make citizens fear each other.\nCrime in high places, whether in the Federal Government, State gov-\nernment, local governments, or in business or in organized labor, sets an\nexample that makes it all the more difficult to foster a law-abiding spirit\namong ordinary citizens.\nAnd when we talk about obeying the law, we think of police and\ncourts and prisons and the whole apparatus of the law enforcement proc-\ness. But the truth is that most of us obey the law because we believe that\ncompliance is the right thing to do and not because the police may be\nwatching.\nAs far as law violations in high places are concerned, let me stress\nthis point: In the present Administration, I have made it a matter of the\nhighest priority to restore to the executive branch, decency, honesty, and\nadherence to the law at all levels. This has been done, and it will be con-\ntinued.\nI urge the same effort and the same dedication in State governments,\nwhere recently there have been too many scandals. I urge the same stand-\nards in local governments, also in industry and in labor. There is no way\nto inculcate in society the spirit of law if society's leaders are not scrupu-\nlously law-abiding.\nWe have seen how lawbreaking by officials can be stopped by the\nproper functioning of our basic institutions-executive, legislative, and\njudicial branches. But America has been far from successful in dealing\nwith the sort of crime that obsesses America day and night. I mean\nstreet crime, crime that invades our neighborhoods and our homes-mur-\nders, robberies, rapes, muggings, holdups, break-ins-the kind of brutal\nviolence that makes us fearful of strangers and afraid to go out at night.\nIn thinking about this problem, I do not seek vindictive punishment\nof the criminal, but protection of the innocent victim. The victims are\nmy primary concern. That is why I do not talk about law and order, and\nwhy I return to the constitutional phrase-insuring domestic tranquility.\nThe overwhelming majority of Americans obey the law willingly and\nwithout coercion, but even the most law-abiding among us are still hu-\nFO\nVolume 11-Number 17\nGERALD\n446\nPRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS: GERALD R. FORD, 1975\nman. And so it makes ordinary commonsense that we promulgate rules\nand that there be enforcement of the rules to buttress the normal inclina-\ntion of most people to obey the rules. As James Madison asked in The\nFederalist, and I quote, \"But what is government itself but the greatest\nof all reflections on human nature? If men were angels,\" said Madison,\n\"no government would be necessary.\"\nSince men and women are not angels, we must have the apparatus\nof law enforcement. Those who prey on others, especially by violence, are\nvery, very few in number. A very small percentage of the whole popula-\ntion accounts for a very large proportion of the vicious crimes committed.\nFor example, in one study of nearly 10,000 males born in 1945, it was\nfound that only 6 percent of them accounted for two-thirds of all of the\nviolent crimes committed by the entire group.\nMost serious crimes are committed by repeaters. These relatively few,\npersistent criminals who cause so much misery and fear are really the core\nof the problem. The rest of the American people have a right to protec-\ntion from their violence.\nMost of the victims of violent crime are the poor, the old, the young,\nthe disadvantaged minorities, the people who live in the most crowded\nparts of our cities, the most defenseless. These victims have a valid claim\non the rest of society for the protection and the personal safety that they\ncannot provide for themselves-in short, for domestic tranquility.\nHardly a day passes when some politician does not call for a massive\ncrackdown on crime, but the problem is infinitely more complex than that.\nSuch an approach has not proven effective in the long haul; it is not the\nAmerican style. We need a precise and effective solution.\nOne problem is that our busiest courts are overloaded. They're so\noverloaded that very few cases are actually tried. One study showed that\nin a county in Wisconsin, only 6 percent of the convictions resulted from\ncases which came to trial. According to another study, over a 3-year period\nin Manhattan, only about 3 percent of the persons indicted were convicted\nafter trial.\nI think this audience knows the explanation. It is plea bargaining-\nin many cases, plea bargaining required by the ever-growing pressure of\nan increased caseload. The popular notion that trial follows arrest is a\nmisconception in a vast majority of cases, and this audience will also be\nquick to guess one of the basic reasons.\nThe increase in arrests has been much more rapid than the increase\nin the number of judges, prosecutors, and public defenders. The most ob-\nvious response to this imbalance has been to accept pleas of guilt in return\nfor short prison terms or sentences, or no sentences at all.\nAccording to a recent authoritative report, half of the persons con-\nvicted of felonies in New York received no detention whatsoever. And of\nthe other half, only one-fifth were sentenced to more than one year of im-\nprisonment. Imprisonment, thus, too seldom follows conviction for a\nfelony.\nIn the sixties, crime rates went higher and higher, but the number\nof persons in prisons, State and Federal, actually went down. A Rand\nCorporation report of one major jurisdiction showed that of all convicted\nrobbers with a major, prior record, only 27 percent were sent to prison\nafter conviction.\nBERALD FORD LIBRARY\nVolume 11-Number 17\nNotice, please, that I'm speaking only of convicted felons. I am not\nchastising our system for determining guilt or innocence. I am urging that\nvirtually all of those convicted of a violent crime should be sent to prison.\nAnd this should be done especially if a gun was involved or there was other\nsubstantial danger or injury to a person or persons. There certainly should\nbe imprisonment if the convicted person has a prior record of convictions.\nMost serious offenders are repeaters. We owe it to their victims-\npast, present, and future-to get them off the streets. This is just everyday\ncommonsense, as I see it. The crime rate will go down if persons who ha-\nbitually commit most of the predatory crimes are kept in prison for a rea-\nsonable period, if convicted, because they will then not be free to commit\nmore crimes.\nConvicts should be treated humanely in prison. Loss of liberty should\nbe the chief punishment. Improvement in the treatment of, and facilities\nfor prisoners is long overdue. But it is essential that there be less delay in\nbringing arrested persons to trial, less plea bargaining, and more court-\nroom determination of guilt or innocence, and that all-or practically\nall-of those actually convicted of predatory crime be sent to prison.\nIn many other areas, it is the responsibility of the Federal Govern-\nment to augment the enforcement efforts of the States when it becomes\nnecessary.\nWhat else can we do? The Federal Code can be modified to make\nmore sentences mandatory and, therefore, punishment more certain for\nthose convicted of violent crimes.\nWhat can the White House do about this? The Federal role is limited,\nbecause most violent crimes are matters for State and local authorities.\nFurther, the creation of criminal sanctions and their interpretation are\nthe concerns of the legislative and judicial branches as well as the execu-\ntive branch.\nThe principal role of the Federal Government in the area of crime\ncontrol has centered in providing financial and technical assistance to the\nseveral States. However, while we are all aware that the actual control\nof crime in this country is a matter primarily of State responsibility\nunder the Constitution, there are several areas in which it is the chief\nresponsibility of the Federal Government.\nWe can provide leadership in making funds available to add judges,\nprosecutors, and public defenders to the Federal system. This Federal\nmodel should encourage States to adopt similar priorities for the use of\ntheir own funds and those provided by the Law Enforcement Assistance\nAdministration.\nWe can encourage better use of existing prison facilities to minimize\ndetention of persons convicted of minor crimes, thus making more room\nfor the convicted felons to be imprisoned. There are a number of esti-\nmates of how much the crime rate would be reduced if all convicted crim-\ninals with major records were sent to prison instead of being set free after\nconviction, as too many are today.\nAlthough we might expect the certainty of a prison sentence to serve\nas a deterrent, let us remember that one obvious effect of prison is to sep-\narate lawbreakers from the law-abiding society. In totalitarian states, it's\neasier to assure law and order. Dictators eliminate freedom of move-\nis\nFORD\nVolume 11-Number 17\nGERALD\n443\nPRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS: GERALD R. FORD, 1975\nment, of speech, and of choice. They control the news media and the edu-\ncational system. They conscript the entire society, and deprive people of\nbasic civil liberties. By such methods, crime can be strictly controlled.\nBut, in effect, the entire society becomes one huge prison. This is not a\nchoice we are willing to consider.\nEdmund Burke commented appropriately in his Reflections on the\nFrench Revolution. Burke said, and I quote, \"To make a government\nrequires no great prudence. Settle the seat of power, teach obedience, and\nthe work is done. To give freedom is still more easy. It is not necessary to\nguide; it only requires to let go the rein. But to form a free government,\nthat is, to temper together these opposite elements of liberty and re-\nstraint in one consistent work, requires much thought, deep reflection, a\nsagacious, powerful, and combining mind.\"\nSince these words were written, the world has changed profoundly.\nBut the old question still remains: Can a free people restrain crime with-\nout sacrificing fundamental liberties and a heritage of compassion?\nI am confident of the American answer. Let it become a vital element\non America's new agenda. Let us show that we can temper together those\nopposite elements of liberty and restraint into one consistent whole.\nLet us set an example for the world of a law-abiding America glory-\ning in its freedom as well as its respect for law. Let us, at last, fufill the\nconstitutional promise of domestic tranquility for all of our law-abiding\ncitizens.\nThank you very much.\nNOTE: The President spoke at 9:57 p.m. in Woolsey Hall at the Yale University Law\nSchool, New Haven, Conn.\n&\nFORD\nGERALD\nJune 5, 1975\nTO:\nDICK PARSONS\nFROM:\nJIM CANNON\nSUBJECT:\nCRIME MESSAGE Dave\nHere are Don Rumsfeld's thoughts on what the crime\nmessage should accomplish:\n1. It is the basic message he will want to\nlive with from now until November of 1976.\n2. It should show:\na. He gives a damn about what's happening\nin the country.\nb. He cares about the victims of crime.\nC. He has proposed an anti-crime program to\nCongress.\nd. Congress won't pass it.\n3. The message should be thoughtful and lasting,\nhave a broad appeal, and be slightly right of\ncenter.\nJMC:jm\n[6/13/75]\nSwate\nSoll Butz,\nwondring\nDonostr Comul meety\nVenemen\nA\nHe and At\nwet ar VXX\nJoB S\nareau\nGreats\nw\n[6/13/75]\n/\nHealthing of D.C. verew group\nmext wednesday V,P,\n2\nbeen Coutrol\nout\non one provider\nRee Gun Control\nrole Mr or a\nSun Owlen\n\\\nsale delivery -\nweres coral N not\nlaw\nwe shouldnt enfore\nloral law\nplayent Federal can\nwoher it illegat\nto seel a\nsun if illesal\nwas Fed a\nstate law -\nRequire dealeR to\nDoug\nwartin\nthe Helpy to details\nThat x would\nS. Cannon\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nJune 13, 1975\nMEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT\nFROM:\nJim Cannon\nSUBJECT:\nCrime Message\nAttached for your consideration is the final draft of your special message\nto the Congress on crime. The following matters remain unresolved:\nI.\nCompensation to Victims of Crime\nIssue: Should the Crime Message specifically endorse\nthe victims' compensation provision of S. 1?\nDiscussion:\nBased on 1973 data, the Department of Justice has estimated that\nrevenues for a victims' compensation fund, such as would be\nestablished by S. 1, would approximate $15. 4 million annually,\nand that pay-outs to victims of crimes would approximate\n$7. 6 million annually, not including compensation for lost earnings\ndue to disability. The Department indicates that, while it is\nimpossible to determine the potential liability for lost earnings\ndue to disability, the remaining revenues available to the fund\nshould be sufficient to cover all such liability. The Department's\nanalysis is attached at Tab A.\nOMB has expressed concern that the Department's estimate may\nunderstate, by a wide margin, the number of potential claimants\nfor compensation, since:\na) it is based on reported crime which, itself, understates\nthe level of actual crime by as much as 300 to 500 per\ncent; and\nb) it does not take into account cases commenced in State\ncourts which involve a Federal crime (i. e., concurrent\njurisdiction cases).\n2\nOMB also questions the Department's estimate regarding revenues\navailable to the victims' compensation fund, since the year upon\nwhich the Department's estimate is based, 1973, was a year of\nunusually high criminal fine collections. The OMB analysis is\nattached at Tab B.\nMembers of my staff have canvassed the several States which have\nenacted victims' compensation programs to ascertain how such\nprograms work on the State level. Most States feel that their\nvictims' compensation programs are working well. They indicate\nthat these programs assist law enforcement authorities in eliciting\nthe victim's assistance in the criminal investigatory and adjudicatory\nprocesses. In almost every State, the number of claims filed and\nthe total cost of the program are much lower than originally\nanticipated. A more detailed analysis of State victims' compensa-\ntion programs is attached at Tab C.\nRecommendations:\nThe Attorney General, the Counsel to the President and I recommend\nthat you specifically endorse the victims' compensation concept in\nthe Crime Message.\nOMB, Jack Marsh, Bob Goldwin and Max Friedersdorf have\nrecommended that you reserve judgment on this matter.\nMax reports that there is no clear-cut Congressional view on this\nissue.\nExpressly Endorse\nReserve Judgment\nII.\nGun Control\nIssue: How large an increase in ATF investigatory\npersonnel should you propose in the Crime\nMessage?\nDiscussion:\nYou earlier indicated your desire to have the Bureau of Alcohol,\nTobacco and Firearms substantially increase its enforcement\nactivities in the nation's ten largest metropolitan areas. ATF\nproposes to increase its present field staff by approximately\n3\n1,000 additional firearms investigators and 500 additional\nsupporting personnel, at a cost of $46. 7 million annually.\nThese additional investigators would concentrate on two major\nproblems: tracing all firearms involved in crime, and intensifying\nefforts to disarm and convict significant weapons offenders.\nRecommendations:\nOMB recommends a more limited approach until the value of the\nintensified program can be demonstrated. Specifically, OMB\nrecommends doubling existing firearms investigators in the nation's\nten largest cities. This would result in 364 additional firearms\ninvestigators and 195 additional supporting personnel, at a cost of\n$16. 6 million annually.\nThe Counsel to the President and I recommend that you direct\nATF to employ and train an additional 500 firearms investigators\n(necessitating 250 additional support personnel), at an approximate\ncost of $23. 3 million annually.\n364\n500\n1,000\nAdditionally, Bob Goldwin has objected to several of the exculpatory\nprovisions regarding the imposition of mandatory sentences. Under\nyour proposal, a judge could avoid imposing a mandatory sentence if\nhe found and specified in writing one or more of the following: that\nthe defendant was under 18, or was mentally impaired, or was\nacting under substantial duress, or was implicated in a crime\nactually committed by others and participated in the crime only in\na very minor way.\nBob argues that, since substantial numbers of violent crimes are\ncommitted by persons under 18, your proposal should be modified\nto require the imposition of a mandatory sentence for persons\n16 years of age or older, Furthermore, Bob believes that the\nterms \"mentally impaired\" and \"substantial duress\" are vague\nand may provide lenient judges with a convenient reason for not\nimposing a jail sentence. He recommends that these provisions\nbe dropped.\n4\nThe Attorney General takes strong exception to Bob's recommenda-\ntions. He points out that few persons under age 18 commit Federal\ncrimes. Therefore, lowering to 16 the age at which a person\nbecomes subject to mandatory imprisonment is not very meaningful\nat the Federal level. Further, to the extent that there are\n16- and 17-year-old Federal offenders, special facilities would\nhave to be constructed to house them, because the Juvenile Justice\nand Delinquency Prevention Act prohibits their being comingled\nwith adult offenders. (Placement of these offenders in existing\nFederal Youth Facilities would not be lawful, since those facilities\nhouse persons up to 25 years of age). The Attorney General also\npoints out that the terms \"mentally impaired\" and \"substantial\nduress\" have meaning to the legal community and are necessary\nto the successful implementation of a mandatory sentencing scheme.\nTherefore, he recommends that your proposal be left intact.\nThe Counsel to the President and I concur in the Attorney General's\nrecommendation.\nLeave Intact\nChange per Bob Goldwin's Suggestion\nMemorandum\nTO\n:\nRonald Gainer\nDATE: May 30, 1975\nDeputy Director, OPP\nFROM :\nEdward D. Jones, III\nOffice of Policy and Planning\nSUBJECT:\nCost Analysis of S. 1 -- Victim Compensation Fund\nIntroduction and Summary\nThis memorandum presents estimates of the expected\nrevenues and dollar claims of the Victim Compensation Fund\noutlined in S. 1. The fund mechanism is complex, and the\ndata available for evaluating its cost-effectiveness\nlimited. As a result, the estimates derived below are\nbased upon several critical assumptions, and, thus, should\nbe used with caution.\nBased upon 1973 data, anticipated revenues of the Fund\nare approximately $15.4 million, and anticipated payouts\n$7.6 million. The payout figure does not include compen-\nsation for lost earnings due to disability because that\ncomponent was impossible to determine. Nevertheless, it\nappears that the revenues going into the Fund are sufficient\nto cover disability compensation, additional victims,\nunusually high medical claims, and administrative expenses.\nRevenues\nThe Victim Compensation Fund relies for revenues upon\n(a) criminal fines collected in United States courts and\nby the Attorney General, (b) twenty percent of the net\nprofits of Federal Prison Industries, and (c) public or\nprivate donations. Donations to the Fund will likely be\nminimal, and are thus assumed to be non-existent for the\npurpose of this analysis.\nCriminal fines collected in FY 1973 in all judicial\ndistricts were $14,034,546. 1/ Under the provisions of S. 1,\n1/ Executive Office of the United States Attorneys, Statistical\nYearbook, Fiscal Year 1973, Table 5.\nBuy U.S. Savings Bonds Regularly on the Payroll Savings Plan\n-2--\nthe level of fines are significantly increased for criminal\noffenses. Moreover, collection procedures will be enhanced.\nTherefore, it is likely that fines available to the Fund\nwill increase markedly. This is, of course, dependent upon\njudicial discretion regarding the assessment of higher fines.\nTotal net profits of Federal Prison Industries in\nFY 1973 were $6,610,151. 2/ Twenty percent, or $1,322,030,\nwould be available to the Victim Compensation Fund under\nS. 1 provisions. Federal Prison Industries under S. 1 will\nhave greater access to compete with private industry. Thus,\nit is likely that net profits -- and, hence, the contribution\nto the Fund -- will increase, although the extent of such\nincreases are uncertain.\nA conservative estimate of revenues of the Fund, based\nupon FY 1973 data, is $15,356,576.\nCompensation\nClaimants eligible for compensation from the Fund are\nvictims of federal jurisdiction offenses who sustain personal\ninjury. In the event of death, the victims' survivors may be\ncompensated. Bodily injury and ensuing losses are covered\nup to a maximum of $50,000. 3/ However, compensation by the\nFund is secondary to all other sources.\nAssaultive offenses 5/ commenced in United States District\nCourts in FY 1973 were:\nHomicide\n144\nAssault\n695\nSex Offenses\n180\n2/ Federal Prison Industries Financial and Operating Report,\nFY 1974, p. 2.\n3/ The Fund may compensate for the actual pecuniary loss of\nthe claimant, and loss of earnings if disability extends longer\nthan 90 days.\n4/ This is not reflected in the estimates below. Consequently,\nthose estimates overstate expected compensation from the Fund.\n5/ Data from Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, Annual\nReport of the Director, 1974, Table D2. Potential assaultive\nviolence in the 98 kidnapping cases commenced in FY 1973 cannot\nbe determined. Consequently, this offense is not analyzed.\n-3-\nThe homicide figure is probably an accurate indicator of\nvictimization for this crime. A comparison of Uniform Crime\nReports (UCR) incident data and National Crime Panel (NCP)\nvictimization data indicates for 1973 consistent crime rates\nfor rape. 6/ Thus, the sex offense rate above is a good\napproximation of victimization for this crime. Unfortunately,\na similar comparison indicates that the figure for assault is\na poor estimator, likely understating dramatically victimi-\nzations occurring in federal jurisdiction. 7/ Consequently,\nthis figure is adjusted upward by a factor of 2.6. Thus,\nthe number of anticipated claimants by assaultive crime type\nfor the analysis are:\nHomicide 144\nAssault\n1807\nSex Offerses 180\nThe present value of the expected lifetime earnings\nforegone by the average homicide victim in 1972 was $99,036.\nThis exceeds the maximum permissible compensation to a victim's\nsurviving dependent by $49,036. Therefore, it is assumed that\nthe dependents of the 144 homicide victims would receive the\nmaximum $50,000, totalling $7,200,000.\nBased upon National Crime Panel Survey data, the average\nrape victim incurred medical expenses of $120.52. Furthermore,\nless than five percent of the survey respondents indicated\nreceipt of compensation for expenses incurred. Therefore, it\nis assumed that the 180 sex offense victims would be compen-\nsated approximately $21,700 for medical expenses.\nAgain, based upon National Crime Panel Survey data, the\naverage victim of serious assault incurred medical expenses of\n6/ Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reports\nfor the United States, 1973, pp. 11-13; Law Enforcement\nAssistance Administration, Criminal Victimization in the\nUnited States, January-June 1973, Table 1. The UCR rate incident for\nrape is 47 per 100,000 females in 1973; the NCP victimization rate\nis 50 per 100,000 females for the first half of 1973.\n7/ The UCR incident rate for aggravated assault is 198 per\n100,000 persons; the NCP victimization rate is 510 per 100,000\npersons, 2.6 times higher than the UCR rate.\n-4-\n$224.57. Only about seven percent of the Survey respondents\nindicated receipt of compensation for expenses incurred.\nTherefore, it is assumed that the 1807 victims of assault\nwould be compensated approximately $405,800.\nFor sex offenses and assault, disability loss of income\ncould not be calculated. Excluding disability, the compen-\nsation totals for the three crimes above total $7,627,500:\nThis represents about 54% of estimated revenues. The remaining\n46% of revenues should be sufficient to cover disability\ncompensation, additional victims, unusually high medical\nclaims, and administrative expenses.\nB\nCompensation to Victims of Crime\nOMB Analysis\nThe Department estimates that revenues for the\nVictim Compensation Fund would approximate $15.4\nmillion annually, derived from (a) criminal fines\ncollected in U.S. Courts and by the Attorney\nGeneral and (b) twenty percent of the net profits\nof Federal Prison Industries. They estimate that\ndisbursements will come close to utilizing the\nfull amount of the Fund. The Department points\nout that revenues to the Fund will grow if\nincreases in criminal fines proposed by the\nPresident are approved.\nThe Department's calculations for disbursements\nunder the Fund are based on assaultive offenses\ncases commenced in U.S. District Courts in 1973,\nadjusted by LEAA's recent victimization survey\nto account for unreported crimes. (The\nDepartment's analysis at Tab D indicates that\nthe data for evaluating this program are limited\nand should be used with caution.) These offenses\nare priced as follows:\nAdjusted for\nNo. of\nUnreported\nXs expected\nCases\nCrime\nTotal\nPayments\nTotal\nHomicide\n144\n--\n144\n$ 50,000\n7,200,000\n(maximum\npayments\nto\nbeneficiaries)\nAssault\n695\n1,112\n1,807\n$224.57\n405,800\n(average\nmedical\nexpenses)\nSex Offenses\n180\n--\n180\n$120.52\n21,700\n(average\nmedical\nexpenses)\n1,019\n1,112\n2,131\n$7,627,500*\n*Excludes disability compensation, which could be sizeable.\nThe Department believes that cases commenced in\nU.S. Courts are the best available measure of the\nextent of Federal crime violations likely to result\nin physical injury. Cases commenced includes:\nproceedings commenced by indictments, information\nwith indictment waived, information - other, cases\nremoved from state courts, juvenile delinquency\nproceedings, and all other proceedings. Of the\n40,367 Federal cases commenced in 1973, 1,019 were\nclassified as assaultive violence cases resulting\nin personal injury. Based on data supplied by the\nExecutive Office of U.S. Attorneys, cases commenced\nfor assaultive violence crimes parallels very\nclosely with \"matters received, which includes\ncases developed by Federal investigative agencies,\ndirect reports by victims to U.S. Attorneys, and\ncases referred by state and local police as being\nprimarily Federal violations. From this data, the\nDepartment concludes that \"cases commenced\" fairly\nwell covers the extent of assaultive violence crimes\nthat come to the attention of Federal authorities.\nEven though the national crime rate has increased\ndramatically since 1973 in almost all categories,\nthe Department's projections indicate that Federal\nassaultive violence cases have remained about\nconstant. Big increases have occurred in state\nand local assaultive crimes.\nOMB is concerned that the data used in the Department's\ntabulations may understate--by a wide margin--the number\nof potential claimants for compensation. For example:\n\"cases commenced\" deals only with reported crime.\nAs LEAA's recent victimization study revealed,\nunreported crime may be as much as 300-500 per-\ncent greater. Reported crime may increase\ndramatically with the advent of compensation.\nThere is presently no data available to\nindicate the extent of non-reported Federal\ncrime violations.\nThe Department did adjust commenced cases for the\nassault category by a factor of 2.6 (we have no\nbasis to determine the adequacy of this adjustment)\nto accommodate unreported crimes in that area, but\nmade no adjustment for homicides or sex offenses.\nWe have no basis to challenge the homicide rate\nassumption, but we do question the assumption that\ncommenced cases for sex offenses is an accurate\nmeasure of victimization, in view of the charge\nthat 4 to 10 rapes are unreported for every\none that is reported.\nThe Department' data does not take into\naccount potential dompensation claimants\nof concurrent jurisdiction cases tried in\nstate courts. There is no data to determine\nthe impact of this omission, but the\nDepartment believes that the number of\nphysical injury cases would not be large.\nOMB also has questions about the Department's\nprojections for revenues available to the Compensation\nFund. As the following table indicates, fiscal 1973\n(the base projected by the Department) was an unusually\nhigh year for criminal fine collections:\nFiscal Year\nCriminal Fines Collected\n1974\n12,179,797\n1973\n14,034,546\n1972\n12,801,716\nThe Department assumes that revenues to the Fund will\ngrow if increases in criminal fines being proposed by\nthe President are approved and imposed by the Courts.\nThe Department's proposal also assumes that 20 percent\nof the dividends from Federal Prison Industries will\nbe devoted to the Compensation Fund. Presently, these\ndividends are used for educational and vocational\nprograms at Federal prisons. Use of the dividends\nfor other purposes would reduce the level of programs\npresently being funded or create a need for new\nappropriations to avoid cutbacks.\nOMB is concerned that the Department's estimate of\nabout $15 million may significantly understate the\nnumber and size of potential compensation payments\nIf compensation generates additional reporting of\ncrime, and if there are significant numbers of\nclaimants from concurrent jurisdiction crimes,\npotential claimants may be many times greater\nthan the Department's projections.\nBudget\nIncreases\nHowever, data presently available is insufficient\nto determine the impact of this program with any\nreal precision.\n?\nBRD points out that the proposal to direct criminal\nfines into the Compensation Fund violates OMB policy\nagainst earmarking of General Fund receipts. Annual\ndisbursements from the Fund would increase the budget\ndeficit by a like amount because those receipts would\nno longer be available to finance regular government\noperations. In accordance with Section 401 of the\nCongressional Budget Act (P.L. 93-344), provision\nshould be made in proposed implementing legislation\nto make the fund available only in such amounts as\nare provided in appropriation acts. Otherwise,\nthe legislation might be rejected out of hand\nbecause it would constitute backdoor financing.\nState Victims¹ Compensation Programs\nNationally, there are twelve States (Alaska, California, Delaware,\nHawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New\nJersey, New York and Washington) that provide for compensation to\nvictims of crimes. Seven other States (Arkansas, Florida, Georgia,\nNorth Dakota, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Wisconsin) are actively\nconsidering adoption of a crime victims' compensation scheme.\nVirtually all of these programs operate on a \"last resort\" basis, pursuant\nto which victims' compensation benefits are secondary to most other forms\nof available, privately secured financial assistance. Some States limit\nbenefits to persons who meet a financial need test. These States incur\nmuch higher administrative costs than do those States which employ no\nfinancial need test.\nMost States feel that their crime victims' compensation programs are\nworking well. They indicate that these programs assist law enforcement\nauthorities in eliciting victims' assistance in the criminal investigation\nprocess. The general experience of the States is that about two out of\nevery three claims result in a pay-out. In almost every State, however,\nthe number of claims filed and the total cost of the program are much less\nthan originally anticipated.\nAttached is a chart which identifies essential elements of existing State\nprograms.\nState Victims' Compensation Programs\nEstimated\nEstimated\nYear\nMaximum\n1975\nLimitation on\nFY 1975\nState\nEnacted\nAdministrative Mechanism\nBeneficiaries\nBenefit\nCaseload\nRight of Recovery\nBudget\nAlaska\n1973\nViolent Crimes\nVictim and\n**\nCompensation Board\nDependents\n$10,000\n110\nNone\n$ 175,000\n$10,000 Med.\nVictim and\n$10,000 Wage\nCalifornia\n1966\nState Board of Control\nDependents\n$ 3,000 Rehab.\n6,500\nFinancial Need\n$4-6 Million\nVictim,\n$10,000 plus\nViolent Crimes\nDependents\n15% Lawyers\nDelaware\n1974\nCompensation Board\nand Others\nFee\n100\nNone\n$ 125,000\nCriminal Injuries\nVictim, Dependents\nHawaii\n1967\nCompensation Commission\nand Others\n$10,000\n125\nNone\n$ 175,000\nVictim and\nIllinois\n1973\nCourt of Claims\nDependents\n$10,000\n1,200\nNone\n$ 650,000\nCriminal Injuries\nVictim, Dependents\nMaryland\n1968\nCompensation Board\nand Others\n$45,000\n600\nFinancial Need\n$1,500,000\nVictim and\nMassachusetts\n1968\nDistrict Court\nDependents\n$10,000\n400\nNone\n$ 650,000\nCrime Victims\nVictim, Dependents\nMinnesota\n1974\nReparations Board\nand Others\n$10,000\n200\nNone\n$ 100,000\n*\nVictim, Dependents\nNevada\n1969\nState Board of Examiners\nand Others\n$ 5,000\n30\nFinancial Need\n$ 25,000\nViolent Crimes\nVictim, Dependents\nNew Jersey\n1971\nCompensation Board\nand Others\n$10,000\n2,000\nNone\n$1,000,000\nCrime Victims\nVictim, Dependents\nUnlimited Med.\nNew York\n1966\nCompensation Board\nand Others\n$15,000 Wage\n2,400\nFinancial Need\n$3,000,000\nCrime Victims Compensation\nDivision of Department of\nVictim and\n***\nWashington\n1973\nLabor and Industries\nDependents\nNone\n600\nNone\n$ 900,000\n*\nNevada's law only compensates those injured as a result of a \"good samaritan\" act, such as coming to the aid of a police\nofficer in trouble.\n**\nBill to provide for others has been passed by Legislature and is awaiting Governor's signature.\nThis estimate covers both the 1975 and 1976 Fiscal Years."
}