Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Source Description
This file contains law Enforcement, Commissions, Capital Punishment.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
23812640
label
Crime - General (2)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
23812640
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Crime - General (2)
description
This file contains law Enforcement, Commissions, Capital Punishment.
citationUrl
collections
Philip W. Buchen Files
Philip Buchen's General Subject Files
subjects
Speeches, addresses, etc.
Crime
Administration goals and achievements
Legislation
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
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
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
04ad74adf461c151
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 8, folder "Crime - General (2)" of the Philip
Buchen Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald R. Ford donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Some items in this folder were not digitized because it contains copyrighted
materials. Please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library for access to
these materials.
THE WHITE HOUSE
Crime
WASHINGTON
Send to
Ken Lazarus
TO:
RICHARD CHENEY
ROBERT HARTMANN
PHILIP BUCHEN
JERRY JONES
JAMES CONNOR
JAMES CANNON
JAMES CAVANAUGH
RICHARD PARSONS
FROM:
ROBERT GOLDWIN Rag
The President's crime speeches and crime message hit hard on
every one of the themes in this Reston column. Crime con-
tinues to be the #1 noneconomic domestic issue. Shouldn't
we be repeating and repeating the President's stand on
crime?
Attachment
11/25/75
FORD i LIBRARY 9ERALD
Digitized from Box 8 of the Philip Buchen Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
WASHINGION
his cap pistol demonstrating against.
Ronald Reagan or Patty Hearst,
Squeaky Fromme, or Sara Jane Moore
who lost confidence m the legal and
NY Times
political integrity. of the nation but.
also some of the most respectable per-
11/21/75
sons and institutions in the nation, in-
cluding the F.B.I. and the C.I.A.
On the- same day that this silly.,
The
young man, Michael Carvin, pulled his
cap pistol on Ronald Reagan, Senator.
Frank Church's. intelligence committee
Politics
was announcing that it had "solid evi-
dence" that past Governments of the
United States-from Eisenhower, Ken-,
nedy and Johnson to Nixon, had con-
Of Anarchy
nived at the murder of Castro in Cuba;
Diem in Vietnam, Trujillo in. the Do-
minican Republic; Sukarno in Indo-
nesia and Lumumba in the Congo.:
By James Reston
Senator Church testified that no Presi-
dent of the United States had planned
these monstrosities, but they were ap-
You can hardly pick up the papers
parently planned anyway by their
these days without reading about the
element of madness and-even of an-
underlings.
Meanwhile, the Ford Administration
archy in our national life: The latest
in Mismi
has released the official records on
OF OF STATES DISTRICT
Storfiling
AMOUNT
Department of Justice
JUSTITIA
FOR RELEASE AT 7:30 P.M., E.S.T.
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 1976
ADDRESS
BY
THE HONORABLE EDWARD H. LEVI
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES
BEFORE
THE GOVERNOR'S CONFERENCE
ON
EMPLOYMENT AND THE PREVENTION OF CRIME
6:30 P.M.
CRYSTAL BALLROOM
MARC PLAZA HOTEL
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 1976
MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
AMERICAN REVOLUTION WEENTENNING
1776-1976
I am glad to be with you at this symposium on
employment and the prevention of crime. As you know,
President Ford believes the intolerable level of crime
in America can most effectively be reduced if all segments
of society join in the effort. I bring you President
Ford's warm greetings and his appreciation for the concern
you are showing and the responsibility you are accepting
in this important area.
As the title of your symposium suggests, the
problem of crime is inseparable from the problem of
reuniting ex-offenders with society. I want to explore
that theme with you tonight and to indicate some implications
it may have for government policy and for the responsibility
of society.
It is a mistake to think of reunification as the
last step in the criminal justice system. The process
of reunification begins as soon as an individual is brought
into the system. The whole criminal justice system must
be viewed in light of its effect on the offender after he
is released from prison.
Rehabilitation as a goal of criminal punishment has
been called into question recently, in part because recidivism
rates are high. We really do not have statistics good
enough to measure the rehabilitative effect of imprisonment.
FORD is LIBRARY
- 2 -
But the data we do have are taken to support the conclusion
that persons who have spent time in prison are not less
likely to commit crime again. Perhaps, indeed, they are
more likely to do so. Studies such as the one published
in 1964 by Daniel Glaser indicate that the two most
important factors in the success of an ex-offender in
avoiding criminal conduct after he is released from prison
are his ability to return to a stable family situation
and his ability to get a job. These are taken as proof
that the offender's experience after imprisonment rather
than his experience in prison is determinative. The
rehabilitative ideal, proclaimed in the 19th Century as a
great reform in the theory of punishment, has been proclaimed
a failure by contemporary prison reformers. But there is
a narrowness in this view. It looks only to the prison
itself as the medium of rehabilitation.
If the whole criminal justice system is analyzed
with respect to its role in rehabilitation and reunification,
the perceived failure of the rehabilitative ideal is a failure
of the entire process. The imposition of imprisonment is
an extraordinary assertion of government authority over the
individual. If the imposition of punishment appears to be
fickle--a matter of chance--or if it appears to be unequal
with respect to socio-economic groups, offenders who do
suffer punishment for crimes may be left with an emotional
scar that itself makes reunification very difficult.
- 3 -
The need for decency and fairness in the criminal
justice system does not derive solely from the instrumental
effect indecency and unfairness have upon their victims.
But the bitterness a sense of unfairness breeds must be
taken into account. Today there is an accidental quality
to the imposition of punishment. Some 400,000 men, women
and young people are in some form of corrections institution.
Nevertheless, inefficiency in the criminal justice system
has meant that a very small percentage of persons who commit
crimes ever spend time in jail. The inefficiency shows
itself at every step. Police, overcome by the high level
of crime, cannot actively investigate every report of
criminal conduct. People become cynical about the likelihood
that criminals will be punished, so they often do not bother
to report crime. Even after an offender is arrested,
overworked prosecutors' offices may be forced to strike
deals in which a defendant agrees to plead guilty in exchange
for a sentence that does not include incarceration.
These problems build upon themselves. The inefficiency
of the criminal justice system makes it less likely to
serve a deterrent effect. The result is more crime and
more burden on police, prosecutors and courts.
Even when an offender is brought to trial, there is
a great element of chance in whether he will ever serve
time in prison. A study in Pittsburgh in 1966 indicated
- 4 -
that nearly half of all persons convicted of a second
offense of aggravated assault and more than one-fourth of
all second offenders convicted of robbery were not sent
to prison but were rather placed on probation. Research
in Wisconsin showed that 63 per cent of all second-time
felony offenders and 41 per cent of all persons with two
or more felony convictions received no prison term upon
their last conviction. James Q. Wilson of Harvard concluded
that this evidence "suggests that the judges did not
believe that jail had a deterrent effect. " At least
one reason for this perception is that judges themselves
have not imposed prison sentences with enough consistency
to make the deterrent effect work. Deterrence requires
considerable certainty, and we do not have that certainty.
The offenders who are sent to jail recognize the
degree to which they have been losers in a game of chance.
Such a recognition is bound to make their reunification with
society more difficult. Not only may it appear to an
offender that his imprisonment was just bad luck rather
than the inevitable consequence of wrongdoing, the unfairness
bred of inefficiency and unwillingness to impose uniform
punishment may make the society outside the prison wall
seem mean and hostile, a society that itself does not follow
the rules of conduct it expects the ex-offender to follow.
- 5 -
The problem of inefficiency must be solved by
new devices and methods that will facilitate rational
decisions about prosecution. It also will require a
greater degree of citizen cooperation in the detection and
investigation of crime. The problem of unwillingness of
judges to impose sentences is a separate and complicated
matter for which special approaches are required.
The President has proposed a system of mandatory
minimum sentences for various sorts of particularly serious
crime. Mandatory minimums would apply to extraordinarily
heinous crimes such as aircraft hijacking, to all offenses
committed with a dangerous weapon, and to offenses involving
the risk of personal injury to others when those offenses
are committed by repeat offenders. The President's
mandatory minimum sentence proposal also includes provisions
to ensure fairness by allowing a judge to find, in certain
narrow categories of circumstances, that an offender need
not go to prison even though he has been convicted of a
crime normally carrying a mandatory minimum sentence. A
mandatory minimum sentence must not be imposed if the
offender was less than 18 years old when the offense was
committed, or was acting under substantial duress, or was
implicated in a crime actually committed by others and
participated in the crime only in a very minor way. Under
proposals now before Congress, the trial judge's sentencing
decision would be reviewable by appellate courts.
- 6 -
The President's proposal does not require long
prison terms for persons sentenced under the mandatory
minimum provisions. The need for mandatory minimum
sentences is based upon the concept of deterrence and
the need for swift and certain punishment following an
offense. It is also based on the recognition that the
fairness of punishment depends upon a degree of uniformity
in sentencing decisions.
It may be time to consider an even more sweeping
restructuring of the sentencing system, which United States
District Court Judge Marvin E. Frankel calls the most
critical part of the criminal justice system. There have
been proposals to abolish the federal parole system as it
now exists and to allow trial judges to determine the
precise sentence an offender would be required to serve.
The trial judge would operate within a set of sentencing
guidelines fashioned by a permanent Federal Sentencing
Commission.
This idea is consistent with the President's
mandatory minimum sentence proposal. Indeed, it is an
extension of the same concept. Sentences would be required
to meet the mandatory minimums set forth by statutes for
certain crimes. Sentences for all other crimes would
generally be expected to fall within the range set forth
by the guidelines. If a judge decided to impose a sentence
inconsistent with the guidelines, he would have to accompany
- 7 -
the decision with specific reasons for the exception, and
the decision would be subject to appellate review. The
offender would be required to serve the sentence imposed
by the judge, with a specific amount of time off for good
behavior.
Currently very few offenders are required to serve
anything close to the time imposed as a sentence by the trial
judge. Parole eligibility after serving one-third or less
of the sentence may create a lack of credibility in sentencing
which undermines the deterrent effect of criminal law and
adds to the sense of unfairness.
Many prisoner groups and others point out that
uncertainty about parole and good time allowances creates
enormous tension among prisoners. A prisoner may well not
know what he must do to please the prison and parole
authorities. Uncertainty may actually hinder rehabilitation
in that prisoners may volunteer for institutional self-
improvement programs without any real commitment to the
goal of the programs but instead with a feeling that to
volunteer might please the parole authorities.
It may be too early to decide whether to adopt
vast reforms in sentencing along these lines. Corrections
has been an area in which great new ideas emerge with
regularity--ideas full of promise--only to lead to failure
and despair. We do not know enough about the effect of
- 8 -
the criminal justice system and corrections upon crime.
But even without conclusive data--which may never be
obtainable in this area--reason suggests that the failure
of the criminal law to deter crime sufficiently and the
perceived unfairness of accidental justice requires considerable
reform. In my view the President's mandatory minimum
proposal and consideration of a Federal Sentencing Commission
is an important and necessary first setp.
I do not agree that the ideal of rehabilitation--
which was an earlier medium of reform--should be abandoned
although it is fashionable in some quarters to say so. But
it is also nonsense to say that the purpose of prison is
only to rehabilitate. Imprisonment also has deterrence
and protection of society as goals. It is also nonsense
to say that rehabilitation never occurs. As Attorney General
I review all applications by federal prisoners for pardons.
Many of those applications attest to the possibility that
offenders can change for the better in prison. Decent
treatment of prisoners is itself a kind of rehabilitation,
and decency should most certainly remain as one of our
ideals. Decency can reinforce decency in return just as
much as substandard, inhumane conditions of confinement
can reinforce a negative effect. Especially with respect
to the young, we simply cannot give up on the effort to
bring those who have broken the law back into harmony with
the society. We can hold out the opportunity to inmates to
improve themselves and their chances of success outside
- 9 -
the walls, and this is itself a form of rehabilitation.
Job training within prison is important. It
prepares for an offender's reunification with society.
Society also has a great responsibility in this regard--
and a great opportunity as well. As your symposium
recognizes, employment after release from prison is
extraordinarily important in the process of reunification.
The composition of our prison population today makes it
essential that, both inside prison and outside, steps are
taken to facilitate the transition.
Most serious crimes are committed by young people.
Those most likely to commit crime are between the ages of
20 and 30. This group will reach its maximum in numbers
in about 1985, when it will be about 50 per cent greater
than in 1970. The economic and educational characteristics
of today's prison population are consistently below those
of inmates' counterparts outside the walls. It is against
their counterparts that ex-offenders must compete if they
are to have productive employment after their release.
The average male prisoner more than 25 years old today has
2.1 fewer years of education than the average of all U.S.
males in the same age group. Only 44.2 per cent of all
male prisoners are skilled or semi-skilled as compared
with 80.7 per cent of the total male population. These
figures indicate the challenge ex-offenders present to the
American labor market. But it is a challenge that can be met.
- 10 -
The American labor market has always had a need to retrain
individuals for employment. This has never been an easy
task but it is one with which the free market must be
concerned. There are of course special considerations
when ex-offenders are involved. These special considerations
do not diminish the importance of the task. Rather, they
emphasize the importance of the goal.
Federal prisons themselves have programs to help train
inmates for productive work. The Federal Prison Industries,
an agency of the Department of Justice which was established
in 1934 to employ and train federal inmates, has 51 industrial
operations in 23 correctional institutions. About 25 per
cent of all federal prisoners volunteer to participate in
Federal Prison Industries programs. Many of these programs
do not train inmates for jobs in segments of industry
that are thriving today. More than a quarter of all Federal
Prison Industries workers today, for example, are employed
in the shoe and textile industries. But new programs to
train inmates in skills that are more in demand are under
way and expanding. Three federal corrections institutions
now have training programs in computer technology. Two
institutions have auto mechanic training programs, and
another institution will open one soon. Better training
programs in federal prisons must be initiated, but they alone
will not guarantee that an ex-offender's reunification with
society will be a success.
There is a problem of acceptance of the ex-offender
both by his employer and by his co-workers. Deep prejudices
are directed toward an ex-offender, and they stand as a
- 11 -
barrier to his success in society. President Ford has
directed the U.S. Civil Service Commission to review a
program it administers, a program designed to prevent
federal employers from unjustly discriminating against
ex-offenders. The President has also asked the National
Governors Conference to study steps the states can take
to eliminate discrimination in their hiring of ex-offenders.
The private sector must take similar steps. Some
100,000 offenders are being discharged by federal and
state prisons and local jails each year. The unemployment
rate for ex-offenders is three times what it is for the
regular work force. Groups such as the National Alliance
of Businessmen have recognized that high unemployment among
ex-offenders bodes ill for the recidivism rate. The Alliance
is one of the sponsors of your forum, so permit me to
dwell a moment on its important program. The Alliance does
not do job placement work. It goes to businessmen and
solicits from them job openings for ex-offenders. These
openings are then turned over to other agencies that actually
place individuals in jobs. The Alliance's ex-offender
program in a little more than two years has resulted in the
placement of 20,000 ex-offenders in jobs.
This program and others seem to be working, but more
like them are needed. As I indicated at the outset, the
FORD
entire criminal justice system needs to be viewed in light
of its impact upon the final reunification of the offender
LIBRARY
with society. Society bears a great burden. Through the
- 12 -
system of criminal justice it imposes upon individuals
the dramatic loss of liberty that is involved in
imprisonment. Society must insist that the system
operate with fairness and decency. But its responsibility
is much greater. Society must itself be prepared to
reunite with the ex-offender if he is to have a chance
of succeeding outside the walls.
I have often said that high crime rates will exist
SO long as society stands for it. I mean by this more than
simply that citizens must cooperate with law enforcement
officials in reporting crime and doing their part in the
criminal justice process. I mean also that crime rates
will continue to be high so long as society does not
realize that it cannot treat as outcasts the persons whose
liberty it has once curtailed in the name of the law.
The glory of the American system, despite all the
skepticism and self doubts which are at times to be
expected, is that we have an open society in which many
institutions, public and private, and individual citizens,
public and private, can voluntarily work together for the
common good. The open society relies heavily on the
individual decisions and commitments of each one of us.
It is based on the leadership which each one of us in
our own way can give. In the complex order of the modern
day it is often difficult to recapture the sense of community
upon which so much depends. A realization of our common
- 13 -
purpose and necessity, and the importance of the values
of human dignity, must bring us together. The problem
of crime cannot be solved if we do not see the eventual
reunification of the offender into the fruitful walks
of our society as an imperative. In this endeavor there
will be successes and failure. But each instance of
success is a reason for celebration -- a reaffirmation of
the ideals which give meaning to our own lives.
I congratulate you upon the work in which you are
engaged. It is among the important items in the agenda for
our times.
DOJ-1976-01
Crime
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 9, 1976
Dear Mr. Wanger:
Thank you for taking the time to express your views to me in
writing on the death penalty.
As you are aware, the President supports the imposition of the
death penalty under certain limited circumstances. As you also
note, the issue is presently before the Supreme Court which has
heard extensive arguments on the subject. The decision of the
Court will, in all likelihood, occasion a general reexamination
of the issue. Let me assure you that when that time comes
your views, and the views of many others who have expressed
them to the President, will be considered anew.
Thank you again for your time and your thoughtful counsel.
Sincerely,
They W. Buchen
Philip W. Buchen
Counsel to the President
Mr. Eugene C. Wanger
1202 Michigan National Tower
Lansing, Michigan 48933
FORD is LIBRARY BERRAD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 12, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
KEN LAZARUS
FROM:
PHIL BUCHEN P.
Attached is correspondence from a man who was
referred to me by Rogers Morton dealing with
the subject of death penalty.
I would appreciate your framing an answer
for me.
Attachment
FORD is LIBRARY DERALD
EUGENE G. WANGER
ATTORNEY AT LAW
202-MICHICAN NATIONAL TOWER
LANGING, MICHAN 48033
TELEPHONE 322 184-9497
May 7, 1976
Mr. Philip W. Buchen
The White House
Washington, D. C.
Dear Mr. Buchen:
Pursuant to our conversation yesterday, this letter
is to summarize why the President should reconsider his
position on the death penalty, and to briefly explain the
enclosed supporting material.
The guts of the matter is that capital punishment
is useless in fighting crime and damages law enforcement.
It is useless for two reasons: First because the
death penalty is unnecessary to prevent paroled first-degree
murderers from killing again. Contrary to popular belief,
the facts show that there is almost no recidivism of any
kind by this group of convicts. Second, because it fails
to deter capital crime better than life imprisonment.
Whether you are a policeman, prison guard or other citizen,
the evidence clearly shows that you are no safer from being
a victim of homicide where they have capital punishment.
It damages law enforcement in several ways. I think
these three are the most significant: First, it severely
impairs that certainty and swiftness of conviction and punish-
ment, which is society's best deterrent to crime. Juries
often refuse to convict where the penalty is death; where
the penalty is life imprisonment, more convictions are possible
with less delays. Second, it incites additional killings by
the mentally disturbed, the weak-minded and the growing group
of fanatical extremists who actually seek martyrdom in
furtherance of their cause. Third, it occasionally executes
the innocent by mistake. These horrors are immensly destruct-
ive to public confidence in government and to the morale of
the officials who must administer our criminal laws.
Because the press so consistently treats capital pun-
ishment as a political rather than a factual issue, I emphasize
that none of the above reasons are based on speculation.
They are based on known facts, and the same kind of analysis
successful businessmen and public officials use every day.
This is shown by the following enclosures:
FORD is LIBRARY
Buchen 5/7/76 - 2.2
First is the 1971 pamphlet by the Washington Research
Project entitled THE CASE AGAINST CAPITAL PUNISHMENT. It is
the best pamphlet treatment I have seen in the more than
fifteen years that I have been a student of the subject.
Second is the 1975 booklet LETTERS ON THE PENALTY
OF DEATH, by the Michigan Committee Against Capital Punish-
ment. It includes more Michigan information pertaining to
the subject than is elsewhere available. This has special
national significance because Michigan has been without
the death penalty longer than any other state.
Third is my recent article on CAPITAL PUNISHMENT AND
LAW ENFORCEMENT, published last September. It draws together
almost all of the law enforcement aspects of the question,
which I have not seen done in any other place.
Because of the approaching Supreme Court decision,
I believe that a reconsideration of the President's position
on capital punishment is urgent, and I stand ready to get
you any further information or documentation on the subject
that you desire.
With good wishes,
Sincerely,
Eugure G. Wangor
Eugene G. Wanger
EGW:m
Inclosures
FORD : LIBRARY 07V830
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Date 7/6/76
TO:
PHIL BUCHEN
FROM:
KEN LAZARUS
ACTION:
XX
Approval/Signature
Comments/Recommendations
Prepare Response
Please Handle
For Your Information
File
REMARKS:
I am advised that the President this morning
requested a memorandum of this sort. I
spoke with the AG's Office and Dick Parsons,
neither of whom had any recommendations
to make with regard to the options presented
here.
The AG would like to see a copy of the memo
before it goes in.
cc: Ed Schmults
FORD : OERALD LIBRARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
HOLD FILE
WASHINGTON
(Original
July 6, 1976
returned
to Ken to be
redome.
MEMORANDUM FOR
THE HONORABLE EDWARD H. LEVI
ATTORNEY GENERAL
SUBJECT:
Memorandum for the President on
Capital Punishment
Attached is draft of a memorandum prepared for my signature
and submission to the President. I would very much appreciate
having your comments and suggestions before it is put into
final form.
R.W.B.
Philip W. Buchen
Counsel to the President
Attachment
FORD & LIBRARY 0ERALD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
DRAFT
7/6/76
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
PHILIP W. BUCHEN
SUBJECT: Capital Punishment
As you know, the Supreme Court on July 2 decided five cases involving
the imposition of the death penalty. This is to present a brief back-
ground and analysis of these cases in the context of current Federal
statutory law and to offer two options relative to the issue of capital
punishment which are available to you at this time.
Present Federal Statutes
The death penalty is presently specified as an authorized sentence upon
conviction under at least ten sections of Federal law, including
offenses proscribing murder, treason, rape, air piracy, and delivery
of defense information to aid a foreign government: 18 U.S. C. 34
(destruction of motor vehicles or motor vehicle facilities where death
results); 18 U.S. C. 351 (assassination or kidnapping of a Member of
Congress); 18 U.S. C. 794 (gathering or delivering defense information
to aid a foreign government); 18 U.S. C. 1111 (murder in the first
degree within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the
United States); 18 U.S. C. 1716 (causing the death of another by mailing
injurious articles); 18 U.S. C. 1751 (Presidential and Vice Presidential
murder and kidnapping); 18 U.S. C. 2031 (rape within the special
maritime or territorial jurisdiction of the United States); 18 U.S. C.
2381 (treason); and 49 U.S. C. 1472(i) (aircraft piracy).
As drafted, however, the death penalty provisions in these sections,
except for the recently revised provision relating to aircraft piracy
which is discussed below, are unconstitutional under the U. S. Supreme
Court's decision in the case of Furman V. Georgia [408 U.S. 238 (1972)].
The Furman Case
In Furman, a five-justice majority of the Supreme Court held that the
imposition and carrying out of the death penalty in the cases in question**
would constitute "cruel and unusual punishment" in violation of the GERAD
LIBRARY
- 2 -
Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court did not hold that
capital punishment per se is unconstitutional. Rather, they concluded
that the application of statutes leaving the imposition of the death
penalty to the unfettered discretion of a judge or jury was consti-
tutionally infirm.
Referring to the "wanton and freakish imposition" of the death
penalty, which was noted with disfavor in the pivotal concurring
opinions of Justices Stewart and White, the Chief Justice in his dissent
noted:
"Since the Court's decision turns on the assumption
that the punishment of death is now meted out in a
random and unpredictable manner, legislative bodies
may seek to bring their laws into compliance with
the Court's ruling by providing standards for juries
and judges to follow in determining the sentence in
capital cases or by more narrowly defining the crimes
for which the penalty is to be imposed. If such
standards can be devised or the crimes more meticu-
lously defined, the result cannot be detrimental."
(Emphasis added.) (at 396-401)
* *
As articulated in the Furman decision, then, it appeared clear that
the objection of the Supreme Court to the death penalty as a punishment
for certain crimes went not to its nature but to the manner of its
imposition.
Post-Furman Legislative Initiatives
In the wake of the Furman decision, there developed three different
approaches to the reinstatement of the death penalty: (1) mandatory
imposition of the death penalty upon conviction of certain offenses;
(2) establishment of exclusive and determinative criteria to be applied
by the sentencing authority to determine whether the penalty is to be
imposed; and (3) establishment of designated criteria to serve as a
guideline for the discretionary imposition of the penalty.
By a literal reading of Furman, some argued that mandatory death
would be able to withstand the test of constitutionality by precluding
GENAL
LIBRARY
- 3 -
the exercise of any discretion on the part of the sentencing authority
and thereby eliminating the danger of "wanton and freakish" appli-
cation. Such penalties would attach to the conviction of specified
offenses, e.g., murder, and would preclude the consideration of
any mitigating circumstances that might justify a lesser punishment
in a particular case. This concept was embraced in legislation
enacted in a number of states.
The second approach would allow for the imposition of the death penalty
upon conviction of certain classes of heinous offenses, but only when
one or more of certain designated aggravating circumstances is found
to exist (e.g., if the defendant were shown to be a hired killer) and
none of certain specified mitigating circumstances is found to exist
(e.g., immaturity, duress, etc.). This concept was advanced by the
Department of Justice and incorporated into Pub. L. 93-366, enacted
on August 5, 1974, which relates, however, only to murder incident
to aircraft piracy [49 U.S. C. (i) (n) (Supp. IV)]. Additionally, the
Department supported the same concept in the context of a general
capital punishment measure which passed the Senate in 1974 (S. 1401,
93d Cong.) by a margin of over 3 to 2, but received no attention in the
House. The same approach is included in the bill to recodify the
totality of Federal criminal law (S. 1, 94th Cong.), but has not been
introduced as a separate measure in the current Congress.
The third approach to reinstatement of the death penalty involved the
establishment of criteria to serve as a guide in the discretionary
imposition of the penalty. This was the course originally adopted before
the Furman opinion by the American Law Institute (ALI) in its Model
Penal Code. Under this scheme even if several aggravating and no
mitigating circumstances are found to exist, the death penalty need not
be imposed. This discretionary element distinguishes the ALI approach
from the Justice Department concept.
In your speech before the Federal Bar Association in Miami, Florida,
on February 14, 1976, you stated:
* * *
"I favor the use of the death penalty in the Federal
criminal system in accordance with proper Constitu-
tional standards. The death penalty should be imposed upon
the conviction of sabotage, murder, espionage and treason.
i
Of course, the maximum penalty should not be applied if
FORD
there is duress or impaired mental capacity or similar
GERALD
LIBRARY
- 4 -
extenuating circumstances, But in murders involving
substantial danger to the national security, or when
the defendant is a coldblooded hired killer, the use of
capital punishment is fully justified. "
* * *
Thus, you are on record in support of a limited reinstatement of the
death penalty in accordance with the Supreme Court's teachings in
Furman. More specifically, your statement is supportive of both the
ALI and Justice approaches.
The Gregg Case
In the lead case decided last week [Gregg V. Georgia, 44 LW 5230],
the Supreme Court held that a statutory scheme similar to that advanced
by the ALI and applied to the offense of first-degree murder was con-
sistent with the constitutional requirements announced in Furman. *
The Gregg case established the jury as the sentencing authority, but in
a companion case the Court also sustained a statute allowing for impo-
sition by a judge under the same standards [Profitt V. Florida, 44
LW 5256].
A third case involved a state statutory scheme which made reference to
a series of aggravating circumstances but did not explicitly speak of
mitigating circumstances. However, since the statute had been judicially
construed to embrace the jury's consideration of such circumstances,
its validity was also sustained [Jurek V. Texas, 44 LW 5262].
Two state capital punishment statutes were struck down by the Court.
These required a mandatory death penalty upon conviction of first-
degree murder and a range of other homicidal offenses without reference
to any aggravating or mitigating circumstances. The Court concluded
that both were inconsistent with the requirements established by Furman.
[Woodson V. North Carolina, 44 LW 5267 and Roberts V. Louisiana,
44 LW 5281]
*
The Georgia statute contained provision for the automatic appellate
review of death penalty cases. Although this does not appear to be
a constitutional necessity, it should be noted that the Justice Department
model contains a similar provision. Additionally, both the Georgia
statute and the Justice Department bill required a bifurcated trial and
a criminal evidentiary standard, i. e., "beyond a reasonable doubt" at
LIBRAR
the sentencing proceeding.
- 5 -
Options
The Supreme Court's ruling is entirely consistent with your expressed
views on the matter of capital punishment. It also logically invites
enactment of legislation (incorporating either the ALI or Justice
Department model) to reinstate the death penalty as an available
sanction on the Federal level. The question now posed is to what
extent do you personally wish to become involved in an attempt to
expedite Congressional consideration of an appropriate legislative
proposal? Two options arise:
1. Merely have the Press Office issue a statement
supporting the Court's decision and calling for the
enactment of appropriate legislation restoring the
death penalty on the Federal level.
2.
Schedule a meeting with the Attorney General and
Counsel's Office to review specific legislative
proposals and to explore further your role in
enacting an appropriate measure.
Approve:
Option 1
Option 2
FORD LIBRARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
7/9- Copy atty. sent ber'l
July 8, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
PHILIP W. BUCHEN
T.
SUBJECT:
Capital Punishment
As you know, the Supreme Court on July 2 decided five cases involving
the imposition of the death penalty. This is to present a brief back-
ground and analysis of these cases in the context of current Federal
statutory law and to offer two options relative to the issue of capital
punishment which are available to you at this time.
Present Federal Statutes
The death penalty is presently specified as an authorized sentence upon
conviction under at least ten sections of Federal law, including
offenses proscribing murder, treason, rape, air piracy, and delivery
of defense information to aid a foreign government: 18 U.S. C. 34
(destruction of motor vehicles or motor vehicle facilities where death
results); 18 U.S. C. 351 (assassination or kidnapping of a Member of
Congress); 18 U.S. C. 794 (gathering or delivering defense information
to aid a foreign government); 18 U.S. C. 1111 (murder in the first
degree within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the
United States); 18 U.S. C. 1716 (causing the death of another by mailing
injurious articles); 18 U.S.C. 1751 (Presidential and Vice Presidential
murder and kidnapping); 18 U.S. C. 2031 (rape within the special
maritime or territorial jurisdiction of the United States); 18 U.S. C.
2381 (treason); and 49 U.S. C. 1472(i) (aircraft piracy).
As drafted, however, the death penalty provisions in these sections,
except for the recently revised provision relating to aircraft piracy
which is discussed below, are unconstitutional under the U. SteSupr eme
Court's decision in the case of Furman v. Georgia [408 U.S. 238 (1972)].
The Furman Case
In Furman, a five-justice majority of the Supreme Court held that the
imposition and carrying out of the death penalty in the cases in question
would constitute "cruel and unusual punishment" in violation of the
GERALD LIBRARY
2 -
Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court did not hold that
capital punishment per se is unconstitutional. Rather, they concluded
that the application of statutes leaving the imposition of the death
penalty to the unfettered discretion of a judge or jury was
constitutionally infirm.
Referring to the "wanton and freakish imposition" of the death
penalty, which was noted with disfavor in the pivotal concurring
opinions of Justices Stewart and White, the Chief Justice in his
dissent noted:
"Since the Court's decision turns on the assumption
that the punishment of death is now meted out in a
random and unpredictable manner, legislative bodies
may seek to bring their laws into compliance with
the Court's ruling by providing standards for juries
and judges to follow in determining the sentence in
capital cases or by more narrowly defining the
crimes for which the penalty is to be imposed. If
such standards can be devised or the crimes more
meticulously defined, the result cannot be
detrimental. " (Emphasis added.) (at 396-401)
*
As articulated in the Furman decision then, it appeared clear that
the objection of the Supreme Court to the death penalty as a punishment
for certain crimes went not to its nature but to the manner of its
imposition.
Post-Furman Legislative Initiatives
In the wake of the Furman decision, there developed three different
approaches to the reinstatement of the death penalty: (1) mandatory
imposition of the death penalty upon conviction of certain offenses;
(2) establishment of exclusive and determinative criteria to be applied
by the sentencing authority to determine whether the penalty is to be
imposed; and (3) establishment of designated criteria to serve as a
guideline for the discretionary imposition of the penalty.
By a literal reading of Furman, some argued that mandatory death
would be able to withstand the test of constitutionality by precluding
GERALD
LIBRARY
3
the exercise of any discretion on the part of the sentencing authority
and thereby eliminating the danger of "wanton and freakish" appli-
cation. Such penalties would attach to the conviction of specified
offenses, e.g., murder, and would preclude the consideration of
any mitigating circumstances that might justify a lesser punishment
in a particular case. This concept was embraced in legislation
enacted in a number of states.
The second approach would allow for the imposition of the death penalty
upon conviction of certain classes of heinous offenses, but only when
one or more of certain designated aggravating circumstances is found
to exist (e. g., if the defendant were shown to be a hired killer) and
none of certain specified mitigating circumstances is found to exist
(e. g., immaturity, duress, etc.). This concept was advanced by the
Department of Justice and incorporated into Pub. L. 93-366, enacted
on August 5, 1974, which relates, however, only to murder incident
to aircraft piracy [49 U.S. C. 1472 (n) (Supp. IV)]. Additionally, the
Department supported the same concept in the context of a general
capital punishment measure which passed the Senate in 1974 (S. 1401,
93d Cong. ) by a margin of over 3 to 2, but received no attention in the
House. The same approach is included in the bill to recodify the
totality of Federal criminal law (S. 1, 94th Cong. ), but has not been
introduced as a separate measure in the current Congress.
The third approach to reinstatement of the death penalty involved the
establishment of criteria to serve as a guide in the discretionary
imposition of the penalty. This was the course originally adopted before
the Furman opinion by the American Law Institute (ALI) in its Model
Penal Code. Under this scheme even if several aggravating and no
mitigating circumstances are found to exist, the death penalty need not
be imposed. This discretionary element distinguishes the ALI approach
from the Justice Department concept.
In your speech before the Federal Bar Association in Miami, Florida,
on February 14, 1976, you stated:
"I favor the use of the death penalty in the Federal
criminal system in accordance with proper Constitu-
tional standards. The death penalty should be imposed upon
the conviction of sabotage, murder, espionage and treason.
Of course, the maximum penalty should not be applied if
there is duress or impaired mental capacity or similar
is
FORD
CENALT
LICHRRY
extenuating circumstances. But in murders involving
substantial danger to the national security, or when
the defendant is a coldblooded hired killer, the use of
capital punishment is fully justified. "
Thus, you are on record in support of a limited reinstatement of the
death penalty in accordance with the Supreme Court's teachings in
Furman. More specifically, your statement is supportive of both the
ALI and Justice approaches.
The Gregg Case
In the lead case decided last week [Gregg V. Georgia, 44 LW 5230],
the Supreme Court held that a statutory scheme similar to that advanced
by the ALI and applied to the offense of first-degree murder was con-
sistent with the constitutional requirements announced in Furman. *
The Court expressly reserved judgment with respect to possible
application of the sanction to other crimes, e.g., rape and kidnapping.
The Gregg case established the jury as the sentencing authority, but in
a companion case the Court also sustained a statute allowing for
imposition by a judge under the same standards [Profitt V. Florida,
44 LW 5256].
A third case involved a state statutory scheme which made reference to
a series of aggravating circumstances but did not explicitly speak of
mitigating circumstances. However, since the statute had been judicially
construed to embrace the jury's consideration of such circumstances,
its validity was also sustained [Jurek V. Texas, 44 LW 5262].
Two state capital punishment statutes were struck down by the Court.
These required a mandatory death penalty upon conviction of first-
degree murder and a range of other homicidal offenses without reference
to any aggravating or mitigating circumstances. The Court concluded
that both were inconsistent with the requirements established by* Furman.
[Woodson V. North Carolina, 44 LW 5267 and Roberts V. Louisiana,
44 LW 5281]
*
The Georgia statute contained provision for the automatic appellate
review of death penalty cases. Although this does not appear to be
a constitutional necessity, it should be noted that the Justice Department
model contains a similar provision. Additionally, both the Georgia
statute and the Justice Department bill required a bifurcated trial and
a criminal evidentiary standard, i. e., "beyond a reasonable GERAD doubt'
at the sentencing proceeding.
LIBRARY
- 5 -
Options
The Supreme Court's ruling is entirely consistent with your expressed
views on the matter of capital punishment. It also logically invites
enactment of legislation (incorporating either the ALI or Justice
Department model, both of which are constitutional under Gregg) to
reinstate the death penalty as an available sanction on the Federal
level. The question now posed is to what extent do you. personally
wish to become involved in an attempt to expedite Congressional
consideration of an appropriate legislative proposal? Two options
arise:
1. Direct the Attorney General to forward a bill to
Congress incorporating the features of S. 1401 as
passed by the Senate during the 93d Congress and
to work with the key committees of Congress on a
priority basis toward enactment. [Supported by the
Attorney General and Counsel's Office. ]
2. Schedule a meeting with the Attorney General and
Counsel's Office to review specific legislative
proposals and to explore further your role in
enacting an appropriate measure.
Approve:
Option 1
Option 2
FORD
9783
LIBRARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
Instice
WASHINGTON
July 31, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
I have reviewed the attached 1970 memorandum by former
Solicitor General Erwin Griswold on the death penalty cases
which Doug Marvin sent to me. In Griswold's memorandum,
he indicated that in 1976 there were over 600 persons under
sentence of death within the United States and that he was very
concerned about the spectre of several hundred executions
taking place within a short period of time.
While Justice Powell's ruling stays executions pending a decision
on rehearing, it is possible that we eventually may be faced with
a large number of executions taking place within a short time
frame. However, I disagree with Griswold's conclusion that
the Attorney General should emphasize the "responsibility of the
chief executives of the states to take account of the special
situation which is presented in the exercise of executive clemency."
It is my opinion that if and when all avenues of appeal to the
Supreme Court have been finally concluded and rejected, the
governors of the individual states should make decisions on
executive clemency without public or private advice from the
Federal government. Doug indicated to me in his memorandum
that you did not believe that Griswold's proposal was desirable.
I thought you would want to know that I agree with your assessment.
Philip W. Buchen
Counsel to the President
FORD is GERALD LIBRARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
washington
September 1, 1976
FOR: PHIL BUCHEN
JACK MARSH
JIM CANNON
RON NESSEN
DICK PARSONS
FROM: KEN LAZARUS
FYI
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
Crime
Gun Control in the District of Columbia
Bazeling
7
Some confusion has arisen regarding a series of events
relating to a gun control law recently enacted by the
Council of the District of Columbia and approved by the
Mayor. Hopefully, this will serve to clarify the series
of events which may be outlined as follows:
Act.1-142, approved by Mayor Washington on
July 23, 1976, would prohibit the possession
of a handgun by any person within the District
of Columbia on and after its effective date,
except for police officers, special officers,
or persons owning handguns which had been
properly registered under the old law.
Act. 1-142 was grounded upon the authority of
the District
"
to make and modify
...
and enforce / certain7 usual and reasonable
police regulations " /D. C. Code, Sec.
1-2247. Congress amplified this grant of
authority in D. C. Code, Sec. 1-227 which
provides that
the District
is
authorized and empowered to make
...
reasonable police regulations
as the
/D. c.7 Council may deem necessary for the
regulation of firearms, projectiles,
explosives, or weapons of any kind".
(Emphasis added)
On August 27, Congress forwarded to the
President, H.R. 12261 which would postpone
for two years more the authority to be
delegated to the D. C. government by Section
602 (a) (9) of Pub. L. 93-198 /the so-called
"Home Rule Act"7. Section 602 (a) (9) authorizes
the D. C. government to enact amendments to
title 22 or 24 of the D. C. Code /relating to
crimes and treatment of prisoners/after
January 3, 1977.
H.R. 12261 also contains the so-called "Dent
Amendment" /after Rep. John Dent (D.-Pa.)7
which purports to disapprove of Act.1-142 and
thus make the local gun control law a nullity.
However, under Section 602 (e) (1) of the "Home
Rule Act", the exclusive method of disapproving
an enactment of the D. C. government is by
"concurrent resolution" within a period of
30 legislative days after final D. C. action.
Therefore, the so-called "Dent Amendment"
itself would appear to be a nullity.
On September 1, the House is scheduled to take
up H. Con. Res. 694 to disapprove of Act. 1-142.
Under the "Home Rule Act", this concurrent
resolution would also require the approval of
the Senate but would not come to the President
for his signature.
The President has not, to date, expressed
himself on any of the particulars discussed herein.
Since H. Con. Res. would not require Presidential approval,
there is simply no gun control issue currently under review at
the White House. September 7 is the last day for action on
H.R. 12261.
THE WHITE HOUSE
ACTION MEMORANDUM
WASHINGTON
LOG NO.:
Date: December 7, 1976
Time:
FOR ACTION:
CC (for information):
Phil Buchen
Jack Marsh
FROM THE STAFF SECRETARY
DUE: Date:
Time:
Tuesday, December 7, 1976
2:00 P.M.
SUBJECT:
Jim Cannon memo, 12/6/76 re
60 Minutes on the Victims of Crime
ACTION REQUESTED:
For Necessary Action
X For Your Recommendations
Prepare Agenda and Brief
Draft Reply
X For Your Comments
Draft Remarks
REMARKS:
Suggest Attorney General be asked to contact
60 Minutes, since the erroneous remark relates
to the Department of Justice.
P.W.B.
Philip W. Buchen
Counsel to the President
FORD is LIBRARY 07V870
PLEASE ATTACH THIS COPY TO MATERIAL SUBMITTED.
Jim Connor
If you have any questions or if you anticipate a
For the President
delay in submitting the required material, please
telephone the Staff Secretary immediately.
INFORMATION
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
December 6, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
JIM CANNON
Im
SUBJECT:
60 Minute. on the Victims of Crime
As you requested, I looked into the report on the 60 Minutes
television show on the victims of crime. Morley Scafer's
quote at the very end of the show was: "The chief opposi-
tion came from the Justice Department on financial grounds"
(script at Tab A).
In your proposal to the Congress, you advocated a Federal
Victims Compensation Program for the victims of federal
crimes. The first year cost was estimated at about $7.5
million.
However, the Senate passed a bill which:
(a) established a Federal Victims Crime Program, such
as you advocated; and
(b) authorized states to utilize LEAA bloc grant
monies to fund state victims compensation programs
on a 90% (federal)/10% (state) basis.
LEAA Administrator Velde testified in favor of your program.
However, he testified against federal funding of state and
local victims compensation programs, the beginning cost of
which would have been about $20 million annually.
I recommend that someone on your behalf make the point to 60
Minutes that you supported the principle of compensating
victims and proposed specific federal funds for it.
We could ask Attorney General Levi to do this or I could do
it for you.
FORD
Ask Attorney General Levi to contact 60 Minutes
Cannon to contact 60 Minutes
GERA
LIBRARY
Discuss
"VICTIMS"
OPEN
SAFER:
We don't have to remind you that this country is in the
middle of a wave of violent crime -- all the statistics do
is reconfirm what we know, only too well.
With this nightly news of muggings, hold-ups, rapes and mur-
ders, more and more attention has been focused on reforming
prisons
on rehabilitation of violent offenders. In a
sense, criminals have been cast as a deprived and under-
privileged minority.
All this attention has tended to cast into the shadows
another group of Americans who are closely related to
criminals and crime. The victims. They make very few
demands -- very little noise. Often they are too hurt --
emotionally and physically to speak out for their rights.
It's something worth thinking about
because one thing all
of us share is
the chance to become the victim of a crime,
any time, any place.
For example, a shopping center in the suburbs of Minneapolis.
FORD : LIBRARY
- 1 -
60 MINUTES
"VICTIMS"
VOL. IX, No. 11
FINAL CUT
12/5/76
SAFER:
IN NOVEMBER, 1974, THIS WAS A BASEMENT RECORD
SHOP, THE KIND OF PLACE THAT YOUNG PEOPLE
HANG OUT IN. ONE SATURDAY NIGHT THERE
WERE FOUR PEOPLE DOWN HERE, A YOUNG WOMAN,
A CLERK, AND THREE YOUNG MEN,
ONE OF THE MEN AFTER BROWSING AROUND LEFT,
WENT ACROSS THE STREET, BOUGHT HIMSELF A HAMBI
BROUGHT IT BACK HERE, SAT DOWN ON THE TOP
STEP AND ATE IT. WHEN HE WAS FINISHED HE
PULLED OUT A GUN AND A MACHETE. WALKED
BACK DOWN HERE SHOT ONE OF THE YOUNG MEN,
KILLED HIM INSTANTLY; SHOT THE OTHER FOUR TIMI
AND CRIPPLED HIM FOR LIFE, AND THEN HE CHASED
THE CLERK, THE YOUNG WOMAN, BACK HERE, BACK
INTO THIS BACK ROOM
HE SHOT HER FOUR TIMES
WHAT WERE THE PERMANENT INJURIES?
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
- 2 -
JENNY RANDELL:
WELL, MY ARM'S PARALYZED,
SAFER:
IT'S YOUR LEFT ARM?
JENNY RANDELL:
YEAH. AND MY VOICE, IT USED TO BE A LOT
WORSE THAN IT IS NOW.
SAFER:
WHAT HAPPENED?
JENNY RANDELL:
HIT ONE OF THE VOCAL CORDS, GOT SEVERED.
AND I DON'T KNOW ALL THE SCARS I GOT, You
KNOW, ....
KEVIN FINNEMAN:
HE COME BACK AFTER ME BECAUSE HE'D SEEN ME
UP AND HE STUCK THE GUN UP TOWARDS MY HEAD
AND I DUCKED A SHOT. LANDED ON MY STOMACH.
AND HE STUCK ONE --STUCK THE GUN UP TO MY BAC
AND SHOT ME SQUARE IN THE SPINAL CORD, WHICH
PARALYZED ME.
SAFER:
Two PEOPLE SCARRED HORRIBLY FOR LIFE, ONE
YOUNG MAN DEAD, AND AS IN MOST CASES LIKE
THIS ONE, A KILLER STILL ON THE LOOSE.
IDRARY
- 3 -
SAFER: ( CONTINUED)
IN THE UNLIKELY EVENT THAT HE IS CAUGHT,
THE STATE WILL BEND EVERY EFFORT TO CURE HIM,
TO MAKE HIM A BETTER MAN. BUT WHAT ABOUT
THE VICTIMS?
KEVIN FINNEMAN, FOR EXAMPLE, HE WILL NEVER
WALK AGAIN
KEVIN IS A STRONG, DETERMINED TO BE INDEPENDENT
YOUNG MAN. HIS NEIGHBORS HELD A DANCE TO
RAISE MONEY FOR THIS ESPECIALLY EQUIPPED VAN.
HE'S STUDYING MECHANICAL DRAFTING. AND IF
YOU CAN BELIEVE IT, KEVIN IS LUCKY. HE
LIVES IN MINNESOTA, ONE OF SIXTEEN STATES
THAT PROVIDES SOME COMPENSATION TO VICTIMS
OF CRIMES. THE COMPENSATION BOARD GAVE
HIM THE MAXIMUM, TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS TO
COVER MEDICAL BILLS, REHABILITATION AND THE
LOSS OF HIS LEGS FOREVER. IT IS PAID IN
MONTHLY INSTALLMENTS. LAST MONTH IT RAN
OUT.
KEVIN FINNEMAN, AGE TWENTY-ONE, IS
PAID IN FULL.
FORD is LIBRARY DERALL
- 4 -
SAFER:
NEW YORK STATE TOO, HAS A VICTIM COMPENSATION
BOARD. IT HEARS APPEALS, AND LIKE MOST BC
IT AMOUNTS TO A VICTIM'S COURT. IN ORDER
TO COLLECT REPARATIONS, THE VICTIM MUST
PROVE HIS INNOCENCE, MUST PROVE HE OR SHE
HAS NOT CONTRIBUTED TO THE CRIME. AND MOST
STATES VIEW COMPENSATION AS A FORM OF CHARITY
RATHER THAN A RIGHT, FORCING THE VICTIM TO
DEMONSTRATE FINANCIAL NEED. IF THE VICTIM
ALREADY HAS INSURANCE AND MEDICAL COVERAGE
AND WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION, HE COLLECTS
VIRTUALLY NOTHING, AND JUST LISTEN TO THE
RESULTING STATISTICS
ONLY FOUR OF A HUNDRED VICTIMS ARE ELIGIBLE.
AND ONLY A FIFTH OF THEM, FEWER THAN ONE PERS
IN A HUNDRED, MAKE APPLICATION. THEY EITHER
DO NOT KNOW ABOUT COMPENSATION OR DO NOT
WANT THEIR LIVES INVESTIGATED,
JENNY, THE CLERK AT THE MINNEAPOLIS RECORD
STORE, RECEIVED ONLY NINE HUNDRED DOLLARS
FROM THE MINNESOTA BOARD, THAT'S BECAUSE
JENNY WAS ELIGIBLE FOR WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION
DRD LIORAPY
- 5 -
SAFER: (CONTINUED)
BUT FINANCIAL PROBLEMS ARE NOT THE ONLY
PROBLEMS THAT VICTIMS HAVE. JENNY WAS
AN EXPERT WATER SKIER. Now SHE FINDS IT
DIFFICULT TO WALK. HER SENSE OF BALANCE
HAS BEEN IMPAIRED. AT TWENTY-ONE, JENNY RAN
MUST TRY TO BUILD A NEW LIFE OUT OF A BROKEN
BODY.
WAS THERE ANY OTHER STATE AID OR STATE
PROGRAM TO HELP YOU, TO REHABILITATE YOU?
JENNY RANDELL:
No. THERE WASN'T.
SAFER:
No PROGRAM TO TEACH YOU A JOB OR A TRADE OR
EDUCATE YOU?
JENNY RANDELL:
NOTHING SPECIAL, NO.
THEY HAVE THE
VO-TECH SCHOOLS, BUT THAT'S FOR EVERYONE.
THEY DON'T HAVE IT JUST FOR VICTIMS OF
CRIME,
SAFER:
WHAT ABOUT ANY PHYSIOTHERAPY, THAT KIND OF
THING?
JENNY RANDELL:
LIBRARY
No.
- 6 -
SAFER:
To GET YOU OVER YOUR CURRENT PROBLEMS?
JENNY RANDELL:
No, THERE'S NOTHING,
SAFER:
ARE YOU BITTER IN ANY WAY JENNY, THAT
I SUPPOSE YOU COULD GO INTO ANY PRISON IN THE
COUNTRY AND SEE FANTASTIC TECHNICAL SCHOOLS,
TRADE SCHOOLS AND ALL KINDS OF METHODS BEING
USED TO "REHABILITATE" PEOPLE,
JENNY RANDELL:
YES, I AM.
SAFER:
AND YET, FOR YOU, AS A VICTIM, NOTHING?
JENNY RANDELL:
YEAH, THAT BOTHERS ME QUITE A BIT, THEY'RE
TRYING TO HELP THEM SO MUCH, BUT THEY ---
YOU KNOW, THEY DON'T REALLY DO: ANYTHING FOR
ANYBODY ELSE, You KNOW. THEY PAY MORE
ATTENTION TO THEM, THEY'RE MORE WORRIED ABOUT
THEM.
JIM FOGARTY:
THERE STANDS THE VICTIM OUT IN THE STREET,
BADLY BEATEN OR RENDERED DESTITUTE
OR INGAPAC
TATED EMOTIONALLY OR PHYSICALLY IN SORAL SOME WAY. HBRY
- 7 -
FOGARTY: (CONTINUED)
No ATTENTION HAD BEEN PAID TO THE VICTIM.
AND I THINK ANYONE WHO HAS EVEN THAT AMOUNT
OF HUMAN NATURE IN THEM CERTAINLY WOULD FEEL
THAT THAT REQUIRES SOME KIND OF ATTENTION
PROMPTLY,
SAFER:
JIM FOGARTY IS THE SENIOR VICTIM ADVOCATE
IN THE FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA, POLICE
DEPARTMENT.
IT'S ONE OF THE FEW SUCH
PROGRAMS IN THE COUNTRY, HE'S A ONE-MAN
BAND TRYING TO GIVE LEGAL ADVICE, DO SOCIAL
WORK AND BE, GENERALLY, A HELPING HAND
TO
VICTIMS, IT'S A PITIFULLY SMALL, PITIFULL
BUDGETED OPERATION, YET, HE IS A GREAT
HELP TO THOSE VICTIMS HE GIVES COUNSEL TO
VICTIMS LIKE RUTH PITT, WHOSE MISFORTUNE IT
VIAS TO STOP INTO A TAVERN OWNED BY SOME FRIEND
A ROBBERY TOOK PLACE AND SHE WAS STRUCK IN THE
FACE BY A RICOCHETING BULLET.
RUTH PITT:
WHEN I WAS IN THE BAR AND THE MAN CAME IN
AND SHOT, THE ONE BULLET BOUNCED OFF THE BAR,
HIT MY CHEEK, CUTTING ALL THE NERVES ON THE
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
SIDE OF MY FACE
WENT THROUGH MY EAR WHICH
- 8 -
RUTH PITT: (CONTINUED)
HAS MADE ME STONE DEAF IN THE ONE EAR AND
LODGED AT THE BASE OF MY SKULL.
JIM FOGARTY:
CON PHONE) JIM FOGARTY, VICTIM ADVOCATE OFFIC
OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT
SAFER:
RUTH PITT WAS DESTITUTE AND WOULD HAVE REMAIN
so HAD JIM FOGARTY NOT STEPPED IN AND CUT
THROUGH THE RED TAPE, AND FOUGHT THREE APPEAL
BEFORE HE WON FOR HER, A SOCIAL SECURITY
DISABILITY PENSION OF TWO HUNDRED AND TWENTY
DOLLARS A MONTH,
RUTH PITT:
I FOUGHT SOCIAL SECURITY BY MYSELF BY GOING
DOWN THERE AND BEING HASSLED, THE FOOD STAMPS
WAS THE SAME WAY, I WAS HASSLED AND --- AND
so
AND I WAS READY TO GIVE UP, I REALLY WA
No ONE HAS ANY IDEA OF WHAT IT'S LIKE UNTIL
YOU GO THROUGH IT.
SAFER:
THERE ARE SOME FEDERAL FUNDS DESIGNED TO HELP
VICTIMS, MONEY THAT COMES' FROM LEAA, THE
FORD
pig
LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE ADMINISTRATION.
LIBRARY
BUT THAT MONEY CANNOT GO DIRECTLY TO VICTIMS.
- 9 -
SAFER: (CONTINUED)
IT GOES INTO SUCH THINGS AS COURTHOUSE AMENITI
LOUNGES FOR WITNESSES, PEOPLE TO HELP WITNESSE
THROUGH THE LAW'S DELAYS.
BUT EVEN THIS INDIRECT HELP IS MINISCULE,
ONLY SIX MILLION DOLLARS FOR THE ENTIRE COUNTR
AND WHILE ALL CRIMES PRODUCE VICTIMS, FEW
CRIMES RESULT IN PROSECUTION, ONLY ABOUT
ONE IN TEN, WHEN THERE IS A REAL LIVE CRIMIN
OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM IS DESIGNED TO ENSURE
THAT HIS RIGHTS ARE PROTECTED. AND ONCE A
PROSECUTION IS MADE, OUR PENAL SYSTEM SPENDS
BILLIONS TO EDUCATE, REHABILITATE OR SIMPLY
OCCUPY THE TIME OF THE GUILTY,
BUT ONCE A CASE IS CLOSED, WE RARELY HEAR.
ANYMORE ABOUT THE CRIMINAL AND HIS VICTIM,
WE DECIDED TO FOLLOW UP ON ONE CRIME, TO LOOK
INTO THE LIVES OF BOTH MEN.
THIS MAN, JAIME FIGUEROA, WAS SENTENCED TO
TEN YEARS IN A NEW YORK STATE MEDIUM SECURITY
PRISON. Two YEARS AGO, FIGUEROA AND A FRIEND
BERALD FORD LIBRARY
GOT A GUN AND HELD UP THIS MAN IN A NEW DRD YORK
LIBRARY
- 10 -
SAFER: (CONTINUED)
SUBWAY, HIS NAME IS SYLVESTER DAVIS,
AGE THIRTY-NINE, SHOT IN THE HEAD AT CLOSE
RANGE RESULTING IN BLINDNESS AND SOME BRAIN
DAMAGE. HE WAS A WELL-PAID CONSTRUCTION
WORKER, NOW HE VEGETATES, HE DID GET VICTIM
COMPENSATION. HIs WIFE DISCOVERED HE COULD
ALMOST BY ACCIDENT BECAUSE SHE WORKED FOR
AN ANSWERING SERVICE THAT WORKED FOR A LAWYER
WHO LED THE DAVIS' THROUGH THE PAPERWORK
JUNGLE. HIS BENEFITS RUN TO JUST OVER FIVE
HUNDRED DOLLARS A MONTH, As A WORKING MAN
HE BROUGHT HOME NEAR A THOUSAND.
MR. DAVIS:
So I WENT DOWN IN THE SUBWAY STATION, PUT MY
TOLL IN THE SLOT, WALKED ON IN,
MR. FIGUEROA:
WE WENT TO THE TRAIN STATION. WE WAS ACTUALLY
GOING TO TAKE OFF A PIMP, A SO-CALLED PIMP,
SAFER:
You WERE GOING TO ROB A PIMP?
MR. FIGUEROA:
FORD
YEAH, BECAUSE WE KNEW HE HAD MONEY THE WAY
LIBRARY
HE WAS DRESSING, HAD A LOT OF WHITE COAT
BUT IT so HAPPENED THAT THIS MAN GOT IN THE
- 11 -
FIGUEROA: (CONTINUED)
WAY.
DAVIS:
HE GRABBED ME FROM BEHIND. AND I TWIST, AND
I TURNED, so I GOT A LOOSE FROM HIM.
AND JUST AS QUICK AS I'D GOTTEN A LOOSE
FROM HIM AND I LOOKED AT HIM AND THE OTHER
GUY SAID, "SHOOT, SHOOT."
FIGUEROA:
WE DIDN'T WANT TO SHOOT. WE TOLD HIM.
BUT HE KEPT COMING AT US, YOU KNOW, HE JUST
WANTED TO GET US, YOU KNOW, HE GOT TO THE
STATE WHERE IT WAS HIM OR US. THE WAY
HE WAS FIGHTING, BECAUSE HE WAS BIGGER THAN
US.
SAFER:
BUT THERE WERE TWO OF YOU, HE WASN'T ARMED.
FIGUEROA:
RIGHT. THERE'S TWO OF US, WE'RE YOUNG, WE'RI
IGNORANT, WE'RE SCARED, You KNOW, WE NEED,
WE'RE HUNGRY
You KNOW, WE WANT TO GET
MONEY TO EAT.
DAVIS:
I DIDN'T KNOW WHERE MORE MONEY WAS COMING FROM
3 B. FORD LIBRACT
so I HAD TO TRY AND WORK FOR IT. BUT I
-12-
DAVIS: (CONTINUED)
WOULDN'T LET ANYBODY COME UP TO ME AND TAKE
IT FROM ME,
FIGUEROA:
HE WANTED TO KILL US, THAT'S HOW IT SEEMS
TO ME. So I SAID, "IT's EITHER HIM OR ME."
AND I DIDN'T WANT TO DIE SO YOUNG, I DIDN'T
WANT TO GET HURT SO YOUNG,
SAFER:
BEFORE THIS HAPPENED WERE YOU A PRETTY STRONG
FELLOW?
DAVIS:
VERY STRONG.
MRS. DAVIS:
THEY HAVE TAKEN MY HUSBAND AWAY FROM ME IN
EVERY WAY. LIKE I NEED HIM AND HE'S NOT
THERE,
SAFER:
SINCE YOU'VE BEEN OUT OF THE HOSPITAL, HAS
ANYONE -- HAS A THERAPIST COME AROUND,
HAS A SOCIAL WORKER COME AROUND, HAS THE
STATE BEEN AROUND IN ANY WAY TO TRY AND ASK
"Do YOU NEED ANYTHING? CAN WE HELP YOU IN
FORD LIBRAR
ANY WAY?"
-13-
MRS. DAVIS:
NO WAY. No, NOTHING.
FIGUEROA:
I WENT AND SPOKE TO MY COUNSELOR AND I
TOLD HIM THAT I WANTED TO GO TO SCHOOL AND
I WANTED TO HAVE A VOCATIONAL SHOP,
BECAUSE I KNEW THAT IF I DIDN'T DO SOMETHING
FOR MYSELF WHILE BEING IN HERE, WHEN I GO
OUT THERE, YOU KNOW, I'M JUST GONNA FALL
BACK INTO THESE CONDITIONS, AND WHEN I
WENT TO THE SHOP --
SAFER:
YOU WENT TO SCHOOL FIRST, THOUGH, RIGHT?
FIGUEROA:
YEAH, SCHOOL AND SHOP
SAFER:
THEY TRIED TO TEACH JAIME FIGUEROA A TRADE,
WELDING, THE INSTRUCTOR SAYS HE SHOWED SOME
APTITUDE, BUT HE CHOSE TO DROP OUT. HAD HE
COMPLETED THE COURSE HE COULD EARN UP TO
TWELVE DOLLARS AN HOUR WHEN HE'S RELEASED FROM
SHALL FORD
PRISON.
THERE ARE OTHER TRADES OPEN TO FIGUEROA, BUT
NONE INTEREST HIM. THERE'S ALSO A HIGH
-14-
SAFER: (CONTINUED)
SCHOOL WITHIN THE PRISON AND SOME COLLEGE
DEGREE COURSES, FIGUEROA WENT TO SCHOOL
BUT THEN DECIDED THAT HE WOULD DROP OUT. OF
THAT AS WELL, THE STATE GIVES HIM A CHOICE
OF THE KIND OF WORK HE WILL DO IN PRISON
AND HE CHOOSES THIS, 8 JANITOR WORK IN THE
SCHOOL BUILDING, IT COSTS THE STATE
FIFTEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS A YEAR TO KEEP
JAIME FIGUEROA, BUT HE IS NOT IMPRESSED
WITH THE FACILITIES,
FIGUEROA:
OKAY, THEY GAVE ME A PAIR OF PANTS TO WEAR,
OKAY. BUT WHAT DO THEY GIVE ME TO REHABILIT
ME so THAT WHEN I GO OUT THERE I WON'T DO THE
SAME THING?
SAFER:
THEY TRIED TO TEACH YOU A TRADE,
FIGUEROA:
A TRADE? A TRADE, ANYBODY WITH A TRADE CAN
GO OUT THERE AND COMMIT CRIMES AGAIN, BECAUSE
YOU CAN USE THE TRADE TO COVER UP YOUR CRIMES
So WHAT'S A TRADE, A TRADE AIN'T NOTHING
FORD LIBRARY
IF THEY DON'T GIVE YOU SOMETHING FOR YOUR MIN
- -15-
SAFER:
DOES IT BOTHER YOU THAT THOSE MEN INSIDE
NOW, ARE BEING OFFERED OPPORTUNITY TO GO TO
SCHOOL, OPPORTUNITY TO LEARN A TRADE?
THAT THE STATE IS PUTTING THAT KIND OF EFFORT
INTO REHABILITATING, AS THEY CALL IT, THOSE
MEN?
MRS. DAVIS:
I FEEL THAT IF THEY CAN DO IT FOR THEM
THEN THEY SHOULD DO IT FOR US. BECAUSE
NUMBER ONE, WE WERE BOTH WORKING PEOPLE ALL
OUR LIVES AND I WOULDN'T SAY THEY OWE US,
YOU KNOW, ANYTHING, BUT AT LEAST THEY SHOULD
IF THEY CAN OFFER THAT TO THEM, THEN, YOU
KNOW, DO THE SAME TO SOMEONE THAT ARE
UNPROTECTED.
SAFER:
DON'T YOU THINK THAT IT'S KIND OF UNFAIR THAT
HERE YOU ARE IN HERE WITH THE STATE SPENDING
A GREAT DEAL OF MONEY ON YOU WITH SCHOOLS, AND
HOSPITALS AND A WARM PLACE TO SLEEP, AND ALL
THAT, AND THERE'S MR. DAVIS OUT THERE VIRTUALL
BLIND, THE STATE'S DOING ALMOST NOTHING FOR HI
RALE FORD LIBRARY
-16-
FIGUEROA:
YOU SEE, IT'S NOT A POINT OF BEING FAIR OR
NOT, OKAY, IF THE STATE PUT ME HERE so THAT
I COULD SEE MY WRONG, So THAT WHEN I GO
OUT THERE, THEN WON'T DO IT AGAIN
THEN IT'S FAIR FOR ME TO RECEIVE ALL THIS
BECAUSE I KNOW WHAT I DONE WRONG AND I KNOW
IT WAS WRONG, AND THERE'S NO WAY IN THE WORLD
I COULD REPAY MY WRONG TO THAT PERSON BECAUSE
HOW CAN I GIVE THAT MAN BACK HIS EYES, HIS
EYESIGHT? I CAN'T DO THIS, I'M NOT GoD.
ONLY GOD COULD REPAY WHAT I'VE DONE WRONG,
SAFER:
THE GOVERNMENT TAKES MUCH THE SAME ATTITUDE
TO VICTIMS AS JAIME FIGUEROA, OF THE FIFTEEN
BILLION DOLLARS SPENT EACH YEAR ON CRIMINAL
JUSTICE, POLICE, COURTS, PRISONS AND REHABILI
TATION PROGRAMS, LESS THAN ONE PERCENT GOES
TO HELPING VICTIMS OF CRIMES,
FORD
LIBRARY
CLOSE
SAFER:
A federal bill that would help states pay victims com-
pensation and promote more compensation boards failed
once again to clear the House of Representatives in the
last Congress. The chief opposition came from the Justice
Department on financial grounds.
is
FORD
LIBRARY
Forfiling
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
December 9, 1976
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JIM CANNON
FROM:
JIM CONNOR JE be
SUBJECT:
60 Minutes on the Victims of Crime
The President reviewed your memorandum of December 6 on the
above subject and made the following decision:
"Ask Attorney General Levi to contact 60 Minutes"
Please follow-up with appropriate action.
cc: Dick Cheney
Phil Buchen
FORD is 07W839 LIBRARY