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.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
4526488
label
Michigan Law Enforcement Association, Grand Rapids, MI, April 10, 1973
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4526488
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Michigan Law Enforcement Association, Grand Rapids, MI, April 10, 1973
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Speeches
subjects
Crime
Law enforcement
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4526488
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1973-04-30
month
4
year
1973
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1973-04-01
month
4
year
1973
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
d1adc9c34414d397
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D34, folder "Michigan Law Enforcement
Association, Grand Rapids, MI, April 10, 1973" of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press
Secretary and Speech File 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. The Council 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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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.
GRAND RAPIDS, MICH.
APRIL 10, 1973
SENTATIVES, U.S.
Herald R. 3nd
M.C.
ocument
BUSINESS
TUESDAY
9:15 p.m.
MICHIGAN LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSOCIATION
ADRIANS RAMONA TERRACE
Digitized from Box D34 of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
Ainae
FOR RELEASE UPON DELIVERY OF THE
March 14, 1973
PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE TO THE CONGRESS
ON CRIME AND DRUGS
Office of the White House Press Secretary
THE WHITE HOUSE
FACT SHEET
STATE OF THE UNION MESSAGE ON
CRIME AND DRUGS
I. LEAA
A. The Law Enforcement Assistance Administration was created
in Title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets
Act of 1968; the establishing authority was amended slightly
by the Omnibus Crime Control Act of 1970.
B. Budget authority (in millions of dollars) :
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
Special Revenue Sharing*
50
223
417
534
642
680
Discretionary Grants
4
32
93
122
145
120
Research, statistical
and management
5
13
19
43
68
91
Total
59
268
529
699
855
891
These are the amounts for comparison had SRS passed Congress
earlier. The money was appropriated mainly as block grants.
II. FBI CRIME INDEX TRENDS
(January - September, percent change 1966 - 1972, each
year over previous year)
January-September
Total
Violent
Property
1967/1966
+16
+15
+16
1968/1967
+19
+21
+19
1969/1968
+11
+12
+10
1970/1969
+10
+10
+10
1971/1970
+ 6
+10
+ 6
1972/1971
+ 1
+ 3
----
III. INTERNATIONAL NARCOTICS PROGRAM
The United States is allied with 59 other governments in our
worldwide drug abuse prevention program.
These countries are also "problem countries" in that they
produce opiates and other drugs, are crossed by international
trafficking routes, refine opium into heroin, or are plagued
by drug abuse.
more
2
The international anti-narcotics program is coordinated by
the Cabinet Committee on International Narcotics Control
(CCINC) appointed by President Nixon and chaired by Secretary
of State William P. Rogers.
The President's directive to CCINC was to foster cooperation
with the 59 foreign governments to eradicate narcotics pro-
duction and cut smuggling routes from the poppy fields to this
country.
The major effort by the CCINC has been the joint development
of narcotics control programs for each of the 59 nations.
United States ambassadors in each of our diplomatic missions
in those countries were placed in personal charge of develop-
ment of the programs. A narcotics coordinator is on the staff
of each embassy.
Strategy mapped by the CCINC for international narcotics control
is implemented by a division within the Department of State
reporting directly to the Secretary.
Also, two United States law enforcement agencies -- the Bureau
of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs and the Bureau of Customs --
operate abroad as well as within the United States to interdict
narcotics trafficking.
BNDD has 107 agents overseas cooperating with foreign anti-
narcotics forces in investigations and seizures. In 1972,
BNDD supported national law enforcement agents in seizing
127, pounds of illicit drugs, including heroin, opium and
cocaine. The figure was an increase of almost one-fourth over
1971. BNDD also trains foreign anti-narcotics officers in
investigative and seizure techniques.
The primary responsibility of the Customs Bureau is interdic-
tion of narcotics at United States borders. There are also
45 Customs agents stationed abroad. The Customs Bureau
inaugurated last month a program to train 4,000 foreign
customs officers in 56 countries in techniques of border
inspection.
IV. DRUG ABUSE PREVENTION
Law enforcement agencies participating in the President's drug
abuse prevention program, plus cooperating foreign governments,
piled up these notable drug seizures and arrests in Calendar
.Year 1972 compared to 1971:
CY 1971
CY 1972
Heroin/heroin equivalent
5,522
11,031
Opium
65,869
113,922
Cocaine
990
2,188
Cannabis
583,240
1,523,764
TOTAL POUNDS
655,621
1,650,905
Dangerous Drugs
13,783,171
17,193,071
(5-grain units)
Arrests (U.S. domestic and
10,564
19,085
foreign cooperating)
more
3
These figures include record seizures. The French captured
a half ton of pure heroin aboard a trawler off Marseille.
The heroin was headed for the west coast of Florida. The
governments of Argentina, Brazil, and Venezuela seized 285
pounds of heroin in three separate raids -- heroin en route
to the United States. Thailand enforcement agents seized
some 11 tons of opium along the Burmese border plus a ton
of heroin and heroin equivalent. Iran recently scored the
largest opium seizure on record -- 12 tons taken from
smugglers along the Afghan border.
A kingpin of the smuggling conspiracy to transport heroin to
the United States via Turkey, Marseille and South America --
a Corsican named Auguste Joseph Ricord -- was extradited to
the United States by Paraguay. He was convicted in Federal
Court in New York City on charges of conspiracy to smuggle
some 15 tons of heroin into this country.
Only last week, a Federal grand jury in the Southern District
of New York indicted 19 defendants for engaging in a conspiracy
to smuggle two tons of heroin into this country over the last
six years.
Fourteen alleged international traffickers had been indicted
in October of 1972 and another group of 16 in December -- all
charged with being conspirators in the French-Latin American
Connection.
Another international law enforcement coup was "Operation
Cactus" conducted jointly by the U.S. Bureau of Customs,
the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, Arizona police
officers and the Government of Mexico along both sides of
the Mexican border.
Results of five weeks of raids, which were announced yesterday,
included seizure of 24 1/2 tons of marijuana and 9 plus pounds
of heroin -- drugs with a value of more than $19 million --
and more than 100 persons arrested.
####
Western Michigan Law Enforcement Association
March 30, 1973
galmot forgot. freek
MASON
Honorable Gerald LAKE Ford, Jr.
OSCEOLA
that
United States Representative
State of Michigan
CLARE
110 Michigan, N. W.
Grand Rapids, Michigan
Dear Sir:
OCEANA
I want to thank you on behalf of the Western
Michigan Law Enforcement Association for your
acceptance to speak before this group on April, 10,
SABELLA
1973, at Adrian's Ramona Terrace in Comstock Park.
We will be expecting you around 9:00 or 9:30 p.m.
as arranged by Undersheriff Robert Hill, of the
Kent County Sheriff's Department
W
I am enclosing an announcement pertaining
will be speaking.
to what you will be speaking on MON and where you
MUSKEGO Once again, thank you.
Sincerely yours,
Edward B. Koryzno
Secretary
Enclosure
SORD STATE
Western Michigan Law Enforcement Association
March 27, 1973
Dear Member:
The April dinner meeting will be held in Comstock Park,
Michigan. All members and guests are invited to attend.
PLACE:
ADRIAN'S RAMONA TERRACE, 5179 WEST RIVER ROAD, N. E.,
COMSTOCK PARK, MICHIGAN.
DATE:
APRIL 10, 1973
TIME:
SOCIAL HOUR, 6:30 P. M. to 7:30 P. M., DINNER SERVED
AT 7:30 P. M.
MENU:
FRIED CHICKEN, BAKED HAM, AND SIRLOIN OF BEEF
SPEAKER: THE HONORABLE GERALD FORD, JR., UNITED STATES
REPRESENTATIVE AND HOUSE MINORITY LEADER IN
WASHINGTON, D. C.
PROGRAM: CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT AND LAW ENFORCEMENT REVENUE
SHARING.
The program should prove interesting to our members and guests,
No doubt it will raise many questions and prove beneficial to
all attending.
Dues for 1973 will be accepted and anyone wishing to join the
Western Michigan Law Enforcement Association can do so by
contacting the secretary before the dinner.
Looking forward to seeing you in Comstock Park.
ENCLOSED: Reservation post card--please fill out this card and
return it no later than April 5, 1973, indicating
the number of reservations you will be making for
dinner.
Edward B. Koryzno
Secretary
Enclosure
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.
CRIME-
SIGNS THAT THE WORST IS OVER
Suddenly, a break in the
years-long crime wave. Reports
from cities that succeeded in
5,995,200
reversing the trend tell why-
5,839,300
and suggest hope for the future.
With spring came good news:
AFTER 16 YEARS
DOWNTURN
For the first time in 17 years, there
has been a downturn-instead of a rise-
IN SERIOUS
in crime in this country.
The number of serious crimes re-
CRIME
ported in the United States in 1972 was
3 per cent less than in the year before.
This downturn was disclosed in pre-
liminary statistics compiled by the Fed-
eral Bureau of Investigation, based on
Uniform Crime Reports from local, State
Number of Serious
and county law-enforcement agencies all
across the nation.
Crimes in U.S.
Announcing the figures on March 28,
U.S. Attorney General Richard G. Klein-
dienst acknowledged that "crime is still
unacceptably high." There is especial
concern over the fact that crimes of vio-
1,333,500
lence, such as murder, rape and aggra-
vated assault, continued to increase
slightly last year-up 1 per cent-even
while crimes against property were on.
the decline.
By Government officials-and by many
private citizens-hower, the figures
were hailed as signs that the worst of
1955
1960
1965
1971 1972
the long crime wave may be over.
(est.)
President Richard Nixon, who stressed
Note: Serious crimes include murder, forcible
demands for "law and order" in both of
his presidential election campaigns, de-
rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, lar-
scribed the FBI report as "very hearten-
ceny over $50 and auto theft.
ing." He said:
"These results are a tribute to the men
Copyright © 1973, U. S. News & World Report, Inc.
and women in the front lines of the war
against crime-our law-enforcement offi-
Attorney General Kleindienst said of
as a big help in some cities. Communi-
cers. Public opinion is untying their
the crime downturn:
cation between police units and head-
hands and they are once again being giv-
"This is a day that we have been look-
quarters was speeded by radio systems.
en the public support they deserve.
ing forward to for many years. It is an
Computers provided instant access to
"We can turn the tide of crime in
important milestone in the fight to re-
criminal records. Helicopters were em-
America. These statistics demonstrate
duce crime.
ployed increasingly for aerial patrols.
that we are well on our way. Now we
Steps toward achievement. How was
Expanded programs of treating drug
must have the tools we need to finish
that "milestone" achieved? What did
addicts were cited for helping to turn
the job."
law-enforcement officials do that helped
many addicts away from crime.
Among the "tools" sought by Mr. Nix-
curb crime in 1972?
In a few cities, officials say that the
on are laws to restore the death penalty
A survey by editors of "U. S. News &
courts are speeding their disposition of
for certain federal crimes and stiffen pen-
World Report" provides some clues.
criminal cases and thus helping to keep
alties for trafficking in "hard" drugs-
In almost every city surveyed where
"repeaters" off the streets.
heroin and morphine.
crime declined, officials reported that
Not all the credit is given to law-
On March 28, he announced a reor-
police forces had been enlarged. More
enforcement and other official agencies,
ganization to consolidate antidrug pro-
patrolmen were put on the beat, with
however. Improving conditions in some
grams in a single new agency inside the
forces concentrated in high-crime areas.
trouble areas of big cities were reported
Department of Justice.
Improved equipment was described
to be helping to change the attitudes of
26
U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, April 9, 1973
H 2094
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE
March 22, 1973
TRIBUTE TO THE HONORABLE
ure will also grow with developing
Federal crimes are rarely "crimes of pas-
LYNDON B. JOHNSON
history.
sion." Airplane hijacking is not done in a
The accolades that have been extended
blind rage; it has to be carefully planned.
(Mr. WHITE asked and was given
to President Johnson and his family are
Using incendiary devices and bombs are not
permission to address the House for 1
minute, to revise and extend his remarks
genuine and well deserved. Of one thing
crimes of passion, nor is kidnapping; all these
I am also certain: No one will ever re-
must be thought out in advance. At present
and include extraneous matter.)
those who plan these crimes do not have to
Mr. WHITE. Mr. Speaker, undoubt-
view his record and accomplishments
include in their deliberations the possibility
edly, President Lyndon B. Johnson will
without feeling the excitement and the
that they will be put to death for their deeds.
be treated more kindly by history than
movement which surrounded all he did.
I believe that in making their plans, they
he was by some of his contemporaries.
To him life was action and he lived.
should have to consider the fact that if a
death results from their crime, they too may
History will eventually recognize him as
die.
the singularly accomplished leader that
DEATH PENALTY
I have always known him to be.
It is for the reasons stated by the Pres-
My own personal observation of him
(Mr. GERALD R. FORD asked and
ident that I support the reinstitution of
was that he was a man of great intellect,
was given permission to address the
the death penalty for the most serious
character, and integrity, far beyond that
House for 1 minute, to revise and extend
offenses, such as aircraft hijacking and
for which he was accredited by many
his remarks and include extraneous
kidnapping where death results from the
Americans or by the journalists who were
matter.)
crime. I call on my colleagues to join
misled by his style. The accent of his
Mr. GERALD R. FORD. Mr. Speaker,
with me in a thorough study of the legis-
Texas rearing misled those who equated
I am today introducing the administra-
lation I introduce today in order to ac-
his outward easy-going Texas demeanor
tion's bill "To establish rational cri-
complish this purpose.
and drawl with dawdling performance.
teria for the mandatory imposition of
Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Speaker, there is
His mind could assimilate complex and
the sentence of death, and for other pur-
a popular misconception that the deci-
diverse facts into a plan of overt action.
posès.
sion of the Supreme Court in the case
Lyndon Johnson reserved intense
The recent Supreme Court case, Fur-
of Furman against Georgia decided June
loyalty for those who had served him or
man V. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, decided
29, 1972 had the effect of rendering all
had proven their friendship to him. He
June 29, 1972, called into question exist-
death penalties unconstitutional in crim-
also knew his detractors and made allow-
ing Federal statutes which allow the
inal cases. However, it should be pointed
ances for them on the chessboard of his
death penalty to be imposed at the dis-
out that the death penalty continues to
cretion of the judge or jury, but left the
be valid and "constitutional" in all of
career.
Few men in public office can boast the
possibility that a statute providing for
those cases which were not specifically
personal achievements and landmark
the death penalty but removing the un-
covered by the language of the Supreme
Igeislation that is the legacy of Presi-
checked discretion would be upheld.
Court in that case.
dent Johnson. His successes have been
Several of my Republican colleagues
In order to clarify the situation, the
comprehensively cataloged in the many
on the Judiciary Committee have joined
administration has proposed legislation
eulogies authored in his memory. In do-
me in the cosponsorship of this bill, in-
to mark the very limited kinds of cases
mestic affairs, his Presidency is unsur-
cluding the distinguished ranking Re-
in which the death penalty might appro-
passed-accomplished through the same
publican from Michigan (Mr. HUTCHIN-
priately be imposed by Federal courts or
relentless personal effort that character-
SON). Many members support the ra-
juries.
ized his famed tenure as Senate majority
tional use of the death penalty although
Mr: Speaker, I have been pleased to
leader. In international affairs, I would
they may not support the specifics con-
Join with the gentleman from Michigan
stress that it was President Johnson who
tained in this bill. However, I believe that
(Mr. GERALD R. FORD), as a cosponsor
opened avenues to closer accord with
we should conduct a thorough study of
of this legislaiton with the expectation
those countries which were traditionally
the question of when the death penalty
that-serving as a pattern or outline-
antagonistic. It was he who paved the
can be imposed, and that the Depart-
the measure which is being introduced
way to future peace and successful for-
ment of Justice bill provides us with a
today-may enable our Judiciary Com-
eign policy.
good framework for conducting that
mittee to recommend appropriate legis-
study. I hope that hearings on this legis-
lation to the Members of the House.
The accomplishments of his domestic
lation can be held soon because I believe
I concur entirely with the Supreme
and international efforts have been
as President Nixon has said, that the
Court decision to the effect that the
clouded by the sad involvement of our
death penalty can be an effective deter-
death penalty when imposed as a wholly
Nation in the Vietnam conflict.
rent to crime in certain circumstances.
discretionary decision by court or jury-
It is perhaps for another era to judge
The bill I introduce today has been
and with highly discriminatory results
whether he and other Presidents who
drafted to provide narrow guidelines
such as were described in the Furman
followed the same course were right or
within which the death penalty could be
against Georgia case-is "cruel and un-
not. Regardless of future judgment, he
imposed for the crimes of wartime trea-
usual" and in violation of article VIII
followed courageously the path he
son or espionage or for murder if cer-
of the Federal Constitution.
thought was best despite public criticism.
tain other factors are present. The death
However, it seems appropriate to recall
A number of us know why President
penalty could not be imposed in any event
the recent statement of President Nixon
Johnson chose not to run for his second
if any one of certain mitigating factors,
to the effect that hijackers, kidnapers,
term: It had nothing to do with a fear
such as youth of the offender or mental
those who throw firebombs, convicts who
that he might be rejected, and few be-
incapacity, were present. The death
attack prison guards and other types of
lieve he could have been defeated. Hav-
penalty could be imposed only if one of
assaults on officers of the law-all with
ing suffered the unhappy experience of
a number of aggravating factors were
the intent to take the life or lives of
knitting together a Nation whose Presi-
present.
others-may well be the kind of offenses
dent had died in office, Lyndon John-
For example. the death penalty would
which should continue to be punishable
son did not want to put this Nation, or
be imposed for the crime of wartime trea-
by death. Even within this limited area,
a successor to himself, through the same
son if the treason were found to have
carefully defined parameters and proce-
traumatic situation for a second time in
posed a grave risk to the national secur-
dures must be provided. The safeguards
the same generation. He was well aware
ity. The death penalty would be imposed,
are contained in the bill which I am co-
of his own health problems and he real-
for example, for the crime of murder if
sponsoring to the extent that full and
ized the chances of living through a
the murder occurred during an aircraft
ample protection in cases where extenu-
second full term were not good.
hijacking or kidnapping or if the person
ating circumstances exist, including the
Beside him throughout his adult life
murdered was the President or a Mem-
youth of the defendant, lack of capacity
was one of the finest women who has
ber of Congress or if the defendant had
to appreciate the wrongfulness of his con-
ever accompanied her husband through
previously been convicted of an offense
duct, and unusual and substantial duress.
the trials of public life. He and Lady-
for which the death penalty was
Mr. Speaker, without going into fur-
bird Johnson formed a superb team to
imposable.
ther detail and without elaborating on
the lasting advantage of this country.
In his March 14 message to the Con-
the many reasons why I am cosponsoring
She is a lady of great depth whose stat-
gress on crime, the President said:
this legislation I wish to indicate my gen-
Crime
FOR RELEASE UPON DELIVERY
March 14, 1973
Office of the White House Press Secretary
THE WHITE HOUSE
TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES:
This sixth message to the Congress on the State of
the Union, concerns our Federal system of criminal justice.
It discusses both the progress we have made in improving
that system and the additional steps we must take to
consolidate our accomplishments and to further our efforts
to achieve a safe, just, and law-abiding society.
In the period from 1960 to 1968 serious crime in the
United States increased by 122 percent according to the
FBI's Uniform Crime Index. The rate of increase accelerated
each year until it reached a peak of 17 percent in 1968.
In 1968 one major public opinion poll showed that
Americans considered lawlessness to be the top domestic
problem facing the Nation. Another poll showed that four
out of five Americans believed that "Law and order has
broken down in this country." There was a very real fear
that crime and violence were becoming a threat to the
stability of our society.
The decade of the 1960s was characterized in many
quarters by a growing sense of permissiveness in America --
as well intentioned as it was poorly reasoned -- in which
many people were reluctant to take the steps necessary to
control crime. It is no coincidence that within a few
years time, America experienced a crime wave that threatened
to become uncontrollable.
This Administration came to office in 1969 with the
conviction that the integrity of our free institutions
demanded stronger and firmer crime control. I promised
that the wave of crime would not be the wave of the future.
An all-out attack was mounted against crime in the United
States.
1
The manpower of Federal enforcement and prosecution
agencies was increased.
M
-- New legislation was proposed and passed by the
Congress to put teeth into Federal enforcement efforts
against organized crime, drug trafficking, and crime in
the District of Columbia.
3
-- Federal financial aid to State and local criminal
justice systems -- a forerunner of revenue sharing -- was
greatly expanded through Administration budgeting and
Congressional appropriations, reaching a total of $1.5
billion in the three fiscal years from 1970 through 1972.
These steps marked a clear departure from the philosophy
which had come to dominate Federal crime fighting efforts, and
which had brought America to record-breaking levels of lawless-
ness. Slowly, we began to bring America back. The effort
has been long, slow, and difficult. In spite of the difficulties,
we have made dramatic progress.
more
2
In the last four years the Department of Justice has
obtained convictions against more than 2500 organized crime
figures, including a number of bosses and under-bosses in
major cities across the country. The pressure on the
underworld is building constantly.
Today, the capital of the United States no longer bears
the stigma of also being the Nation's crime capital. As a
result of decisive reforms in the criminal justice system
the serious crime rate has been cut in half in Washington, D.C.
From a peak rate of more than 200 serious crimes per day
reached during one month in 1969, the figure has been cut
by more than half to 93 per day for the latest month of
record in 1973. Felony prosecutions have increased from
2100 to 3800, and the time between arrest and trial for
felonies has fallen from ten months to less than two.
Because of the combined efforts of Federal, State,
and local agencies, the wave of serious crime in the
United States is being brought under control. Latest
figures from the FBI's Uniform Crime Index show that
serious crime is increasing at the rate of only one
percent a year -- the lowest recorded rate since 1960.
A majority of cities with over 100,000 population shows
an actual reduction in crime.
These statistics and these indices suggest that our
anti-crime program is on the right track. They suggest
that we are taking the right measures. They prove that
the only way to attack crime in America is the way crime
attacks our people -- without pity. Our program is based
on this philosophy, and it is working.
Now we intend to maintain the momentum we have
developed by taking additional steps to further improve
law enforcement and to further protect the people of the
United States.
Law Enforcement Special Revenue Sharing
Most crime in America does not fall under Federal
jurisdiction. Those who serve in the front lines of the
battle against crime are the State and local law enforce-
ment authorities. State and local police are supported in
turn by many other elements of the criminal justice system,
including prosecuting and defending attorneys, judges, and
probation and corrections officers. All these elements
need assistance and some need dramatic reform, especially
the prison systems.
While the Federal Government does not have full
jurisdiction in the field of criminal law enforcement, it
does have a broad, constitutional responsibility to insure
domestic tranquility. I intend to meet that responsibility.
At my direction, the Law Enforcement Assistance
Administration (LEAA) has greatly expanded its efforts
to aid in the improvement of State and local criminal
justice systems. In the last three years of the previous
Administration, Federal grants to State and local law
enforcement authorities amounted to only $22 million. In
the first three years of my Administration, this same
assistance totaled more than $1.5 billion -- more than 67
times as much. I consider this money to be an investment
in justice and safety on our streets, an investment which
has been yielding encouraging dividends.
more
3
But the job has not been completed. We must now act
further to improve the Federal role in the granting of aid
for criminal justice. Such improvement can come with the
adoption of Special Revenue Sharing for law enforcement.
I believe the transition to Special Revenue Sharing for
law enforcement will be a relatively easy one. Since its
inception, the LEAA has given block grants which allow
State and local authorities somewhat greater discretion
than does the old-fashioned categorical grant system.
But States and localities still lack both the flexibility
and the clear authority they need in spending Federal
monies to meet their law enforcement challenges.
Under my proposed legislation, block grants, technical
assistance grants, manpower development grants, and aid for
correctional institutions would be combined into one $680
million Special Revenue Sharing fund which would be
distributed to States and local governments on a formula
basis. This money could be used for improving any area of
State and local criminal justice systems.
I have repeatedly expressed my conviction that decisions
affecting those at State and local levels should be made to
the fullest possible extent at State and local levels. This
is the guiding principle behind revenue sharing. Experience
has demonstrated the validity of this approach and I urge
that it now be fully applied to the field of law enforce-
ment and criminal justice.
The Criminal Code Reform Act
The Federal criminal laws of the United States date
back to 1790 and are based on statutes then pertinent to
effective law enforcement. With the passage of new criminal
laws, with the unfolding of new court decisions interpreting
those laws, and with the development and growth of our
Nation, many of the concepts still reflected in our
criminal laws have become inadequate, clumsy, or outmoded.
In 1966, the Congress established the National
Commission on Reform of the Federal Criminal Laws to
analyze and evaluate the criminal Code. The Commission's
final report of January 7, 1971, has been studied and
further refined by the Department of Justice, working with
the Congress. In some areas this Administration has sub-
stantial disagreements with the Commission's recommendations.
But we agree fully with the almost universal recognition that
modification of the Code is not merely desirable but absolutely
imperative.
Accordingly, I will soon submit to the Congress the
Criminal Code Reform Act aimed at a comprehensive revision
of existing Federal criminal laws. This act will provide
a rational, integrated code of Federal criminal law that
is workable and responsive to the demands of a modern
Nation.
The act is divided into three parts:
-- 1 -- general provisions and principles,
-- 2 -- definitions of Federal offenses, and
-- 3 -- provisions for sentencing.
more
4
Part 1 of the Code establishes general provisions and
principles regarding such matters as Federal criminal
jurisdiction, culpability, complicity, and legal defenses,
and contains a number of significant innovations. Fore-
most among these is a more effective test for establishing
Federal criminal jurisdiction. Those circumstances giving
rise to Federal jurisdiction are clearly delineated in the
proposed new Code and the extent of jurisdiction is clearly
defined.
I am emphatically opposed to encroachment by Federal
authorities on State sovereignty, by unnecessarily increasing
the areas over which the Federal Government asserts jurisdiction.
To the contrary, jurisdiction, has been relinquished in those
areas where the States have demonstrated no genuine need for
assistance in protecting their citizens.
In those instances where jurisdiction is expanded,
care has been taken to limit that expansion to areas of
compelling Federal interest which are not adequately dealt
with under present law. An example of such an instance
would be the present law which states that it is a Federal
crime to travel in interstate commerce to bribe a witness
in a State court proceeding, but it is not a crime to
travel in interstate commerce to threaten or intimidate
the same witness, though intimidation might even take the
form of murdering the witness.
The Federal interest is the same in each case -- to
assist the State in safeguarding the integrity of its
judicial processes. In such a case, an extension of
Federal jurisdiction is clearly warranted and is provided
for under my proposal.
The rationalization of jurisdictional bases permits
greater clarity of drafting, uniformity of interpretation,
and the consolidation of numerous statutes presently
applying to basically the same conduct.
For example, title 18 of the criminal Code as
presently drawn, lists some 70 theft offenses -- each
written in a different fashion to cover the taking of
various kinds of property in different jurisdictional
situations. In the proposed new Code, these have been
reduced to 5 general sections. Almost 80 forgery,
counterfeiting, and related offenses have been replaced
by only 3 sections. Over 50 statutes involving perjury
and false statements have been reduced to 7 sections.
Approximately 70 arson and property destruction offenses
have been consolidated into 4 offenses.
Similar changes have been made in the Code's treatment
of culpability. Instead of 79 undefined terms or com-
binations of terms presently found in title 18, the Code
uses four clearly defined terms.
Another major innovation reflected in Part One is a
codification of general defenses available to a defendant.
This change permits clarification of areas in which the
law is presently confused and, for the first time, provides
uniform Federal standards for defense.
The most significant feature of this chapter is a
codification of the "insanity" defense. At present the
test is determined by the courts and varies across the
country. The standard has become so vague in some instances
that it has led to unconscionable abuse by defendants.
more
5
My proposed new formulation would provide an insanity
defense only if the defendant did not know what he was
doing. Under this formulation, which has considerable
support in psychiatric and legal circles, the only question
considered germane in a murder case, for example, would
be whether the defendant knew whether he was pulling the
trigger of a gun. Questions such as the existence of a
mental disease or defect and whether the defendant requires
treatment or deserves imprisonment would be reserved for
consideration at the time of sentencing.
Part Two of the Code consolidates the definitions of
all Federal felonies, as well as certain related Federal
offenses of a less serious character. Offenses and, in
appropriate instances, specific defenses, are defined in
simple, concise terms, and those existing provisions found
to be obsolete or unusable have been eliminated -- for
example, operating a pirate ship on behalf of a "foreign
prince, or detaining a United States carrier pigeon.
Loopholes in existing law have been closed -- for example,
statutes concerning the theft of union funds, and new
offenses have been created where necessary, as in the case
of leaders of organized crime.
We have not indulged in changés merely for the sake of
changes. Where existing law has proved satisfactory and
where existing statutory language has received favorable
interpretation by the courts, the law and the operative
language have been retained. In other areas, such as
pornography, there has been a thorough revision to reassert
the Federal interest in protecting our citizens.
The reforms set forth in Parts One and Two of the Code
would be of little practical consequence without a more
realistic approach to those problems which arise in the
post-conviction phase of dealing with Federal offenses.
For example, the penalty structure prescribed in the
present criminal Code is riddled with inconsistencies and
inadequacies. Title 18 alone provides 18 different terms
of imprisonment and 14 different fines, often with no
discernible relationship between the possible term of
imprisonment and the possible levying of a fine.
Part Three of the new Code classifies offenses into
8 categories for purposes of assessing and levying imprison-
ment and fines. It brings the present structure into line
with current judgments as to the seriousness of various
offenses and with the best opinions of penologists as the
efficacy of specific penalties. In some instances, more
stringent sanctions are provided. For example, sentences
for arson are increased from 5 to 15 years. In other
cases penalties are reduced. For example, impersonating
a foreign official carries a three year sentence, as
opposed to the 10 year term originally prescribed.
To reduce the possibility of unwarranted disparities
in sentencing, the Code establishes criteria for the
imposition of sentence. At the same time, it provides for
parole supervision after all prison sentences, so that
even hardened criminals who serve their full prison terms
will receive supervision following their release.
There are certain crimes reflecting such a degree of
hostility to society that a decent regard for the common
welfare requires that a defendant convicted of those crimes
be removed from free society. For this reason my proposed
new Code provides mandatory minimum prison terms for
more
6
trafficking in hard narcotics; it provides mandatory
minimum prison terms for persons using dangerous weapons
in the execution of a crime; and it provides mandatory
minimum prison sentences for those convicted as leaders
of organized crime.
The magnitude of the proposed revision of the Federal
criminal Code will require careful detailed consideration
by the Congress. I have no doubt this will be time-consuming.
There are, however, two provisions in the Code which I feel
require immediate enactment. I have thus directed that
provisions relating to the death penalty and to heroin
trafficking also be transmitted as separate bills in
order that the Congress may act more rapidly on these
two measures.
Death Penalty
The sharp reduction in the application of the death
penalty was a component of the more permissive attitude
toward crime in the last decade.
I do not contend that the death penalty is a panacea
that will cure crime. Crime is the product of a variety
of different circumstances -- sometimes social, sometimes
psychological -- but it is committed by human beings and
at the point of commission it is the product of that
individualis motivation. If the incentive not to commit
crime is stronger than the incentive to commit it, then
logic suggests that crime will be reduced. It is in part
the entirely justified feeling of the prospective criminal
that he will not suffer for his deed which, in the present
circumstances, helps allow those deeds to take place.
Federal crimes are rarely "crimes of passion." Airplane
hi-jacking is not done in a blind rage; it has to be carefully
planned. Using incendiary devices and bombs are not crimes
of passion, nor is kidnapping; all these must be thought
out in advance. At present those who plan these crimes do
not have to include in their deliberations the possibility
that they will be put to death for their deeds. I believe
that in making their plans, they should have to consider
the fact that if a death results from their crime, they too
may die.
Under those conditions, I am confident that the death
penalty can be a valuable deterrent. By making the death
penalty available, we will provide Federal enforcement
authorities with additional leverage to dissuade those
individuals who may commit a Federal crime from taking
the lives of others in the course of committing that
crime.
Hard experience has taught us that with due regard
for the rights of all -- including the right to life
itself -- we must return to a greater concern with
protecting those who might otherwise be the innocent
victims of violent crime than with protecting those who
have committed those crimes. The society which fails to
recognize this as a reasonable ordering of its priorities
must inevitably find itself, in time, at the mercy of
criminals.
America was heading in that direction in the last
decade, and I believe that we must not risk returning to
it again. Accordingly, I am proposing the re-institution
more
7
of the death penalty for war-related treason, sabotage,
and espionage, and for all specifically enumerated
crimes under Federal jurisdiction from which death results.
The Department of Justice has examined the constitution-
ality of the death penalty in the Tight of the Supreme Court's
recent decision in Furman V. Georgia. It is the Department's
opinion that Furman holds unconstitutibnal the imposition
of the death penalty only insofar as it is applied
arbitrarily and capriciously. I believe the best way
to accommodate the reservations of the Court is to
authorize the automatic imposition of the death penalty
where it is warranted.
Under the proposal drafted by the Department of Justice,
a hearing would be required after the trial for the purpose
of determining the existence or nonexistence of certain
rational standards which delineate aggravating factors or
mitigating factors.
Among those mitigating factors which would preclude the
imposition of a death sentence are the youth of the defendant,
his or her mental capacity, or the fact that the crime was
committed under duress. Aggravating factors include the
creation of a grave risk of danger to the national security,
or to the life of another person, or the killing of another
person during the commission of one of a circumscribed list
of serious offenses, such as treason, kidnapping, or aircraft
piracy.
The hearing would be held before the judge who presided
at the trial and before either the same jury or, if circum-
stances require, a jury specially impaneled. Imposition
of the death penalty by the judge would be mandatory if the
jury returns a special verdict finding the existence of one
or more aggravating factors and the absence of any mitigating
factor. The death sentence is prohibited if the jury finds
the existence of one or more mitigating factors.
Current statutes containing the death penalty would be
amended to eliminate the requirement for jury recommendation,
thus limiting the imposition of the death penalty to cases
in which the legislative guidelines for its imposition
clearly require it, and eliminating arbitrary and capricious
application of the death penalty which the Supreme Court
has condemned in the Furman case.
Drug Abuse
No single law enforcement problem has occupied more
time, effort and money in the past four years than that of
drug abuse and drug addiction. We have regarded drugs as
"public enemy number one," destroying the most precious
resource we have -- our young people -- and breeding law-
lessness, violence and death.
When this Administration assumed office in 1969, only
$82 million was budgeted by the Federal Government for law
enforcement, prevention, and rehabilitation in the field
of drug abuse.
Today that figure has been increased to $785 million
for 1974 -- nearly 10 times as much. Narcotics production
has been disrupted, more traffickers and di tribut have
been put out of business, and addicts and abusers have been
treated and started on the road to rehabilitation.
more
8
Since last June, the supply of heroin on the East Coast
has been substantially reduced. The scarcity of heroin in
our big Eastern cities has driven up the price of an average
"fix" from $4.31 to $9.88, encouraging more addicts to seek
medical treatment. At the same time the heroin content of
that fix has dropped from 6.5 to 3.7 percent.
Meanwhile, through my Cabinet Committee on International
Narcotics Control, action plans are underway to help 591
foreign countries develop and carry out their own national
control programs. These efforts, linked with those of the
Bureau of Customs and the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous
Drugs, have produced heartening results.
Our worldwide narcotics seizures almost tripled in
1972 over 1971. Seizures by our anti-narcotics allies
abroad are at an all-time high.
In January, 1972, the French seized a half-ton of
heroin on a shrimp boat headed for this country. Argentine,
Brazilian and Venezuelan agents seized 285 pounds of
heroin in three raids in 1972, and with twenty arrests
crippled the existing French-Latin American connection.
The ringleader was extradited to the U.S. by Paraguay
and has just begun to servè a 20-year sentence in Federal
prison.
Thailand's Special Narcotics Organization recently
seized a total of almost eleven tons of opium along the
Burmese border, as well as a half-ton of morphine and
heroin.
Recently Iran scored the largest opium seizure on
record -- over 12 tons taken from smugglers along the
Afghanistan border.
Turkey, as a result of a courageous decision by the
government under Prime Minister Erim in 1971, has prohibited
all cultivation of opium within her borders.
These results are all the more gratifying in light of
the fact that heroin is wholly a foreign import to the United
States. We do not grow opium here; we do not produce heroin
here; yet we have the largest addict population in the world.
Clearly we will end our problem faster with continued foreign
assistance.
Our domestic accomplishments are keeping pace with
international efforts and are producing equally encouraging
results. Domestic drug seizures, including seizures of
marijuana and hashish, almost doubled in 1972 over 1971.
Arrests have risen by more than one-third and convictions
have doubled.
In January of 1972, a new agency, the Office of Drug
Abuse Law Enforcement (DALE), was created within the
Department of Justice. Task forces composed of investigators,
attorneys, and special prosecuting attorneys have been
assigned to more than forty cities with heroin problems.
DALE now arrests pushers at the rate of 550 a month and
has obtained 750 convictions.
At my direction, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
established a special unit to make intensive tax investiga-
tions of suspected domestic traffickers. To date, IRS has
collected $18 million in currency and property, assessed
tax penalties of more than $100 million, and obtained 25
convictions. This effort can be particularly effective
in reaching the high level traffickers and financiers who
never actually touch the heroin, but who profit from the
misery of those who do.
more
9
The problem of drug abuse in America is not a law
enforcement problem alone. Under my Administration, the
Federal Government has pursued a balanced, comprehensive
approach to ending this problem. Increased law enforcement
efforts have been coupled with expanded treatment programs.
The Special Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention
was created to aid in preventing drug abuse before it begins
and in rehabilitating those who have fallen victim to it.
In each year of my Administration, more Federal dollars
have been spent on treatment, rehabilitation, prevention,
and research in the field of drug abuse than has been
budgeted for law enforcement in the drug field.
The Special Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention
is currently developing a special program of Treatment
Alternatives to Street Crime (TASC) to break the vicious
cycle of addiction, crime, arrest, bail, and more crime.
Under the TASC program, arrestees who are scientifically
identified as heroin-dependent may be assigned by judges
to treatment programs as a condition for release on bail,
or as a possible alternative to prosecution.
Federally funded treatment programs have increased
from sixteen in January, 1969, to a current level of 400.
In the last fiscal year, the Special Action Office created
more facilities for treating drug addiction than the Federal
Government had provided in all the previous fifty years.
Today, federally funded treatment is available for
100,000 addicts a year. We also have sufficient funds
available to expand our facilities to treat 250,000 addicts
if required.
Nationwide, in the last two years, the rate of new
addiction to heroin registered its first decline since 1964.
This is a particularly important trend because it is estimated
that one addict "infects" six of his peers.
The trend in narcotic-related deaths is also clearly
on its way down. My advisers report to me that virtually
complete statistics show such fatalities declined approxi-
mately 6 percent in 1972 compared to 1971.
In spite of these accomplishments, however, it is
still estimated that one-third to one-half of all individuals
arrested for street crimes continue to be narcotics abusers
and addicts. What this suggests is that in the area of
enforcement we are still only holding our own, and we must
increase the tools available to do the job.
The work of the Special Action Office for Drug Abuse
Prevention has aided in smoothing the large expansion of
Federal effort in the area of drug treatment and prevention.
Now we must move to improve Federal action in the area of
law enforcement.
Drug abuse treatment specialists have continuously
emphasized in their discussions with me the need for strong,
effective law enforcement to restrict the availability of
drugs and to punish the pusher.
One area where I am convinced of the need for
immediate action is that of jailing heroin pushers. Under
the Bail Reform Act of 1966, a Federal judge is precluded
from considering the danger to the community when setting
bail for suspects arrested for selling heroin. The effect
of this restriction is that many accused pushers are
more
10
immediately released on bail and are thus given the oppor-
tunity to go out and create more misery, generate more
violence, and commit more crimes while they are waiting
to be tried for these same activities.
In a study of 422 accused violators, the Bureau of
Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs found that 71 percent were
freed on bail for a period ranging from three months to
more than one year between the time of arrest and the
time of trial. Nearly 40 percent of the total were free
for a period ranging from one-half year to more than one
year. As for the major cases, those involving pushers
accused of trafficking in large quantities of heroin, it
was found that one-fourth were free for over three months
to one-half year; one-fourth were free for one-half year
to one year; and 16 percent remained free for over one
year prior to their trial.
In most cases these individuals had criminal records.
One-fifth had been convicted of a previous drug charge and
a total of 64 percent had a record of prior felony arrests.
The cost of obtaining such a pre-trial release in most
cases was minimal; 19 percent of the total sample were
freed on personal recognizance and only 23 percent were
required to post bonds of $10,000 or more.
Sentencing practices have also been found to be
inadequate in many cases. In a study of 955 narcotics drug
violators who were arrested by the Bureau of Narcotics
and Dangerous Drugs and convicted in the courts, a total
of 27 percent received sentences other than imprisonment.
Most of these individuals were placed on probation.
This situation is intolerable. I am therefore calling
upon the Congress to promptly enact a new Heroin Trafficking
Act.
The first part of my proposed legislation would increase
the sentences for heroin and morphine offenses
For a first offense of trafficking in less than four
ounces of a mixture or substance containing heroin or
morphine, it provides a mandatory sentence of not less than
five years nor more than fifteen years. For a first offense
of trafficking in four or more ounces, it provides a mandatory
sentence of not less than ten years or for life.
For those with a prior felony narcotic conviction who
are convicted of trafficking in less than four ounces, my
proposed legislation provides a mandatory prison term of
ten years to life imprisonment. For second offenders who
are convicted of trafficking in more than four ounces, I
am proposing a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment
without parole.
While four ounces of a heroin mixture may seem a
very small amount to use as the criterion for major
penalties, that amount is actually worth 12-15,000 dollars
and would supply about 180 addicts for a day. Anyone
selling four or more ounces cannot be considered a small
time operator.
For those who are convicted of possessing large
amounts of heroin but cannot be convicted of trafficking,
I am proposing a series of lesser penalties.
To be sure that judges actually apply these tough
sentences, my legislation would provide that the mandatory
minimum sentences cannot be suspended, nor probation granted.
more
11
The second portion of my proposed legislation would
deny pre-trial release to those charged with trafficking
in heroin or morphine unless the judicial officer finds
that release will not pose a danger to the persons or
property of others. It would also prohibit the release
of anyone convicted of one of the above felonies who is
awaiting sentencing or the results of an appeal.
These are very harsh measures, to be applied within
very rigid guidelines and providing only a minimum of
sentencing discretion to judges. But circumstances
warrant such provisions. All the evidence shows that we
are now doing a more effective job in the areas of enforce-
ment and rehabilitation. In spite of this progress, however,
we find an intolerably high level of street crime being
committed by addicts. Part of the reason, I believe, lies
in the court system which takes over after drug pushers
have been apprehended. The courts are frequently little
more than an escape hatch for those who are responsible
for the menace of drugs.
Sometimes it seems that as fast as we bail water out
of the boat through law enforcement and rehabilitation,
it runs right back in through the holes in our judicial
system. I intend to plug those holes. Until then, all
the money we spend, all the enforcement we provide, and
all the rehabilitation services we offer are not going to
solve the drug problem in America.
Finally, I want to emphasize my continued opposition
to legalizing the possession, sale or use of marijuana.
There is no question about whether marijuana is dangerous,
the only question is how dangerous. While the matter is
still in dispute, the only responsible governmental approach
is to prevent marijuana from being legalized. I intend,
as I have said before, to do just that.
Conclusion
This Nation has fought hard and sacrificed greatly
to achieve a lasting peace in the world. Peace in the
world, however, must be accompanied by peace in our own
land. Of what ultimate value is it to end the threat to
our national safety in the world if our citizens face a
constant threat to their personal safety in our own streets?
The American people are a law-abiding people. They
have faith in the law. It is now time for Government to
justify that faith by insuring that the law works, that
our system of criminal justice works, and that "domestic
tranquility" is preserved.
I believe we have gone a long way toward erasing the
apprehensions of the last decade. But we must go further
if we are to achieve that peace at home which will truly
complement peace abroad.
In the coming months I will propose legislation aimed
at curbing the manufacture and sale of cheap handguns
commonly known as "Saturday night specials," I will propose
reforms of the Federal criminal system to provide speedier
and more rational criminal trial procedures, and I will
continue to press for innovation and improvement in our
correctional systems.
more
12
The Federal Government cannot do everything. Indeed,
it is prohibited from doing everything. But it can do a
great deal. The crime legislation I will submit to the
Congress can give us the tools we need to do all that we
can do. This is sound, responsible legislation. I am
confident that the approval of the American people for
measures of the sort that I have suggested will be reflected
in the actions of the Congress.
RICHARD NIXON
THE WHITE HOUSE,
March 14, 1973.
# # # #
ADVANCE FOR RELEASE
6:30 P.M., EST, WEDNESDAY
MARCH 28, 1973
UNIFORMICRIME REPORTING
(1972 Prein Release)
Crime in the United States, as measured by the Crime Index offenses, declined three percent
during calendar year 1972 over 1971, The violent crimes as a group increased one percent. Forcible
rape was up eleven percent, aggravated assault SIX percent, and murder four percent, while the crime
of robbery declined four percent. The property crimes of burglary, larceny $50 and over, and auto theft
decreased three percent as a group. Auto theft decreased seven percent, larceny $50 and over three
percent, and burglary two percent. Cities with 250,000 or more inhabitants reported an average decrease
of eight percent in the volume of Crime Index offenses. Cities with over 100.000 inhabitants reported
an average decrease of seven percent. The suburban areas surrounding large core cities reported an
increase of two percent and the rural areas were up four percent (Table D.
Geographically, the Western States reported a two percent rise in the volume of Crime Index
offenses. The Southern States reported a decrease of two percent, the North Central States three per-
cent, and the Northeastern States eight percent (Table 2).
TABLE I
CRIME INDEX TRENDS
(Percent change 1972 over 1971, offenses known to the police)
Lar-
Popula-
ceny
Population
Number
tion in
Forci-
Aggra-
$50
Group
of
thou-
Prop-
Mur-
ble
Rob-
vated
Bur-
and
Auto
and Area
Agencies sands
Total
Violent
erty
der
rape
bery
assault
glary
over
theft
Total all agencies 5,821
164,859
-
3
+ 1
-
3
+
4
+11
-
4
+
6
-
2 -
-
3
-
7
Cities over 25,000
841
89,497
-
5
- 1
-
6
+
4
+10
-
5
+
4
-
4 -
-
6
-
9
Suburban area
2,295
52,857
+ 2
+13
+
1
+
11
+19
+
9
+
14
+
2
+
1
-
1
Rural area
1,221
18,953
+ 4
+ 9
+
4
-
2
+
1
+ 10
+
11
+
4
+
5
-
3
Over 1,000,000
6
18,805
- 12
- 4
-
14
+
4
+ 12
-
9
+
4
-
11
-
19
-
14
500,000 to 1,000,000 21
13,728
- 7
- 6
-
7
+
2
+3
- 10
-
2
-
6
-
7
-
11
250,000 to 500,000
31
10,788
- 2
+ 2
-
3
+
4
+12
+3
-
1
-
1
-
3
-
4
100,000 to 250,000
93
13,418
- 2
+ 3
-
3
+
5
+ 4
+
2
+
4
-
2
3
-
-
5
50,000 to 100,000
240
16,937
+ 1
+ 9
-
+
8
+14
+
7
+
11
+ 1
-
-
2
25,000 to 50,000
450
15,822
+ 1
+13
-
+
3
+26
+
8
+
17
+
2
-
1
-
2
10,000 to 25,000
1,104
17,636
+ 4
+ 9
+ 4
+
4
+21
+10
+
8
+
4
+
4
-
1
Under 10,000
2,357
11,069
+ 5
+ 4
+ 5
-
9
+19
+
+
2
+
3
+
6
+
2
TABLE 2
CRIME INDEX TRENDS BY GEOGRAPHIC REGION
(1972 over 1971)
Lar-
For-
Aggra-
ceny
Mur-
cible
Rob-
vated
Bur-
$50 and
Auto
Region
Total
Violent
Property
der
rape
bery
assault
glary
over
theft
Northeastern States
- 8
- 1
- 10
+ 6
+19
- 8
+9
- 8
- 11
10
North Central States
- 3
- 1
- 3
- 2
+7
- 5
+5
- 3
- 1
- 7
Southern States
- 2
+1
- 2
+ 4
+6
-
+1
+1
- 2
- 8
Western States
+2
+7
+ 1
+11
+13
+3
+9
+3
-
- 3
TABLE 3
CRIME INDEX TRENDS
(Percent change 1966 - 1971, each year over previous year)
Lar-
For-
Aggra-
ceny
Mur-
cible
Rob-
vated
Bur-
$50 and
Auto
Years
Total
Violent
Property
der
rape
bery
assault
glary
over
theft
1967/1966
+ 16
+ 15
+16
+13
+ 8
+27
+ 8
+ 16
+ 16
+17
1968/1967
+ 17
+ 19
+17
+14
+ 15
+30
+11
+ 13
+ 21
+18
1969/1968
+ 11
+11
+11
+7
+ 16
+13
+ 8
+6
+ 21
+12
1970/1969
+ 11
+ 12
+10
+8
+ 2
+17
+7
+10
+ 14
+ 5
1971/1970
+ 6
+ 9
+6
+10
+ 9
+10
+ 8
+ 8
+ 5
+1
Issued by L. Patrick Gray, III, Acting Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation
United States Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. 20535
Advisory: Committee on Uniform Crime Records, International Association of Chiefs of Police
Table
Offenses Known to the Police, 1971 and 1972
Bur
(Cities over 100, 000 population)
Bur
Murder,
glary
Lar-
Murder,
glary
Lar-
non-
break-
ceny
non-
break-
ceny
Crime
negligent
For
Aggra
ing or
$50
Crime
negligent
For-
Aggra-
ing or
$50
Index
man-
cible
Rob-
vated
enter-
and
Auto
Index
man-
cible
Rob-
vated
enter-
and
Auto
total
slaughter
rape
bery
assault
ing
over
theft
total
slaughter
rape
bery
assault
ing
over
theft
Akron
Ohio
1971
12,670
38
100
772
362
4,386
4,102
2,910
Long Beach
Calif
1971
17,084
31
130
1,480
697
7,223
071
3,452
1972
11,472
31
105
758
400
4,136
3,608
2,434
1972
18,628
55
176
1,700
711
8,016
4,584
3,386
Albany
NY
1971
3,678
6
17
282
111
2,012
390
860
Los Angeles
Calif
1971
183,867
427
2,062
14,147
14,674
74,812
36,239
1972
2,803
6
17
223
97
1,377
445
638
1972
176,916
499
2,205
14,241
15,056
72,458
33,720
Albuquerque
N Mex
1971
16,540
31
103
667
988
6,232
6,531
1,988
Louisville
Ky
1971
17,567
84
85
1,453
527
5,035
4,804 5,579
1972
17,475
23
154
857
1,159
7,023
6,554
1,705
1972
15,583
81
119
1,496
535
4,303
4,326
4,723
Alexandria
Va
1971
5,899
9
51
490
424
1,864
2,186
875
Lubbock
Texas
1971
6,201
28
55
141
2,506
2,542
364
1972
5,777
17
30
435
483
1,861
2,309
642
1972
5,521
31
44
103
459
2,169
1,359
356
Allentown
Pa
1971
3,134
5
22
137
178
1,238
1,252
302
Macon
Ga
1971
5,996
20
31
299
211
2,653
758
1,024
1972
2,652
4
17
162
106
1,036
986
341
1972
5,808
20
39
299
177
2,711
547
1,015
Amarillo
Texas
1971
4,129
9
18
91
174
1,664
1,752
421
Madison
Wis
1971
5,720
5
31
60
34
2,302
72,724
564
1972
4,197
9
18
65
200
1,638
1,860
407
1972
5,864
3
55
83
24
2,466
2,552
681
Anaheim
Calif
1971
8,519
5
56
223
165
4,118
3,097
855
Memphis
Tenn
1971
23,697
91
273
1,151
1,528
10,498
7,126
3,030
1972
9,772
14
78
249
321
4,661
3,589
1972
29,097
127
373
1,676
1,539
12,913
9,250
3,219
Arlington
Va
1971
5,127
7
45
245
101
1,468
2,431
830
Miami
Fla
1971
24,895
100
137
2,829
3,014
9,258
6,299
3,258
1972
4,336
30
181
89
1,230
2,124
680
1972
22,429
78
99
2,555
2,656
8,294
5,949
2,798
Atlanta
Ga
1971
30,056
230
268
2,207
1,935
13,726
7,656
4,034
Milwaukee
Wis
1971
22,025
52
104
661
652
4,636
9,908
6,012
1972
33,213
255
256
3,074
2,143
14,676
8,659
4,150
1972
21,162
56
87
748
694
4,981
$,202
5,394
Austin
Texas
1971
8,307
27
66
372
1,119
4,334
1,336
1,053
Minneapolis
Minn
1971
23,865
35
228
1,646
1,037
10,039
5,884
4,996
1972
8,003
38
62
285
966
4,046
1,625
981
1972
24,294
39
308
1,908
1,358
10,495
4,960
5,226
Baltimore
Md
1971
54,449
323
537
9,480
6,556
18,481
10,134
8,938
Mobile
Ala
1971
8,852
37
85
456
441
5,158
1,604
1,071
1972
50,937
330
465
9,584
6,365
16,986
8,857
8,350
1972
7,508
26
81
360
443
4,299
1,537
762
Baton Rouge
La
1971
9,054
22
46
767
3,769
2,692
1,457
Montgomery
Ala
1971
4,458
34
40
211
99
1,715
1,821
538
1972
10,486
21
74
948
4,535
3,190
1,307
1972
4,316
28
47
146
74
1,806
1,636
579
Beaumont
Texas
1971
4,042
20
207
617
1,886
1,018
288
Nashville
Tenn
1971
20,746
73
157
1,176
2,174
8,216
5,525
3,425
1972
3,979
17
13
164
654
1,765
1,065
301
1972
17,017
68
104
1,097
1,616
6,569
4,877
2,686
Berkeley
Calff
1971
7,138
11
78
256
4,147
886
1,232
Newark
NJ
1971
34,762
131
312
5,529
2,641
13,466
5,754
6,929
1972
6,946
10
104
567
251
3,896
1,080
1,038
1972
31,213
148
325
4,788
2,583
11,040
4,274
8,055
Birmingham
Ala
1971
14,152
82
98
465
1,470
4,857
4,286
2,894
New Bedford
Mass
1971
5,603
12
169
119
2,566
1,488
1,247
1972
14,178
76
103
757
1,310
5,189
4,334
2,409
1972
4,468
21
214
150
1,926
1,130
1,024
Boston
Mass
1971
42,514
116
235
4,735
1,907
12,439
7,055
16,027
New Haven
Conn
1971
7,934
18
52
251
334
2,977
1,835
2,467
1972
38,763
104
262
5,037
2,015
10,173
5,609
15,563
1972
7,166
9
47
248
327
2,332
1,718
2,485
Bridgeport
Conn
1971
11,154
18
20
572
207
3,494
3,101
3,742
New Orleans
La
1971
35,375
116
325
3,391
2,109
10,705
10,381
8,348
1972
9,525
18
13
512
155
2,720
2,995
3,112
1972
30,000
163
261
3,001
2,040
8,428
8,984
7,123
Buffalo
NY
1971
20,226
76
134
2,207
812
6,287
6,016
4,694
Newport News
Va
1971
3,693
12
28
216
427
1,332
1,372
306
1972
18,881
62
176
1,991
712
6,156
5,390
4,394
1972
4,277
22
28
238
538
1,465
1,530
456
Cambridge
Mass
1971
7,177
5
42
355
243
1,978
1,315
3,239
New York
NY
1971
529,447
1,466
2,415
88,994
33,865
181,331
96,624
1972
6,624
13
32
238
1,711
1,039
3,262
1972
434,303
1,691
3,271
78,202
$7,130
148,046
75,865
Camden
NJ
1971
7,233
15
57
682
413
2,958
986
2,122
Norfolk
Va
1971
13,939
35
122
821
1,229
4,912
5,217 1,603
1972
8,157
26
48
695
551
3,457
1,102
2,278
1972
11,411
46
144
823
1,251
3,983
3,870
1,294
Canton
Ohio
1971
3,902
11
15
327
137
1,265
1,582
565
Oakland
Calif
1971
25,664
89
220
2,932
1,224
14,311
1,493
5,395
1972
4,000
14
24
297
240
1,288
1,522
615
1972
24,804
78
261
2,907
1,646
13,080
1,413
5,419
Cedar Rapids
Iowa
1971
1,932
5
10
34
15
683
842
343
Oklahoma City
Okla
1971
12,959
45
144
521
1,142
6,314
2,136
2,657
1972
1,859
31
22
625
769
1972
13,201
43
133
671
787
7,220
1,629
2,718
Charlotte
NC
1971
11,271
54
98
573
1,246
4,938
3,276
1,086
Omaha
Nebr
1971
11,408
24
122
482
1,085
3,706
3,097 2,892
1972
9,945
60
78
603
1,172
4,324
2,811
897
1972
13,234
24
125
1,092
4,064
4,237
3,000
Chattanooga (1)
Tenn
1971
Orlando
Fla
1971
6,127
30
301
989
2,389
1,941
456
1972
6,805
35
55
421
575
2,670
1,643
1,406
1972
5,469
19
37
325
414
2,283
1,892
499
Chicago
m
1971
126,854
824
1,549
24,012
11,285
38,385
15,593
35,206
Parma
Ohio
1971
1,605
3
25
59
513
616
385
1972
121,707
711
1,529
23,531
11,154
36,630
15,853 32,299
1972
1,449
3
27
64
613
446
296
Cincinnati
Ohio
1971
21,880
79
189
1,749
9,751
6,144
3,149
Pasadena
Calif
1971
8,078
11
111
527
458
3,677
2,117
1,177
1972
20,783
69
239
1,733
761
9,729
5,272 2,980
1972
7,949
18
89
524
386
3,765
1,673
1,494
Cleveland
Ohio
1971
46,295
270
428
5,987
2,004
11,780
5,971 19,855
Paterson
NJ
1971
8,521
20
41
918
977
3,177
936
2,452
1972
41,055
307
462
5,639
1,988
10,446
4,687 17,526
1972
9,453
23
23
1,110
1,018
3,657
1,097
2,525
Colorado Springs
Colo
1971
5,895
9
70
198
2,183
2,558
694
Philadelphia
Pa
1971
61,340
435
546
9,243
4,970
20,914
7,387 17,845
1972
6,879
18
103
342
209
2,633
2,751
823
1972
58,584
413
588
9,710
4,603
21,182
6,048 16,040
Columbia
S C
1971
5,456
32
37
264
353
2,650
1,490
630
Phoenix
Ariz
1971
30,546
55
216
1,304
2,326
13,348
8,965
4,332
1972
4,551
17
48
149
288
2,347
1,130
572
1972
33,365
83
256
1,292
2,643
15,359
9,621
4,111
Columbus
Ga
1971
4,025
22
14
200
158
1,779
1,167
685
Pittsburgh
Pa
1971
26,467
65
2,556
1,910
9,489
5,636
6,532
1972
3,906
29
22
245
182
1,808
969
651
1972
23,550
49
298
2,646
1,827
7,824
4,778 6,128
Columbus
Ohio
1971
26,579
69
269
1,873
943
10,023
8,176
5,226
Portland
Oreg
1971
26,459
15
144
1,797
1,127
10,794
8,845 3,737
1972
24,049
59
292
1,464
890
9,641
7,647
4,056
1972
26,530
37
169
1,715
1,344
11,034
8,673
3,658
Corpus Christi
Texas
1971
9,653
33
59
256
872
3,970
3,355
1,108
Portsmouth
Va
1971
5,079
21
52
269
2,276
1,329
643
1972
9,573
29
71
324
765
4,462
2,998
924
1972
4,978
23
48
487
360
2,286
1,006
768
Dallas
Texas
1971
46,400
207
585
2,861
5,282
18,322
12,229
6,914
Providence
RI
1971
11,977
12
21
625
525
4,176
894
5,724
1972
45,213
192
533
2,616
4,529
21,475
10,481
5,387
1972
10,355
6
21
534
443
3,793
758
4,800
Dearborn
Mich
1971
3,360
8
13
148
73
1,090
1,310
718
Raleigh
NC
1971
4,956
12
22
1,308
2,638
333
1972
3,066
7
175
55
1,009
1,109
705
1972
4,707
25
31
135
583
1,446
2,085
402
Denver
Colo
1971
37,706
82
434
2,167
2,050
15,228
10,657
7,088
Richmond
Va
1971
15,306
72
131
1,286
786
6,191
4,143 2,697
1972
38,945
89
368
2,014
1,927
16,750
10,136
7,661
1972
13,507
87
164
1,453
812
5,152
3,655
2,184
Des Moines
Iowa
1971
6,561
11
66
361
159
1,885
3,301
778
Riverside
Calif
1971
8,713
14
63
465
4,036
3,056
824
1972
5,961
14
44
98
1,920
2,848
760
1972
8,943
8
52
247
641
4,270
2,993
732
Detroit
Mich
1971
127,245
577
853
20,753
5,400
51,531
25,361
22,770
Rochester
NY
1971
11,160
31
54
728
458
4,664
3,927 1,298
1972
107,199
601
818
17,170
6,120
42,563
19,405
20,522
1972
10,196
29
55
726
389
4,651
3,001
1,345
Duluth
Minn
1971
2,765
14
40
24
1,090
1,081
513
Rockford
III
1971
3,525
13
8
187
1,353
1,349
466
1972
2,578
13
68
29
1,120
948
398
1972
3,825
9
27
128
229
1,645
1,328
459
Elizabeth
NJ
1971
5,530
10
28
475
314
2,067
1,113
1,523
Sacramento
Calif
1971
13,410
33
84
783
565
5,509
$,745 2,691
1972
5,296
12
32
542
348
2,107
921
1,334
1972
15,314
51
110
886
634
6,889
4,102 2,642
E1 Paso
Texas
1971
13,074
16
75
398
588
7,621
2,240
2,136
St. Louis
Mo
1971
44,409
220
498
4,956
3,231
18,876
11,865
1972
10,911
11
91
514
655
4,994
2,067
2,579
1972
42,580
205
512
4,844
3,216
17,577
4,947 11,279
Erie
Pa
1971
3,248
7
21
141
1,400
939
467
St. Paul
Minn
1971
14,417
20
79
892
498
5,919
3,998 3,011
1972
3,246
11
26
325
137
1,500
763
484
1972
14,773
16
90
838
558
6,693
3,746
2,832
Evansville
Ind
1971
5,459
9
59
261
565
1,980
1,881
704
St. Petersburg
Fla
1971
8,661
29
52
4,487
2,337
452
1972
4,726
54
599
1,471
1,970
437
1972
9,578
21
60
652
580
5,231
2,566
468
Fall River
Mass
1971
6,454
129
108
3,052
1,395
1,751
Salt Lake City
Utah
1971
11,179
16
64
409
292
4,159
4,387
1,852
1972
5,535
11
203
149
2,321
1,356
1,487
1972
10,057
12
79
446
350
3,935
4,035 1,200
Flint
Mich
1971
11,068
33
81
635
1,258
4,214
3,517
1,330
San Antonio
Texas
1971
26,703
96
217
911
2,091
10,579
8,008
4,801
1972
11,321
45
101
820
1,232
4,519
3,467
1,137
1972
27,492
104
256
1,200
1,854
12,038
7,820
4,220
Fort Lauderdale
Fla
1971
8,515
13
53
412
263
3,643
2,902
1,229
San Bernardino
Calif
1971
7,204
34
400
278
3,040
2,391
1,054
1972
8,155
28
61
385
260
3,712
2,694
1,015
1972
7,323
14
56
447
355
2,675
2,670
1,106
Fort Wayne
Ind
1971
7,383
6
46
343
102
2,391
3,876
619
San Diego
Calif
1971
25,495
37
142
1,106
8,670
11,050
3,684
1972
7,508
9
46
413
75
2,304
3,889
772
1972
28,039
31
165
1,225
992
9,957
11,629
4,040
Fort Worth
Texas
1971
13,948
102
88
917
549
6,615
2,816
2,861
San Francisco
Calif
1971
57,538
102
512
6,584
3,101
18,264
16,130
12,845
1972
13,161
99
66
791
516
6,557
2,564
2,568
1972
46,620
81
505
4,573
2,665
14,519
13,201
11,076
Fremont
Calif
1971
3,936
26
56
98
1,942
1,370
443
San Jose
Calif
1971
17,880
16
170
497
743
8,190
4,643 3,621
1972
4,944
2
31
64
155
2,015
2,249
428
1972
20,230
27
173
822
9,603
4,738
4,180
Fresno
Calif
1971
11,568
19
35
386
226
4,562
4,152
2,188
Santa Ana
Calif
1971
6,716
4
83
276
282
3,719
1,508
844
1972
12,282
20
41
425
229
4,647
4,420
2,500
1972
7,291
8
81
260
366
4,267
1,528
781
Garden Grove
Calif
1971
5,504
29
153
113
2,044
2,765
397
Savannah
Ga
1971
7,109
22
86
393
414
3,372
2,106
716
1972
5,711
12
43
143
147
2,586
2,356
424
1972
6,127
27
68
424
696
2,629
1,644
639
Gary
Ind
1971
11,716
52
87
1,396
436
4,723
2,040
2,982
Scranton
Pa
1971
2,237
1
7
68
144
795
770
452
1972
11,284
81
90
1,253
519
4,673
1,909
2,759
1972
1,632
9
162
609
568
247
Glendale
Calif
1971
4,546
19
169
116
1,905
1,532
804
Seattle
Wash
1971
26,967
42
208
1,801
1,093
12,455
7,858
3,510
1972
4,283
5
11
108
98
1,851
1,530
680
1972
25,952
42
278
1,564
949
11,339
8,340
3,440
Grand Rapids
Mich
1971
6,663
17
71
262
510
3,601
1,610
592
Shreveport
La
1971
5,472
40
25
186
585
2,595
1,272
769
1972
6,992
9
61
393
499
3,313
2,183
534
1972
5,014
31
23
188
495
2,288
1,429
560
Greensboro
NC
1971
4,980
14
24
166
1,134
1,527
1,642
South Bend
Ind
1971
4,793
17
26
463
132
1,843
1,466
846
1972
5,563
17
40
270
1,239
1,822
1,714
461
1972
5,750
15
27
470
143
2,141
1,874
1,080
Hammond
Ind
1971
4,986
49
298
172
1,044
1,947
1,469
Spokane
Wash
1971
5,977
9
18
181
168
2,645
2,208
748
1972
4,872
28
271
146
1,285
2,160
974
1972
5,840
6
10
173
2,686
1,885
877
Hampton
Va
1971
2,698
6
20
78
120
1,232
1,004
238
Springfield
Mass
1971
10,273
12
10
407
325
4,358
2,011
3,150
1972
2,512
13
29
88
94
1,258
780
250
1972
11,504
8
30
430
791
4,565
3,051
2,629
Hartford
Conn
1971
8,225
23
40
574
2,507
1,777
2,642
Springfield
Mo
1971
3,963
4
5
64
77
1,831
1,665
317
1972
6,597
15
27
423
573
2,280
1,649
1,630
1972
4,148
6
19
78
119
1,860
1,725
341
Hialeah
Fla
1971
4,669
8
12
190
199
1,484
2,126
650
Stamford
Conn
1971
3,815
16
150
91
2,331
522
704
1972
4,287
17
178
214
1,221
1,943
709
1972
2,762
5
13
137
83
1,553
460
511
Hollywood
Fla
1971
5,686
23
232
249
2,204
2,105
871
Stockton
Calif
1971
7,546
20
474
256
3,452
1,973
1,337
1972
5,260
33
242
243
1,950
1,978
807
1972
8,635
21
559
327
3,831
2,364
1,505
Honolulu
Hawaii
1971
24,530
31
124
715
381
9,599
9,426
4,254
Syracuse
NY
1971
6,869
5
284
2,968
2,382
664
1972
20,782
44
149
428
8,998
7,792
3,005
1972
6,109
10
24
374
299
2,825
2,050
527
Houston
Texas
1971
58,819
303
530
5,127
2,877
26,219
10,993
12,770
Tacoma
Wash
1971
6,005
10
44
310
297
2,493
1,930
921
1972
60,366
294
483
5,117
2,169
29,411
11,801 11,091
1972
6,226
12
47
325
315
2,571
2,207
749
Huntington Beach
Calif
1971
4,933
47
83
156
1,867
2,349
424
Tampa
Fla
1971
13,824
54
68
951
1,143
6,346
3,893
1,369
1972
5,034
4
49
86
179
1,915
2,327
474
1972
14,699
62
77
996
1,138
6,713
4,145 1,568
Huntsville
Ala
1971
5,195
21
27
106
267
2,159
2,007
608
Toledo
Ohio
1971
13,821
29
118
1,081
457
5,227
5,149 1,750
1972
4,160
4
32
103
236
1,542
1,718
525
1972
14,703
34
131
1,180
500
5,327
6,093
1,438
Independence
Mo
1971
2,018
4
15
50
155
868
713
213
Topeka
Kans
1971
4,586
7
40
202
442
1,583
1,956
356
1972
2,232
27
42
230
860
784
286
1972
3,889
9
41
144
347
1,421
1,721
206
Indianapolis
Ind
1971
22,874
60
264
2,109
927
9,480
5,537
4,497
Torrance
Calif
1971
6,059
6
39
155
121
2,459
2,372
907
1972
19,207
66
275
1,398
726
8,267
4,817
3,658
1972
5,744
32
214
145
2,017
2,398
936
Jackson
Miss
1971
4,635
29
68
185
280
1,998
1,435
640
Trenton
NJ
1971
7,805
16
22
3,378
1,816
1,316
1972
5,011
42
20
169
168
2,022
1,808
782
1972
7,204
21
34
912
548
2,957
1,240
1,492
Jacksonville
Fla
1971
24,171
82
254
1,264
1,941
12,035
6,048
2,547
Tucson
Ariz
1971
8,465
19
91
383
465
3,704
2,450
1,353
1972
22,975
96
293
1,426
2,474
10,619
6,099
1,968
1972
9,622
12
102
481
412
4,324
2,882
1,409
Jersey City
NJ
1971
11,214
40
51
1,629
442
3,146
803
5,103
Tulsa
Okla
1971
12,432
33
73
459
838
5,113
3,922
1,994
1972
10,281
47
67
1,373
2,865
925
4,540
1972
12,611
31
118
463
831
5,334
4,242
1,592
Kansas City
Kans
1971
7,330
34
85
461
572
3,618
923
1,637
Virginia Beach
Va
1971
4,194
5
28
63
192
1,205
2,495
206
1972
7,374
21
83
571
457
3,712
1,015
1,515
1972
4,368
5
31
71
174
1,419
2,394
274
Kansas City
Mo
1971
27,864
103
371
2,473
1,805
11,550
6,154
5,408
Warren
Mich
1971
5,874
2
37
241
199
1,902
2,644
849
1972
24,188
71
344
2,092
1,961
9,472
6,327
3,921
1972
5,709
5
34
215
252
1,829
2,517
857
Knoxville (1)
Tenn
1971
Washington
DC
1971
51,256
275
615
11,222
3,972
18,818
7,622
8,732
1972
5,044
20
18
182
254
2,242
787
1,541
1972
37,446
245
714
7,751
3,897
12,801
6,217
5,821
Lansing
Mich
1971
8,278
4
33
274
270
3,977
3,074
646
Waterbury
Conn
1971
3,887
5
10
175
128
1,499
960
1,110
1972
7,759
7
46
422
299
3,405
2,843
737
1972
3,589
8
4
223
135
1,453
823
943
Las Vegas
Nev
1971
4,697
21
23
326
195
2,140
1,064
928
Wichita
Kans
1971
10,689
14
57
374
400
4,388
3,829
1,627
1972
5,139
29
47
389
145
2,312
1,293
924
1972
10,616
17
46
343
391
4,347
3,745
1,727
Lexington
Ky
1971
5,412
16
28
158
293
1,925
2,498
494
Winston-Salem
NC
1971
5,403
33
43
199
1,019
2,242
1,459
408
1972
5,059
19
29
206
208
1,809
2,318
470
1972
5,679
33
40
230
1,129
2,379
1,358
510
Lincoln
Nebr
1971
2,878
3
26
24
198
782
1,576
269
Worcester
Mass
1971
12,559
12
33
452
207
5,110
2,356
4,389
1972
3,195
5
17
49
238
912
1,720
254
1972
12,894
7
32
501
275
5,179
1,827 5,073
Little Rock
Ark
1971
6,778
36
60
634
2,460
2,722
Yonkers
368
498
NY
1971
7,252
11
9
485
196
2,507
2,287
1,757
1972
7,056
25
61
434
662
1972
2,757
2,588
529
6,407
8
15
425
198
2,330
1,823
1,608
Livonia
Mich
1971
3,071
2
11
76
108
Youngstown
Ohio
1971
1,569
1,016
289
5,105
23
36
354
300
2,700
691
1,001
1972
3,215
1
17
81
108
1972
1,606
1,068
4,497
27
34
369
333
2,071
530
334
1,133
(1)
1971 figures not comparable with 1972, and are not used in trend tabulations.
All 1972 crime figures from reporting units are preliminary. Final figures
and crime rates per unit of population are not available until the annual publication scheduled
for release in the summer of 1973. Trends in this report are based on the volume of crime
reported by comparable units. Agency reports which are determined to be influenced by a
change in reporting practices, for all or specific offenses, are removed from trend tables.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
POSTAGE AND FEES PAID
OFFICIAL BUSINESS
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
U.S.MAIL
PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300
JUS-432
FIRST CLASS MAIL
HONORABLE GERALD R. FORD
M
MINORITY LEADER
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515
ADVANCE FOR RELEASE
6:30 P.M., EST, WEDNESDAY
MARCH 28, 1973
PLEASE NOTE
Figures used in this release are submitted voluntarily by law enforcement agencies
throughout the country. Individuals using these tabulations are cautioned against
drawing conclusions by making direct comparisons between cities due to the existence
of numerous factors which affect the amount and type of crime from place to place. Some
of these factors are listed in the annual Uniform Crime Reports. More valid use can be
made of these figures by determining deviations from national averages and through com-
parisons with averages for cities in similar population groups. (Table 1) It is important
to remember that crime is a social problem and, therefore, a concern of the entire com-
munity. The efforts of law enforcement are limited to factors within its control.
(Criminal Punishment)
HILLIS SPONSORS TOUGH DRUG BILL
For Immediate Release
WASHINGTON, D.C. Congressman Elwood H. "Bud" Hillis has agreed to co-
sponsor the tough drug control bill proposed by the President in his recent
State of the Union Message on Crime.
The "Heroin Trafficking Act of 1973," to which Hillis has added his name,
increases the sentences for heroin and morphine offenses and sets mandatory
minimum sentences which cannot be suspended, nor probation granted.
The bill also denies pre-trial release to those charged with trafficking
drugs unless it is determined that release will not endanger members of the
community. It further prohibits the release of a convicted drug felon awaiting
sentencing or the results of an appeal.
For a first offense of trafficking less than four ounces of heroin or mor-
phine, the bill provides a mandatory sentence from five to fifteen years.
First offenses for trafficking more than four ounces would be punishable by a
mandatory sentence of ten years to life.
Second drug offenders trafficking less than four ounces would receive a
mandatory prison term of ten years to life; those caught pushing more than four
ounces would receive a mandatory life imprisonment sentence without parole.
Current law prescribes up to 15 years and $25,000 fine for a first offense
in trafficking and up to 30 years and a $50,000 fine for second offenses. How-
ever, no mandatory provision exists, nor any minimum sentence.
The proposed bill does make a distinction between those who traffic in heroin
and those who are convicted of simply possessing it for personal use, and pre-
scribes lesser penalties for users who are not traffickers.
"Part of the problem today is that once a drug pusher is caught and lawfully
convicted, many soft judges impose a light sentence with early parole available
and before you know it, the pusher is back out on the streets,' Hillis said.
"It's time we cracked down on this segment of our criminal society and impose
mandatory, stiff sentences -- otherwise, all the money we spend to apprehend
and convict these drug offenders will be wasted."
"We're making progress in our efforts to catch drug traffickers, but a lot
of this progress is being undone in our courts. That's why the measures and
penalties I have supported in this bill are very strict, and provide only a
minimum of sentencing discretion to judges. The countries that have had the
most success in controlling the drug problem have very stiff penalties, and I
think it's high time we tried this approach," Hillis concluded.
Other Members of Congress co-sponsoring the drug bill include House Minority
Leader Gerald Ford, GOP Whip Les Arends, and Couis Frey of Florida, who is head
of the Republican Task Force on Drugs.
-30-
Congressman
ELWOOD H. "BUD" HILLIS
MINDER OF CONCRESS
Reports
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
from Washington
(NOT PRINTED AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE)
NEWSLETTER
For the week of March 22, 1973
DEATH PENALTY
WASHINGTON, D. C. "I am confident that the
death penalty can be a valuable deterrent to
certain crimes. " President Richard M. Nixon.
Throughout the history of this Nation, the death penalty has been a key
tool in fighting crime and making our streets safe.
Although the death penalty did not stop all violent crimes from being
committed, no one will ever know how many crimes were prevented because of it.
In the 1930s, the world was shocked when the small child of America's hero,
Colonel Charles Lindbergh, was kidnapped and murdered. Bruno Richard Hauptmann
was convicted of the crime and died in the electric chair. From this time on,
kidnapping became a crime punishable by death.
The death penalty was feared by all criminals.
In 1948, a new name appeared in American history. It was Caryl Chessman.
Chessman was convicted of two counts of kidnapping, one count of sexual
perversion and 17 counts of robbery. He was sentenced to die in the gas chamber
in the California State Prison.
A series of legal maneuvers and stays of execution extended Chessman's
life. On May 2, 1960 he was executed.
The Chessman case became a rallying point for all those who opposed the
death penalty. They believed that he had suffered undue punishment by being in
death row for some 12 years.
While in prison, Chessman authored three best-selling books. These books
worked on the emotions of all Americans.
After the Chessman case, death sentences in this Nation became rare. The
last person to be executed was Luis Jose Monge, who was put to death in Celerado
on June 2, 1967 for the murder of his wife and children.
The latest development came last June when the Supreme Court, in a 5-4
split decision, ruled that capital punishment as it is presently administered is
"cruel and unusual" and therefore unconstitutional.
The President has now stepped into the picture.
(continued)
Congressman
ELWOOD H. "BUD" HILLIS
MEMBER OF CONGRESS
Y
Reports
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
from Washington
(NOT
PRINTED
AT
GOVERNMENT
EXPENSE)
NEWSLETTER
For the week of March 22, 1973
DEATH PENALTY
WASHINGTON, D. C. "I am confident that the
death penalty can be a valuable deterrent to
bas
certain crimes." President Richard M. Nixon.
Throughout the history of this Nation, the death penalty has been a key
tool in fighting crime and making our streets safe.
Although the death penalty did not stop all violent crimes from being
committed, no one will ever know how many crimes were prevented because of it.
In the 1930s, the world was shocked when the small child of America's hero,
Colonel Charles Lindbergh, was kidnapped and murdered. Bruno Richard Hauptmann
was convicted of the crime and died in the electric chair. From this time on,
kidnapping became a crime punishable by death.
I
The death penalty was feared by all criminals.
In 1948, a new name appeared in American history. It was Caryl Chessman.
Chessman was convicted of two counts of kidnapping, one count of sexual
perversion and 17 counts of robbery. He was sentenced to die in the gas chamber
in the California State Prison.
A series of legal maneuvers and stays of execution extended Chessman's
life. On May 2, 1960 he was executed.
The Chessman case became a rallying point for all those who opposed the
death penalty. They believed that he had suffered undue punishment by being in
death row for some 12 years.
While in prison, Chessman authored three best-selling books. These books
worked on the emotions of all Americans.
After the Chessman case, death sentences in this Nation became rare. The
last person to be executed was Luis Jose Monge, who was put to death in Celorado
on June 2, 1967 for the murder of his wife and children.
The latest development came last June when the Supreme Court, in a 5-4
split decision, ruled that capital punishment as it is presently administered is
"cruel and unusual" and therefore unconstitutional.
The President into the picture.
(continued)
NEWSLETTER
-2-
For the week of March 29, 1973
He wants to reverse the trend and revive the death penalty.
On March 14 he asked Congress to take needed legislative steps which would
call for the death penalty in these cases:
1. Treason, sabotage and espionage, when "war related."
2. Killing of law enforcement officials and prison guards.
3. Murders committed in the course of serious federal crimes -- such as
skyjacking, kidnapping or bombing of a public building.
The Senate, in the meantime, has before its Subcommittee on Criminal Laws
and Procedures, legislation which would authorize the death penalty for the
"most heinous crimes" murder and treason.
A number of bills also have been introduced in the House for a mandatory
death penalty for those convicted of assassination or attempting to kill federal
office seekers or incumbents.
The House also has before it two constitutional amendments which would
overturn the Supreme Court's ruling.
It is my observation that there has been an upsurge in favor of capital
punishment.
I will certainly support federal legislation which would call for the
retention of the death penalty.
*
MORE GOOD NEWS FROM THE POSTAL PEOPLE
The Noblesville Daily ledger recently published an editorial that I
would like to share with you.
"What neither sleet not snow nor gloom of night is supposed to be capable
of, the Postal Service has managed to do to itself -- stay its couriers from the
swift completion of their appointed rounds.
"There was a brief item in the news the other day to the effect that
postmen in a outhern Illinois town . West Frankfort, to be exact, were hoofing
it on their deliveries even though they have official nail cars.
"Reason: The cars didn't have license plates.
"Reason: The plates, new 1973 ones required by February 15, had been
Lost in the mails. "
****
WE NEED YOUR HELP
Because our mailing list has grown rapidly during the past year, we find
that we Have some duplications. We do our best to police the list but would like
to have your help. If you are receiving more than one newsletter or if there
are any other errors, such as an incorrect address, please get in touch with my
Washington office.
* * *
Write Congressman Hillis 1510 Longworth Building Washington, D. C. 20515
50-73
From the Office of:
CONGRESSMAN TOM RAILSBACK
19th District, Illinois
218 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D. C. 20515
Contact: Karel Dutton
(202) 225-7839
March 30, 1973
CONGRESSMAN TOM RAILSBACK REPORTS FROM WASHINGTON
For release, Monday, April 2, 1973
Now that general revenue sharing is a reality -- special revenue sharing
looms in the near future. In the last Congress, little or no action was
taken on the revenue sharing package. But, the President in his 1973 Budget
message renewed his proposals requesting that Congress enact special revenue
sharing bills in three broad areas instead of the six areas previously proposed
This year, the Administration will not be submitting special revenue
sharing bills for rural development, manpower or transportation. It is
expected that any changes in these areas will come through administrative
regulations rather than enactment of law by Congress.
In the other fields of urban development, law enforcement, and education,
some 70 existing categorical federal aid programs will be consolidated into
these three broad areas with a total value of $5.6 billion for the first year.
Personally, I have been a proponent of special revenue sharing because
it enables the state and local government much more flexibility and discretion
in using federal funds within the broad function areas of each program. In
other words, the federal government isn't spelling out exactly where these
monies have to go -- and it will be up to the local government to determine
their own special needs. For instance, the education revenue sharing merges
some 30 elementary and secondary grant programs into five block grants
totaling $2.8 billion. The local areas could distribute the aid as they see
fit in the five categories of elementary and secondary education; education
for the handicapped; assistance for federally impacted areas, vocation and
adult education and school lunch programs.
(MORE)
-2-
In the area of law enforcement, the Administration proposals call for
the conversion of block grant programs of the Law Enforcement Assistance
Administration into a $790 million special revenue sharing package. In the
urban development, such programs as model cities, water and sewer, neighbor-
hood facilities and rehabilitation loans would be consolidated into one
package which would provide $2.3 billion in the first year.
While most people would agree that the current myriad of federal
categorical grant programs are narrow and outmoded, there are always
difficulties and problems when programs are dismantled or transferred.
Other problems are also surfacing because, coupled with the special revenue
sharing proposals, is the Administration's pledge to cease funding of several
categorical grant programs by the end of this fiscal year in June. Such
programs as impact aid which is slated to merge under education revenue
sharing, and the model cities program which is to be under urban development
revenue sharing, are not included for funding in the 1974 fiscal year budget.
Hence, if Congress does not act upon these revenue sharing bills before the
fiscal year runs out, many programs might cease to exist.
I am hopeful Congress will ultimately see its way through to enact
legislation similar to these proposals, and -- if we don't -- we will then
have to provide interim funding under the categorical grant programs.
-30-
Congressman
Clarence J. Brown-Ohio
NEWS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
PH: WASH.. D.C. 202-225-4324
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20515
SPRINGFIELD 513-325-0474
REPORT FROM WASHINGTON
For Release, Tuesday, April 10, 1973
THE HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE on Legislation and Military Affairs, on which
I serve, last week began consideration of the President's Reorganization
Plan No. 2---the establishment of a Drug Enforcement Administration
within the Justice Department to coordinate federal efforts in the drug
law enforcement area.
This new Drug Administration would combine and command a federal
strike force of 3,000 men and women with responsibility for all domestic
and foreign law enforcement operations which are now dispersed among a
half dozen government bureaus and agencies. The Reorganization Plan
would also concentrate over 1,000 government agents under the Bureau
of Customs to reduce the possibility that illicit drugs will escape
detection at U. S. ports-of-entry. Currently divided responsibility
between the Justice Department and the Treasury Department at U. S.
ports-of-entry limits the effectiveness of the efforts.
This streamlining of the federal drug law enforcement apparatus
improves the organization and the necessary resources, and leadership
capacity to deal directly and decisively with the "supply" side of the
drug abuse problem both in the U. S. and internationally. In combina-
tion with the Special Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention, now in
the Executive Office of the President, which deals with the "demand"
side of the problem (education, treatment and rehabilitation), we
will now have a potent one-two punch against the deadly menace of
drug abuse.
The major responsibilities of the proposed Drug Enforcement
Administration would include: development of overall federal drug
law enforcement intelligence, surveillance, strategy, investigation,
apprehension and prosecution of suspects for violations under all
federal drug trafficking laws; conduct of all relations with drug law
enforcement officials of foreign governments; and full coordination
and cooperation with State and local law enforcement officials on joint
drug enforcement efforts. The functions of the Bureau of Customs and
the Immigration and Naturalization service would be better coordinated
(NOT PRINTED AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE)
(more)
(page 2)
to embrace single inspection of all persons and goods entering the
U. S., to intercept contraband being smuggled into the U. S. and to
enforce U. S. laws governing the international movement of persons and
goods. The investigation responsibility for all drug law enforcement:
CESOR would be placed in the Justice Department. Such streamlining of
responsibility and command will put to better use the sevenfold
increase in federal funds appropriated for drug abuse control purposed
in the last five years, as well as the 250 percent increase in drug
abuse prevention manpower during that same period.
Certain questions regarding the plan must still be answered,
such as who will coordinate the Special Action Office with the Drug
Enforcement Administration? How is the international aspect of the
Drug Enforcement Administration to be coordinated with the State
Department? And, will the plan create interagency competition among
intelligence agencies operating overseas? Once such questions are
answered, the government's combination of drug enforcement and
rehabilitation will open the way for a decisive solution to the drug
problem when coupled with the President's proposed stiff mandatory
sentencing for drug pushers and traffickers.
THE PRESIDENT'S TELEVISED speech March 22nd, in which he asked
voters to write to their Senators and Congressmen in support of his
efforts to control federal spending, must have struck a strong chord
of agreement.
In the days following the speech I have received numerous letters
from constituents urging me to vote against legislation which would
force deficit spending. The citizens writing seem to have a strong
appreciation for the connection between over-spending of the federal
budget by Congress and the inflation that results and erodes all our
income. And they are adamant about preventing the alternative--
higher taxes.
Hopefully this awareness of the need for responsible federal
spending policy being shown in the Seventh District is also being
reflected around the rest of the nation. If is is, it is time the
Democrat-controlled Congress starts paying attention.
-30-