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
1534591
label
1975/06/13 - Crime Message Memorandum
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
1534591
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
1975/06/13 - Crime Message Memorandum
citationUrl
collections
James M. Cannon Files (Ford Administration)
James Cannon's Meetings Files
subjects
U.S. Congress. 1789-
Crime
Legislation
Presidential messages
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
1534591
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1975-06-30
month
6
year
1975
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1975-06-01
month
6
year
1975
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
e281da16656e4eb0
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 47, folder "1975/06/13 - Crime Message
Memorandum" of the James M. Cannon Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald Ford donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box 47 of the James M. Cannon Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
June 13, 1975
MEMORANDUM TO THE PRESIDENT
CRIME MESSAGE FROM JIM CANNON
Now we have, in my judgment, a hard battle ahead of
the American people will support your enons
us. But if you join with me, and we get the mayors and
as we join with others.
the county officials to join with us, we can extend this pro-
I think I understand the importance of State govern
gram along the lines that I'm recommending. It's not
ment and some of the problems you face. And I can as
going to be easy. You will have some people who will
sure you that I and my Administration will do everythin;
want to change its character, reduce its money, put all
we can to be helpful. It's a mutual responsibility we hav
kinds of limitations and strings on it. We cannot afford
to our respective constituents, and if we work together
to have that happen.
we can get the job done.
This program has justified itself. We had a hard time
Thank you very, very much.
getting it in the first instance, and we will probably have a
NOTE: The President spoke at 2:08 p.m. in the East Room at th
difficult time in the months ahead for its extension. But
White House to participants in a special leadership conference b
ing held in Washington, D.C., under the sponsorship of the N
on its merit, it can be justified. And I'm confident that
tional Conference of State Legislatures.
YALE UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL
The President's Remarks at the Sesquicentennial Convocation
from
Dinner. April 25, 1975
Two
Thank you very much, President Brewster. Dean Goldstein, Governor
was
Grasso, Justices Stewart and White, the Secretary of HUD, Carla Hills,
yr
the Members of the House of Representatives with whom I served and
others who are now Members, but with whom I did not have that privi-
lege and pleasure, good mayor, fellow alumni students, and guests of Yale
Law School:
Obviously, it's a very great privilege and pleasure to be here at the
Yale Law School Sesquicentennial Convocation. And I defy anyone to
say that and chew gum at the same time. [Laughter]
Every time I come back to Yale, I find myself almost overwhelmed
by nostalgia. It's been SO long, and so much has happened since I first got
off the train at the New Haven station in 1935.
For the first several years, I was an assistant football coach. But dur-
ing that period, I decided against a career in athletics and set my goal
as a degree in law.
At that time, one of the entrance requirements to the Yale Law
School was a personal interview with three distinguished members of the
faculty. In my case, one of them was Professor Myres McDougal, whom
I'm delighted to see is with us tonight. It was wonderful to chat with you,
Myres, before dinner.
You might be interested to know that Professor McDougal, in re-
marks given to the Yale Law School Association in Washington last
year, mentioned the fact that he still had his notes from that interview.
He said that under the appropriate headings there were entries like the
following: good looking, well-dressed, plenty of poise, personality-
excellent. Then, under another heading: informational background, not
too good. [Laughter]
Well, Professor McDougal doesn't know-or what he doesn't know is
that while he was keeping notes on me, I was keeping notes on him. And
by coincidence, I just happen to have them with me here tonight. Under
the appropriate headings, I find entries like these: good looking, well-
dressed, plenty of poise, personality-excellent. Then under another head-
ing: informational background about football, not so good. [Laughter]
Volume 11-Number 17
444
PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS: GERALD R. FORD, 1975
As I remember it, the only benchwarmer Professor McDougal took an in-
terest in at that time was Oliver Wendell Holmes.
I won't go into any more details about that interview. Suffice it to
say that Professor McDougal was extraordinarily impressed with my
capabilities and SO caught up with my capabilities and my vision of my
potentialities that in a whirlwind of enthusiasm, he wrote: "I see no rea-
son why we should not take him." [Laughter]
My biggest problem at that time was convincing the school I could
continue as a full-time assistant football coach and still carry on a full
schedule in the law school. Fortunately, I was able to convince them, and
I've always been very grateful for the help, the encouragement I consist-
ently received from such great educators as Gene Rostow, Thurman
Arnold, Jimmy James, Harry Shulman and, in particular, Myres
McDougal. And I thank you very much.
Myres, all I can say is may your retirement provide you with the same
riches of fulfillment and satisfaction your career has already brought to
the students of Yale. May God go with you.
Obviously, a lot has happened since I left Yale Law School in 1941.
I practiced law. I joined the Navy. I was elected to Congress, became
minority leader, Vice President, and now President. But no matter how
far I have traveled, something from Yale has always followed with me-
and I'm not just referring to those letters from the Alumni Fund
[laughter]-but something very special, something that adds to charac-
ter, something that clings to our character and, in time, something that
becomes our character.
It's rather hard to put feelings into words, but the motto of our school
is, "For God, for Country, and for Yale," and I think that says it all.
The 150th anniversary of this great law school, one of the outstand-
ing institutions of the world for the study of law, suggests better than I,
the subject for my remarks this evening. On May 1, we celebrate Law
Day. Most of you in this audience have devoted your academic years and
a good part of your lives to the development and to the promulgation of
the law.
Today, as President, I sense, and I think the American people sense
that we are facing a basic and a very serious problem of disregard for the
law.
and diseaser
I would like to talk with you tonight about law and the spirit of abid-
bo each other
ing by the law. I ask you to think along with me about the concern of so
many Americans about the problem of crime. And let us start with the
great Preamble of our Constitution which seeks "to insure domestic tran-
11
quility." Have we achieved on our streets and in our homes that sense of
domestic tranquility SO essential to the pursuit of happiness?
With the launching of our Bicentennial year, it has been argued that
the American Revolution was the most successful in history because the
principles of the Revolution-liberty and equality under the Iaw-became
the functioning constitutional principles of our great Government.
The Founding Fathers governed well and governed prudently, with
restraint and respect for justice and law. There was no reign of terror, no
repression, no dictatorship. The institutions they have founded became
durable and effective. Because of all of this, we tend to think of them now
as respectable and conservative. But the fact is that ours remains the great
Revolution of modern history, and we should be proud of it.
Volume 11-Number 17
PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS: GERALD R. FORD, 1975
445
A leading feature of the American Revolution was its devotion to
justice under law. Once one gets past those two glorious opening para-
graphs, the Declaration of Independence reads very much like a legal
brief.
The argument was made that sound government and just laws had
to be restored to the land. The theme was that independence was needed
to restore a representative government of laws in order to secure liberty.
Our revolutionary leaders heeded John Locke's teaching: "Where
there is no law, there is no freedom." Law makes human society possible.
It pledges safety to every member so that the company of fellow human
beings can be a blessing instead of a threat. Where law exists and is re-
spected and is fairly enforced, trust replaces fear.
Do we provide that domestic tranquility which the Constitution
seeks? If we take the crime rates as an indication, the answer has to be no.
The number of violent crimes rises steadily, and we have recently
suffered the national disgrace of lawbreaking in high places. Violent
crimes on our streets and in our homes make fear pervasive. They strike
at the very roots of community life; they sever the bonds that link us as
fellow citizens; they make citizens fear each other.
Crime in high places, whether in the Federal Government, State gov-
ernment, local governments, or in business or in organized labor, sets an
example that makes it all the more difficult to foster a law-abiding spirit
among ordinary citizens.
And when we talk about obeying the law, we think of police and
courts and prisons and the whole apparatus of the law enforcement proc-
ess. But the truth is that most of us obey the law because we believe that
compliance is the right thing to do and not because the police may be
watching.
As far as law violations in high places are concerned, let me stress
this point: In the present Administration, I have made it a matter of the
highest priority to restore to the executive branch, decency, honesty, and
adherence to the law at all levels. This has been done, and it will be con-
tinued.
I urge the same effort and the same dedication in State governments,
where recently there have been too many scandals. I urge the same stand-
ards in local governments, also in industry and in labor. There is no way
to inculcate in society the spirit of law if society's leaders are not scrupu-
lously law-abiding.
We have seen how lawbreaking by officials can be stopped by the
proper functioning of our basic institutions-executive, legislative, and
judicial branches. But America has been far from successful in dealing
with the sort of crime that obsesses America day and night. I mean
street crime, crime that invades our neighborhoods and our homes-mur-
ders, robberies, rapes, muggings, holdups, break-ins-the kind of brutal
violence that makes us fearful of strangers and afraid to go out at night.
In thinking about this problem, I do not seek vindictive punishment
of the criminal, but protection of the innocent victim. The victims are
my primary concern. That is why I do not talk about law and order, and
why I return to the constitutional phrase-insuring domestic tranquility.
The overwhelming majority of Americans obey the law willingly and
without coercion, but even the most law-abiding among us are still hu-
Volume 11-Number 17
446
PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS: GERALD R. FORD, 1975
man. And so it makes ordinary commonsense that we promulgate rules
and that there be enforcement of the rules to buttress the normal inclina-
tion of most people to obey the rules. As James Madison asked in The
Federalist, and I quote, "But what is government itself but the greatest
of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels," said Madison,
"no government would be necessary."
Since men and women are not angels, we must have the apparatus
of law enforcement. Those who prey on others, especially by violence, are
very, very few in number. A very small percentage of the whole popula-
tion accounts for a very large proportion of the vicious crimes committed.
For example, in one study of nearly 10,000 males born in 1945, it was
found that only 6 percent of them accounted for two-thirds of all of the
violent crimes committed by the entire group.
Most serious crimes are committed by repeaters. These relatively few,
persistent criminals who cause so much misery and fear are really the core
of the problem. The rest of the American people have a right to protec-
tion from their violence.
Most of the victims of violent crime are the poor, the old, the young,
the disadvantaged minorities, the people who live in the most crowded
parts of our cities, the most defenseless. These victims have a valid claim
on the rest of society for the protection and the personal safety that they
cannot provide for themselves-in short, for domestic tranquility.
Hardly a day passes when some politician does not call for a massive
crackdown on crime, but the problem is infinitely more complex than that.
Such an approach has not proven effective in the long haul; it is not the
American style. We need a precise and effective solution.
One problem is that our busiest courts are overloaded. They're so
overloaded that very few cases are actually tried. One study showed that
in a county in Wisconsin, only 6 percent of the convictions resulted from
cases which came to trial. According to another study, over a 3-year period
in Manhattan, only about 3 percent of the persons indicted were convicted
after trial.
I think this audience knows the explanation. It is plea bargaining—
in many cases, plea bargaining required by the ever-growing pressure of
an increased caseload. The popular notion that trial follows arrest is a
misconception in a vast majority of cases, and this audience will also be
quick to guess one of the basic reasons.
The increase in arrests has been much more rapid than the increase
in the number of judges, prosecutors, and public defenders. The most ob-
vious response to this imbalance has been to accept pleas of guilt in return
for short prison terms or sentences, or no sentences at all.
According to a recent authoritative report, half of the persons con-
victed of felonies in New York received no detention whatsoever. And of
the other half, only one-fifth were sentenced to more than one year of im-
prisonment. Imprisonment, thus, too seldom follows conviction for a
felony.
In the sixties, crime rates went higher and higher, but the number
of persons in prisons, State and Federal, actually went down. A Rand
Corporation report of one major jurisdiction showed that of all convicted
robbers with a major, prior record, only 27 percent were sent to prison
after conviction.
Volume 11-Number 17
PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS: GERALD R. FORD, 1975
447
Notice, please, that I'm speaking only of convicted felons. I am not
chastising our system for determining guilt or innocence. I am urging that
virtually all of those convicted of a violent crime should be sent to prison.
And this should be done especially if a gun was involved or there was other
substantial danger or injury to a person or persons. There certainly should
be imprisonment if the convicted person has a prior record of convictions.
Most serious offenders are repeaters. We owe it to their victims-
past, present, and future-to get them off the streets. This is just everyday
commonsense, as I see it. The crime rate will go down if persons who ha-
bitually commit most of the predatory crimes are kept in prison for a rea-
sonable period, if convicted, because they will then not be free to commit
more crimes.
Convicts should be treated humanely in prison. Loss of liberty should
be the chief punishment. Improvement in the treatment of, and facilities
for prisoners is long overdue. But it is essential that there be less delay in
bringing arrested persons to trial, less plea bargaining, and more court-
room determination of guilt or innocence, and that all-or practically
all-of those actually convicted of predatory CI ime be sent to prison.
In many other areas, it is the responsibility of the Federal Govern-
ment to augment the enforcement efforts of the States when it becomes
necessary.
What else can we do? The Federal Code can be modified to make
more sentences mandatory and, therefore, punishment more certain for
those convicted of violent crimes.
What can the White House do about this? The Federal role is limited,
because most violent crimes are matters for State and local authorities.
Further, the creation of criminal sanctions and their interpretation are
the concerns of the legislative and judicial branches as well as the execu-
tive branch.
The principal role of the Federal Government in the area of crime
control has centered in providing financial and technical assistance to the
several States. However, while we are all aware that the actual control
of crime in this country is a matter primarily of State responsibility
under the Constitution, there are several areas in which it is the chief
responsibility of the Federal Government.
We can provide leadership in making funds available to add judges,
prosecutors, and public defenders to the Federal system. This Federal
model should encourage States to adopt similar priorities for the use of
their own funds and those provided by the Law Enforcement Assistance
Administration.
We can encourage better use of existing prison facilities to minimize
detention of persons convicted of minor crimes, thus making more room
for the convicted felons to be imprisoned. There are a number of esti-
mates of how much the crime rate would be reduced if all convicted crim-
inals with major records were sent to prison instead of being set free after
conviction, as too many are today.
Although we might expect the certainty of a prison sentence to serve
as a deterrent, let us remember that one obvious effect of prison is to sep-
arate lawbreakers from the law-abiding society. In totalitarian states, it's
easier to assure law and order. Dictators eliminate freedom of move-
Volume 11-Number 17
448
PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS: GERALD R. FORD, 1975
ment, of speech, and of choice. They control the news media and the edu-
cational system. They conscript the entire society, and deprive people of
basic civil liberties. By such methods, crime can be strictly controlled.
But, in effect, the entire society becomes one huge prison. This is not a
choice we are willing to consider.
Edmund Burke commented appropriately in his Reflections on the
French Revolution. Burke said, and I quote, "To make a government
requires no great prudence. Settle the seat of power, teach obedience, and
the work is done. To give freedom is still more easy. It is not necessary to
guide; it only requires to let go the rein. But to form a free government,
that is, to temper together these opposite elements of liberty and re-
straint in one consistent work, requires much thought, deep reflection, a
sagacious, powerful, and combining mind."
Since these words were written, the world has changed profoundly.
But the old question still remains: Can a free people restrain crime with-
out sacrificing fundamental liberties and a heritage of compassion?
I am confident of the American answer. Let it become a vital element
on America's new agenda. Let us show that we can temper together those
opposite elements of liberty and restraint into one consistent whole.
Let us set an example for the world of a law-abiding America glory-
ing in its freedom as well as its respect for law. Let us, at last, fufill the
constitutional promise of domestic tranquility for all of our law-abiding
citizens.
Thank you very much.
NOTE: The President spoke at 9:57 p.m. in Woolsey Hall at the Yale University Law
School, New Haven, Conn.
Now we have, in my judgment, a hard battle ahead of
the American people will support your enons
as. But if you join with me, and we get the mayors and
as we join with others.
the county officials to join with us, we can extend this pro-
I think I understand the importance of State govern
gram along the lines that I'm recommending. It's not
ment and some of the problems you face. And I can a
going to be easy. You will have some people who will
sure you that I and my Administration will do everythin
want to change its character, reduce its money, put all
we can to be helpful. It's a mutual responsibility we hav
kinds of limitations and strings on it. We cannot afford
to our respective constituents, and if we work togethe
to have that happen.
we can get the job done.
This program has justified itself. We had a hard time
Thank you very, very much.
getting it in the first instance, and we will probably have a
NOTE: The President spoke at 2:08 p.m. in the East Room at t
difficult time in the months ahead for its extension. But
White House to participants in a special leadership conference 1
ing held in Washington, D.C., under the sponsorship of the N
on its merit, it can be justified. And I'm confident that
tional Conference of State Legislatures.
YALE UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL
The President's Remarks at the Sesquicentennial Convocation
Dinner. April 25, 1975
Thank you very much, President Brewster. Dean Goldstein, Governor
Grasso, Justices Stewart and White, the Secretary of HUD, Carla Hills,
the Members of the House of Representatives with whom I served and
others who are now Members, but with whom I did not have that privi-
lege and pleasure, good mayor, fellow alumni students, and guests of Yale
Law School:
Obviously, it's a very great privilege and pleasure to be here at the
Yale Law School Sesquicentennial Convocation. And I defy anyone to
say that and chew gum at the same time. [Laughter]
Every time I come back to Yale, I find myself almost overwhelmed
by nostalgia. It's been so long, and so much has happened since I first got
off the train at the New Haven station in 1935.
For the first several years, I was an assistant football coach. But dur-
ing that period, I decided against a career in athletics and set my goal
as a degree in law.
At that time, one of the entrance requirements to the Yale Law
School was a personal interview with three distinguished members of the
faculty. In my case, one of them was Professor Myres McDougal, whom
I'm delighted to see is with us tonight. It was wonderful to chat with you,
Myres, before dinner.
You might be interested to know that Professor McDougal, in re-
marks given to the Yale Law School Association in Washington last
year, mentioned the fact that he still had his notes from that interview.
He said that under the appropriate headings there were entries like the
following: good looking, well-dressed, plenty of poise, personality-
excellent. Then, under another heading: informational background, not
too good. [Laughter]
Well, Professor McDougal doesn't know-or what he doesn't know is
that while he was keeping notes on me, I was keeping notes on him. And
by coincidence, I just happen to have them with me here tonight. Under
the appropriate headings, I find entries like these: good looking, well-
dressed, plenty of poise, personality-excellent. Then under another head-
ing: informational background about football, not so good. [Laughter]
Volume 11-Number 17
GERALD
444
PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS: GERALD R. FORD; 1975
As I remember it, the only benchwarmer Professor McDougal took an in-
terest in at that time was Oliver Wendell Holmes.
I won't go into any more details about that interview. Suffice it to
say that Professor McDougal was extraordinarily impressed with my
capabilities and so caught up with my capabilities and my vision of my
potentialities that in a whirlwind of enthusiasm, he wrote: "I see no rea-
son why we should not take him." [Laughter]
My biggest problem at that time was convincing the school I could
continue as a full-time assistant football coach and still carry on a full
schedule in the law school. Fortunately, I was able to convince them, and
I've always been very grateful for the help, the encouragement I consist-
ently received from such great educators as Gene Rostow, Thurman
Arnold, Jimmy James, Harry Shulman and, in particular, Myres
McDougal. And I thank you very much.
Myres, all I can say is may your retirement provide you with the same
riches of fulfillment and satisfaction your career has already brought to
the students of Yale. May God go with you.
Obviously, a lot has happened since I left Yale Law School in 1941.
I practiced law. I joined the Navy. I was elected to Congress, became
minority leader, Vice President, and now President. But no matter how
far I have traveled, something from Yale has always followed with me-
and I'm not just referring to those letters from the Alumni Fund
[laughter]-but something very special, something that adds to charac-
ter, something that clings to our character and, in time, something that
becomes our character.
It's rather hard to put feelings into words, but the motto of our school
is, "For God, for Country, and for Yale," and I think that says it all.
The 150th anniversary of this great law school, one of the outstand-
ing institutions of the world for the study of law, suggests better than I,
the subject for my remarks this evening. On May 1, we celebrate Law
Day. Most of you in this audience have devoted your academic years and
a good part of your lives to the development and to the promulgation of
the law.
Today, as President, I sense, and I think the American people sense
that we are facing a basic and a very serious problem of disregard for the
law.
I would like to talk with you tonight about law and the spirit of abid-
ing by the law. I ask you to think along with me about the concern of so
many Americans about the problem of crime. And let us start with the
great Preamble of our Constitution which seeks "to insure domestic tran-
quility." Have we achieved on our streets and in our homes that sense of
domestic tranquility so essential to the pursuit of happiness?
With the launching of our Bicentennial year, it has been argued that
the American Revolution was the most successful in history because the
principles of the Revolution-liberty and equality under the Iaw-became
the functioning constitutional principles of our great Government.
The Founding Fathers governed well and governed prudently, with
restraint and respect for justice and law. There was no reign of terror, no
repression, no dictatorship. The institutions they have founded became
&
FORD
durable and effective. Because of all of this, we tend to think of them now
as respectable and conservative. But the fact is that ours remains the great
GERALD
Revolution of modern history, and we should be proud of it.
Volume 11-Number 17
PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS: GERALD R. FORD, 1975
445
A leading feature of the American Revolution was its devotion to
justice under law. Once one gets past those two glorious opening para-
graphs, the Declaration of Independence reads very much like a legal
brief.
The argument was made that sound government and just laws had
to be restored to the land. The theme was that independence was needed
to restore a representative government of laws in order to secure liberty.
Our revolutionary leaders heeded John Locke's teaching: "Where
there is no law, there is no freedom." Law makes human society possible.
It pledges safety to every member so that the company of fellow human
beings can be a blessing instead of a threat. Where law exists and is re-
spected and is fairly enforced, trust replaces fear.
Do we provide that domestic tranquility which the Constitution
seeks? If we take the crime rates as an indication, the answer has to be no.
The number of violent crimes rises steadily, and we have recently
suffered the national disgrace of lawbreaking in high places. Violent
crimes on our streets and in our homes make fear pervasive. They strike
at the very roots of community life; they sever the bonds that link us as
fellow citizens; they make citizens fear each other.
Crime in high places, whether in the Federal Government, State gov-
ernment, local governments, or in business or in organized labor, sets an
example that makes it all the more difficult to foster a law-abiding spirit
among ordinary citizens.
And when we talk about obeying the law, we think of police and
courts and prisons and the whole apparatus of the law enforcement proc-
ess. But the truth is that most of us obey the law because we believe that
compliance is the right thing to do and not because the police may be
watching.
As far as law violations in high places are concerned, let me stress
this point: In the present Administration, I have made it a matter of the
highest priority to restore to the executive branch, decency, honesty, and
adherence to the law at all levels. This has been done, and it will be con-
tinued.
I urge the same effort and the same dedication in State governments,
where recently there have been too many scandals. I urge the same stand-
ards in local governments, also in industry and in labor. There is no way
to inculcate in society the spirit of law if society's leaders are not scrupu-
lously law-abiding.
We have seen how lawbreaking by officials can be stopped by the
proper functioning of our basic institutions-executive, legislative, and
judicial branches. But America has been far from successful in dealing
with the sort of crime that obsesses America day and night. I mean
street crime, crime that invades our neighborhoods and our homes-mur-
ders, robberies, rapes, muggings, holdups, break-ins-the kind of brutal
violence that makes us fearful of strangers and afraid to go out at night.
In thinking about this problem, I do not seek vindictive punishment
of the criminal, but protection of the innocent victim. The victims are
my primary concern. That is why I do not talk about law and order, and
why I return to the constitutional phrase-insuring domestic tranquility.
The overwhelming majority of Americans obey the law willingly and
without coercion, but even the most law-abiding among us are still hu-
FO
Volume 11-Number 17
GERALD
446
PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS: GERALD R. FORD, 1975
man. And so it makes ordinary commonsense that we promulgate rules
and that there be enforcement of the rules to buttress the normal inclina-
tion of most people to obey the rules. As James Madison asked in The
Federalist, and I quote, "But what is government itself but the greatest
of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels," said Madison,
"no government would be necessary."
Since men and women are not angels, we must have the apparatus
of law enforcement. Those who prey on others, especially by violence, are
very, very few in number. A very small percentage of the whole popula-
tion accounts for a very large proportion of the vicious crimes committed.
For example, in one study of nearly 10,000 males born in 1945, it was
found that only 6 percent of them accounted for two-thirds of all of the
violent crimes committed by the entire group.
Most serious crimes are committed by repeaters. These relatively few,
persistent criminals who cause so much misery and fear are really the core
of the problem. The rest of the American people have a right to protec-
tion from their violence.
Most of the victims of violent crime are the poor, the old, the young,
the disadvantaged minorities, the people who live in the most crowded
parts of our cities, the most defenseless. These victims have a valid claim
on the rest of society for the protection and the personal safety that they
cannot provide for themselves-in short, for domestic tranquility.
Hardly a day passes when some politician does not call for a massive
crackdown on crime, but the problem is infinitely more complex than that.
Such an approach has not proven effective in the long haul; it is not the
American style. We need a precise and effective solution.
One problem is that our busiest courts are overloaded. They're so
overloaded that very few cases are actually tried. One study showed that
in a county in Wisconsin, only 6 percent of the convictions resulted from
cases which came to trial. According to another study, over a 3-year period
in Manhattan, only about 3 percent of the persons indicted were convicted
after trial.
I think this audience knows the explanation. It is plea bargaining-
in many cases, plea bargaining required by the ever-growing pressure of
an increased caseload. The popular notion that trial follows arrest is a
misconception in a vast majority of cases, and this audience will also be
quick to guess one of the basic reasons.
The increase in arrests has been much more rapid than the increase
in the number of judges, prosecutors, and public defenders. The most ob-
vious response to this imbalance has been to accept pleas of guilt in return
for short prison terms or sentences, or no sentences at all.
According to a recent authoritative report, half of the persons con-
victed of felonies in New York received no detention whatsoever. And of
the other half, only one-fifth were sentenced to more than one year of im-
prisonment. Imprisonment, thus, too seldom follows conviction for a
felony.
In the sixties, crime rates went higher and higher, but the number
of persons in prisons, State and Federal, actually went down. A Rand
Corporation report of one major jurisdiction showed that of all convicted
robbers with a major, prior record, only 27 percent were sent to prison
after conviction.
BERALD FORD LIBRARY
Volume 11-Number 17
Notice, please, that I'm speaking only of convicted felons. I am not
chastising our system for determining guilt or innocence. I am urging that
virtually all of those convicted of a violent crime should be sent to prison.
And this should be done especially if a gun was involved or there was other
substantial danger or injury to a person or persons. There certainly should
be imprisonment if the convicted person has a prior record of convictions.
Most serious offenders are repeaters. We owe it to their victims-
past, present, and future-to get them off the streets. This is just everyday
commonsense, as I see it. The crime rate will go down if persons who ha-
bitually commit most of the predatory crimes are kept in prison for a rea-
sonable period, if convicted, because they will then not be free to commit
more crimes.
Convicts should be treated humanely in prison. Loss of liberty should
be the chief punishment. Improvement in the treatment of, and facilities
for prisoners is long overdue. But it is essential that there be less delay in
bringing arrested persons to trial, less plea bargaining, and more court-
room determination of guilt or innocence, and that all-or practically
all-of those actually convicted of predatory crime be sent to prison.
In many other areas, it is the responsibility of the Federal Govern-
ment to augment the enforcement efforts of the States when it becomes
necessary.
What else can we do? The Federal Code can be modified to make
more sentences mandatory and, therefore, punishment more certain for
those convicted of violent crimes.
What can the White House do about this? The Federal role is limited,
because most violent crimes are matters for State and local authorities.
Further, the creation of criminal sanctions and their interpretation are
the concerns of the legislative and judicial branches as well as the execu-
tive branch.
The principal role of the Federal Government in the area of crime
control has centered in providing financial and technical assistance to the
several States. However, while we are all aware that the actual control
of crime in this country is a matter primarily of State responsibility
under the Constitution, there are several areas in which it is the chief
responsibility of the Federal Government.
We can provide leadership in making funds available to add judges,
prosecutors, and public defenders to the Federal system. This Federal
model should encourage States to adopt similar priorities for the use of
their own funds and those provided by the Law Enforcement Assistance
Administration.
We can encourage better use of existing prison facilities to minimize
detention of persons convicted of minor crimes, thus making more room
for the convicted felons to be imprisoned. There are a number of esti-
mates of how much the crime rate would be reduced if all convicted crim-
inals with major records were sent to prison instead of being set free after
conviction, as too many are today.
Although we might expect the certainty of a prison sentence to serve
as a deterrent, let us remember that one obvious effect of prison is to sep-
arate lawbreakers from the law-abiding society. In totalitarian states, it's
easier to assure law and order. Dictators eliminate freedom of move-
is
FORD
Volume 11-Number 17
GERALD
443
PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS: GERALD R. FORD, 1975
ment, of speech, and of choice. They control the news media and the edu-
cational system. They conscript the entire society, and deprive people of
basic civil liberties. By such methods, crime can be strictly controlled.
But, in effect, the entire society becomes one huge prison. This is not a
choice we are willing to consider.
Edmund Burke commented appropriately in his Reflections on the
French Revolution. Burke said, and I quote, "To make a government
requires no great prudence. Settle the seat of power, teach obedience, and
the work is done. To give freedom is still more easy. It is not necessary to
guide; it only requires to let go the rein. But to form a free government,
that is, to temper together these opposite elements of liberty and re-
straint in one consistent work, requires much thought, deep reflection, a
sagacious, powerful, and combining mind."
Since these words were written, the world has changed profoundly.
But the old question still remains: Can a free people restrain crime with-
out sacrificing fundamental liberties and a heritage of compassion?
I am confident of the American answer. Let it become a vital element
on America's new agenda. Let us show that we can temper together those
opposite elements of liberty and restraint into one consistent whole.
Let us set an example for the world of a law-abiding America glory-
ing in its freedom as well as its respect for law. Let us, at last, fufill the
constitutional promise of domestic tranquility for all of our law-abiding
citizens.
Thank you very much.
NOTE: The President spoke at 9:57 p.m. in Woolsey Hall at the Yale University Law
School, New Haven, Conn.
&
FORD
GERALD
June 5, 1975
TO:
DICK PARSONS
FROM:
JIM CANNON
SUBJECT:
CRIME MESSAGE Dave
Here are Don Rumsfeld's thoughts on what the crime
message should accomplish:
1. It is the basic message he will want to
live with from now until November of 1976.
2. It should show:
a. He gives a damn about what's happening
in the country.
b. He cares about the victims of crime.
C. He has proposed an anti-crime program to
Congress.
d. Congress won't pass it.
3. The message should be thoughtful and lasting,
have a broad appeal, and be slightly right of
center.
JMC:jm
[6/13/75]
Swate
Soll Butz,
wondring
Donostr Comul meety
Venemen
A
He and At
wet ar VXX
JoB S
areau
Greats
w
[6/13/75]
/
Healthing of D.C. verew group
mext wednesday V,P,
2
been Coutrol
out
on one provider
Ree Gun Control
role Mr or a
Sun Owlen
\
sale delivery -
weres coral N not
law
we shouldnt enfore
loral law
playent Federal can
woher it illegat
to seel a
sun if illesal
was Fed a
state law -
Require dealeR to
Doug
wartin
the Helpy to details
That x would
S. Cannon
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 13, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
Jim Cannon
SUBJECT:
Crime Message
Attached for your consideration is the final draft of your special message
to the Congress on crime. The following matters remain unresolved:
I.
Compensation to Victims of Crime
Issue: Should the Crime Message specifically endorse
the victims' compensation provision of S. 1?
Discussion:
Based on 1973 data, the Department of Justice has estimated that
revenues for a victims' compensation fund, such as would be
established by S. 1, would approximate $15. 4 million annually,
and that pay-outs to victims of crimes would approximate
$7. 6 million annually, not including compensation for lost earnings
due to disability. The Department indicates that, while it is
impossible to determine the potential liability for lost earnings
due to disability, the remaining revenues available to the fund
should be sufficient to cover all such liability. The Department's
analysis is attached at Tab A.
OMB has expressed concern that the Department's estimate may
understate, by a wide margin, the number of potential claimants
for compensation, since:
a) it is based on reported crime which, itself, understates
the level of actual crime by as much as 300 to 500 per
cent; and
b) it does not take into account cases commenced in State
courts which involve a Federal crime (i. e., concurrent
jurisdiction cases).
2
OMB also questions the Department's estimate regarding revenues
available to the victims' compensation fund, since the year upon
which the Department's estimate is based, 1973, was a year of
unusually high criminal fine collections. The OMB analysis is
attached at Tab B.
Members of my staff have canvassed the several States which have
enacted victims' compensation programs to ascertain how such
programs work on the State level. Most States feel that their
victims' compensation programs are working well. They indicate
that these programs assist law enforcement authorities in eliciting
the victim's assistance in the criminal investigatory and adjudicatory
processes. In almost every State, the number of claims filed and
the total cost of the program are much lower than originally
anticipated. A more detailed analysis of State victims' compensa-
tion programs is attached at Tab C.
Recommendations:
The Attorney General, the Counsel to the President and I recommend
that you specifically endorse the victims' compensation concept in
the Crime Message.
OMB, Jack Marsh, Bob Goldwin and Max Friedersdorf have
recommended that you reserve judgment on this matter.
Max reports that there is no clear-cut Congressional view on this
issue.
Expressly Endorse
Reserve Judgment
II.
Gun Control
Issue: How large an increase in ATF investigatory
personnel should you propose in the Crime
Message?
Discussion:
You earlier indicated your desire to have the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco and Firearms substantially increase its enforcement
activities in the nation's ten largest metropolitan areas. ATF
proposes to increase its present field staff by approximately
3
1,000 additional firearms investigators and 500 additional
supporting personnel, at a cost of $46. 7 million annually.
These additional investigators would concentrate on two major
problems: tracing all firearms involved in crime, and intensifying
efforts to disarm and convict significant weapons offenders.
Recommendations:
OMB recommends a more limited approach until the value of the
intensified program can be demonstrated. Specifically, OMB
recommends doubling existing firearms investigators in the nation's
ten largest cities. This would result in 364 additional firearms
investigators and 195 additional supporting personnel, at a cost of
$16. 6 million annually.
The Counsel to the President and I recommend that you direct
ATF to employ and train an additional 500 firearms investigators
(necessitating 250 additional support personnel), at an approximate
cost of $23. 3 million annually.
364
500
1,000
Additionally, Bob Goldwin has objected to several of the exculpatory
provisions regarding the imposition of mandatory sentences. Under
your proposal, a judge could avoid imposing a mandatory sentence if
he found and specified in writing one or more of the following: that
the defendant was under 18, or was mentally impaired, or was
acting under substantial duress, or was implicated in a crime
actually committed by others and participated in the crime only in
a very minor way.
Bob argues that, since substantial numbers of violent crimes are
committed by persons under 18, your proposal should be modified
to require the imposition of a mandatory sentence for persons
16 years of age or older, Furthermore, Bob believes that the
terms "mentally impaired" and "substantial duress" are vague
and may provide lenient judges with a convenient reason for not
imposing a jail sentence. He recommends that these provisions
be dropped.
4
The Attorney General takes strong exception to Bob's recommenda-
tions. He points out that few persons under age 18 commit Federal
crimes. Therefore, lowering to 16 the age at which a person
becomes subject to mandatory imprisonment is not very meaningful
at the Federal level. Further, to the extent that there are
16- and 17-year-old Federal offenders, special facilities would
have to be constructed to house them, because the Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention Act prohibits their being comingled
with adult offenders. (Placement of these offenders in existing
Federal Youth Facilities would not be lawful, since those facilities
house persons up to 25 years of age). The Attorney General also
points out that the terms "mentally impaired" and "substantial
duress" have meaning to the legal community and are necessary
to the successful implementation of a mandatory sentencing scheme.
Therefore, he recommends that your proposal be left intact.
The Counsel to the President and I concur in the Attorney General's
recommendation.
Leave Intact
Change per Bob Goldwin's Suggestion
Memorandum
TO
:
Ronald Gainer
DATE: May 30, 1975
Deputy Director, OPP
FROM :
Edward D. Jones, III
Office of Policy and Planning
SUBJECT:
Cost Analysis of S. 1 -- Victim Compensation Fund
Introduction and Summary
This memorandum presents estimates of the expected
revenues and dollar claims of the Victim Compensation Fund
outlined in S. 1. The fund mechanism is complex, and the
data available for evaluating its cost-effectiveness
limited. As a result, the estimates derived below are
based upon several critical assumptions, and, thus, should
be used with caution.
Based upon 1973 data, anticipated revenues of the Fund
are approximately $15.4 million, and anticipated payouts
$7.6 million. The payout figure does not include compen-
sation for lost earnings due to disability because that
component was impossible to determine. Nevertheless, it
appears that the revenues going into the Fund are sufficient
to cover disability compensation, additional victims,
unusually high medical claims, and administrative expenses.
Revenues
The Victim Compensation Fund relies for revenues upon
(a) criminal fines collected in United States courts and
by the Attorney General, (b) twenty percent of the net
profits of Federal Prison Industries, and (c) public or
private donations. Donations to the Fund will likely be
minimal, and are thus assumed to be non-existent for the
purpose of this analysis.
Criminal fines collected in FY 1973 in all judicial
districts were $14,034,546. 1/ Under the provisions of S. 1,
1/ Executive Office of the United States Attorneys, Statistical
Yearbook, Fiscal Year 1973, Table 5.
Buy U.S. Savings Bonds Regularly on the Payroll Savings Plan
-2--
the level of fines are significantly increased for criminal
offenses. Moreover, collection procedures will be enhanced.
Therefore, it is likely that fines available to the Fund
will increase markedly. This is, of course, dependent upon
judicial discretion regarding the assessment of higher fines.
Total net profits of Federal Prison Industries in
FY 1973 were $6,610,151. 2/ Twenty percent, or $1,322,030,
would be available to the Victim Compensation Fund under
S. 1 provisions. Federal Prison Industries under S. 1 will
have greater access to compete with private industry. Thus,
it is likely that net profits -- and, hence, the contribution
to the Fund -- will increase, although the extent of such
increases are uncertain.
A conservative estimate of revenues of the Fund, based
upon FY 1973 data, is $15,356,576.
Compensation
Claimants eligible for compensation from the Fund are
victims of federal jurisdiction offenses who sustain personal
injury. In the event of death, the victims' survivors may be
compensated. Bodily injury and ensuing losses are covered
up to a maximum of $50,000. 3/ However, compensation by the
Fund is secondary to all other sources.
Assaultive offenses 5/ commenced in United States District
Courts in FY 1973 were:
Homicide
144
Assault
695
Sex Offenses
180
2/ Federal Prison Industries Financial and Operating Report,
FY 1974, p. 2.
3/ The Fund may compensate for the actual pecuniary loss of
the claimant, and loss of earnings if disability extends longer
than 90 days.
4/ This is not reflected in the estimates below. Consequently,
those estimates overstate expected compensation from the Fund.
5/ Data from Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, Annual
Report of the Director, 1974, Table D2. Potential assaultive
violence in the 98 kidnapping cases commenced in FY 1973 cannot
be determined. Consequently, this offense is not analyzed.
-3-
The homicide figure is probably an accurate indicator of
victimization for this crime. A comparison of Uniform Crime
Reports (UCR) incident data and National Crime Panel (NCP)
victimization data indicates for 1973 consistent crime rates
for rape. 6/ Thus, the sex offense rate above is a good
approximation of victimization for this crime. Unfortunately,
a similar comparison indicates that the figure for assault is
a poor estimator, likely understating dramatically victimi-
zations occurring in federal jurisdiction. 7/ Consequently,
this figure is adjusted upward by a factor of 2.6. Thus,
the number of anticipated claimants by assaultive crime type
for the analysis are:
Homicide 144
Assault
1807
Sex Offerses 180
The present value of the expected lifetime earnings
foregone by the average homicide victim in 1972 was $99,036.
This exceeds the maximum permissible compensation to a victim's
surviving dependent by $49,036. Therefore, it is assumed that
the dependents of the 144 homicide victims would receive the
maximum $50,000, totalling $7,200,000.
Based upon National Crime Panel Survey data, the average
rape victim incurred medical expenses of $120.52. Furthermore,
less than five percent of the survey respondents indicated
receipt of compensation for expenses incurred. Therefore, it
is assumed that the 180 sex offense victims would be compen-
sated approximately $21,700 for medical expenses.
Again, based upon National Crime Panel Survey data, the
average victim of serious assault incurred medical expenses of
6/ Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reports
for the United States, 1973, pp. 11-13; Law Enforcement
Assistance Administration, Criminal Victimization in the
United States, January-June 1973, Table 1. The UCR rate incident for
rape is 47 per 100,000 females in 1973; the NCP victimization rate
is 50 per 100,000 females for the first half of 1973.
7/ The UCR incident rate for aggravated assault is 198 per
100,000 persons; the NCP victimization rate is 510 per 100,000
persons, 2.6 times higher than the UCR rate.
-4-
$224.57. Only about seven percent of the Survey respondents
indicated receipt of compensation for expenses incurred.
Therefore, it is assumed that the 1807 victims of assault
would be compensated approximately $405,800.
For sex offenses and assault, disability loss of income
could not be calculated. Excluding disability, the compen-
sation totals for the three crimes above total $7,627,500:
This represents about 54% of estimated revenues. The remaining
46% of revenues should be sufficient to cover disability
compensation, additional victims, unusually high medical
claims, and administrative expenses.
B
Compensation to Victims of Crime
OMB Analysis
The Department estimates that revenues for the
Victim Compensation Fund would approximate $15.4
million annually, derived from (a) criminal fines
collected in U.S. Courts and by the Attorney
General and (b) twenty percent of the net profits
of Federal Prison Industries. They estimate that
disbursements will come close to utilizing the
full amount of the Fund. The Department points
out that revenues to the Fund will grow if
increases in criminal fines proposed by the
President are approved.
The Department's calculations for disbursements
under the Fund are based on assaultive offenses
cases commenced in U.S. District Courts in 1973,
adjusted by LEAA's recent victimization survey
to account for unreported crimes. (The
Department's analysis at Tab D indicates that
the data for evaluating this program are limited
and should be used with caution.) These offenses
are priced as follows:
Adjusted for
No. of
Unreported
Xs expected
Cases
Crime
Total
Payments
Total
Homicide
144
--
144
$ 50,000
7,200,000
(maximum
payments
to
beneficiaries)
Assault
695
1,112
1,807
$224.57
405,800
(average
medical
expenses)
Sex Offenses
180
--
180
$120.52
21,700
(average
medical
expenses)
1,019
1,112
2,131
$7,627,500*
*Excludes disability compensation, which could be sizeable.
The Department believes that cases commenced in
U.S. Courts are the best available measure of the
extent of Federal crime violations likely to result
in physical injury. Cases commenced includes:
proceedings commenced by indictments, information
with indictment waived, information - other, cases
removed from state courts, juvenile delinquency
proceedings, and all other proceedings. Of the
40,367 Federal cases commenced in 1973, 1,019 were
classified as assaultive violence cases resulting
in personal injury. Based on data supplied by the
Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys, cases commenced
for assaultive violence crimes parallels very
closely with "matters received, which includes
cases developed by Federal investigative agencies,
direct reports by victims to U.S. Attorneys, and
cases referred by state and local police as being
primarily Federal violations. From this data, the
Department concludes that "cases commenced" fairly
well covers the extent of assaultive violence crimes
that come to the attention of Federal authorities.
Even though the national crime rate has increased
dramatically since 1973 in almost all categories,
the Department's projections indicate that Federal
assaultive violence cases have remained about
constant. Big increases have occurred in state
and local assaultive crimes.
OMB is concerned that the data used in the Department's
tabulations may understate--by a wide margin--the number
of potential claimants for compensation. For example:
"cases commenced" deals only with reported crime.
As LEAA's recent victimization study revealed,
unreported crime may be as much as 300-500 per-
cent greater. Reported crime may increase
dramatically with the advent of compensation.
There is presently no data available to
indicate the extent of non-reported Federal
crime violations.
The Department did adjust commenced cases for the
assault category by a factor of 2.6 (we have no
basis to determine the adequacy of this adjustment)
to accommodate unreported crimes in that area, but
made no adjustment for homicides or sex offenses.
We have no basis to challenge the homicide rate
assumption, but we do question the assumption that
commenced cases for sex offenses is an accurate
measure of victimization, in view of the charge
that 4 to 10 rapes are unreported for every
one that is reported.
The Department' data does not take into
account potential dompensation claimants
of concurrent jurisdiction cases tried in
state courts. There is no data to determine
the impact of this omission, but the
Department believes that the number of
physical injury cases would not be large.
OMB also has questions about the Department's
projections for revenues available to the Compensation
Fund. As the following table indicates, fiscal 1973
(the base projected by the Department) was an unusually
high year for criminal fine collections:
Fiscal Year
Criminal Fines Collected
1974
12,179,797
1973
14,034,546
1972
12,801,716
The Department assumes that revenues to the Fund will
grow if increases in criminal fines being proposed by
the President are approved and imposed by the Courts.
The Department's proposal also assumes that 20 percent
of the dividends from Federal Prison Industries will
be devoted to the Compensation Fund. Presently, these
dividends are used for educational and vocational
programs at Federal prisons. Use of the dividends
for other purposes would reduce the level of programs
presently being funded or create a need for new
appropriations to avoid cutbacks.
OMB is concerned that the Department's estimate of
about $15 million may significantly understate the
number and size of potential compensation payments
If compensation generates additional reporting of
crime, and if there are significant numbers of
claimants from concurrent jurisdiction crimes,
potential claimants may be many times greater
than the Department's projections.
Budget
Increases
However, data presently available is insufficient
to determine the impact of this program with any
real precision.
?
BRD points out that the proposal to direct criminal
fines into the Compensation Fund violates OMB policy
against earmarking of General Fund receipts. Annual
disbursements from the Fund would increase the budget
deficit by a like amount because those receipts would
no longer be available to finance regular government
operations. In accordance with Section 401 of the
Congressional Budget Act (P.L. 93-344), provision
should be made in proposed implementing legislation
to make the fund available only in such amounts as
are provided in appropriation acts. Otherwise,
the legislation might be rejected out of hand
because it would constitute backdoor financing.
State Victims¹ Compensation Programs
Nationally, there are twelve States (Alaska, California, Delaware,
Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New
Jersey, New York and Washington) that provide for compensation to
victims of crimes. Seven other States (Arkansas, Florida, Georgia,
North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Wisconsin) are actively
considering adoption of a crime victims' compensation scheme.
Virtually all of these programs operate on a "last resort" basis, pursuant
to which victims' compensation benefits are secondary to most other forms
of available, privately secured financial assistance. Some States limit
benefits to persons who meet a financial need test. These States incur
much higher administrative costs than do those States which employ no
financial need test.
Most States feel that their crime victims' compensation programs are
working well. They indicate that these programs assist law enforcement
authorities in eliciting victims' assistance in the criminal investigation
process. The general experience of the States is that about two out of
every three claims result in a pay-out. In almost every State, however,
the number of claims filed and the total cost of the program are much less
than originally anticipated.
Attached is a chart which identifies essential elements of existing State
programs.
State Victims' Compensation Programs
Estimated
Estimated
Year
Maximum
1975
Limitation on
FY 1975
State
Enacted
Administrative Mechanism
Beneficiaries
Benefit
Caseload
Right of Recovery
Budget
Alaska
1973
Violent Crimes
Victim and
**
Compensation Board
Dependents
$10,000
110
None
$ 175,000
$10,000 Med.
Victim and
$10,000 Wage
California
1966
State Board of Control
Dependents
$ 3,000 Rehab.
6,500
Financial Need
$4-6 Million
Victim,
$10,000 plus
Violent Crimes
Dependents
15% Lawyers
Delaware
1974
Compensation Board
and Others
Fee
100
None
$ 125,000
Criminal Injuries
Victim, Dependents
Hawaii
1967
Compensation Commission
and Others
$10,000
125
None
$ 175,000
Victim and
Illinois
1973
Court of Claims
Dependents
$10,000
1,200
None
$ 650,000
Criminal Injuries
Victim, Dependents
Maryland
1968
Compensation Board
and Others
$45,000
600
Financial Need
$1,500,000
Victim and
Massachusetts
1968
District Court
Dependents
$10,000
400
None
$ 650,000
Crime Victims
Victim, Dependents
Minnesota
1974
Reparations Board
and Others
$10,000
200
None
$ 100,000
*
Victim, Dependents
Nevada
1969
State Board of Examiners
and Others
$ 5,000
30
Financial Need
$ 25,000
Violent Crimes
Victim, Dependents
New Jersey
1971
Compensation Board
and Others
$10,000
2,000
None
$1,000,000
Crime Victims
Victim, Dependents
Unlimited Med.
New York
1966
Compensation Board
and Others
$15,000 Wage
2,400
Financial Need
$3,000,000
Crime Victims Compensation
Division of Department of
Victim and
***
Washington
1973
Labor and Industries
Dependents
None
600
None
$ 900,000
*
Nevada's law only compensates those injured as a result of a "good samaritan" act, such as coming to the aid of a police
officer in trouble.
**
Bill to provide for others has been passed by Legislature and is awaiting Governor's signature.
This estimate covers both the 1975 and 1976 Fiscal Years.