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
16987766
label
Crime Message (4)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
16987766
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Crime Message (4)
citationUrl
collections
James M. Cannon Files (Ford Administration)
James Cannon's Issues Files
subjects
U.S. Congress. 1789-
Correctional institutions
Crime
Gun control
Presidential messages
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
16987766
coverageEndDate
day
19
logicalDate
1975-06-19
month
6
year
1975
coverageStartDate
day
1
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
6f2b7c2ce4f1d6a8
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 10, folder "Crime Message (4)" 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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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 10 of the James M. Cannon Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 11, 1975
MEMORANDUM TO:
Jim Cannon
FROM:
Jim Cavanaugh
Dick Parsons is preparing a draft
report for you to send to the
President.
FORD LIBRARY i OERALD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 10, 1975
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM FOR:
FROM:
JIM JAMES CANNON E. CONNOR ge
The attached was returned in the President's outbox with the
following notation to you:
-- Has Bob McClory's letter
been reviewed?
Please follow-up with the appropriate action.
cc: Don Rumsfeld
Max Friedersdorf
LIBRARY GERALD R. FORD
June 5, 1975
Dear Bob:
Many thanks for your June 3 letter and the
helpful recommondations you made of areas for
consideration in developing proposals for a
crime control program.
I have been studying various proposals and working
with my advisers on how we can most effectively
reach a solution to this problem which is affecting
the lives of 50 many Americans, both directly and
indirectly. 1 appreciate having your input and
I have asked my staff to review it most carefully
in relation to other proposals now under considera-
tion.
With kindest personal regards,
Sincerely,
/s/ Jerry ford
The Honorable Robert McClory
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
bcc: w/incoming to Dick Parsons for further handling
GRF:NLF:EF:VO:vo
FORD is LIBRARY SERALD
PUBERT McCLORY
DISTRICT OFFICES
13TH DISTRICT. ILLINOIS
ROOM 2452
the
Re.
KANE COUNTY
MUNICIPAL BUILDING
150 DEXTER COURT
RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BURDING
Congress of the United States
ELGIN, ILLINOIS 60120
(202) 223-5221
(312) 607-5005
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
House of Representatibes
LAKE COUNTY
POST OFFICE BUILDING
SELECT COMMITTEE ON
326 NORTH GENESEE STREET
INTELLIGENCE
Washington, D.C. 20515
WAUKEGAN, ILLINOIS 60085
(312) 335-4334
U.S. INTERPARLIAMENTARY
UNION DELEGATION
MCHENRY COUNTY
June 3, 1975
MCHENRY COUNTY COURTHOUSE
2200 SEMINARY ROAD
WOODSTOCK, ILLINOIS 60098
(815) 338-2040
The Honorable
Gerald R. Ford
The White House
Washington, D. C.
Dear Mr. President:
me
In connection with your forthcoming message to the Congress on the subject
of crime, I would strongly recommend that you would include a number of
subjects which can contribute to the reduction of crime in America.
First, it seems to me extremely important to emphasize the need to create
additional Federal judgeships. The measure which I cosponsored earlier
this year to add 65 additional Federal District Court Judges is languishing
in the House Judiciary Committee with no hearings scheduled. My requests
to the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee urging hearings on this legislation
have gone unheeded.
Second, extension and even expansion of the Law Enforcement Assistance
Act should be recommended as the principal means of encouraging and expanding
control of crime by local and state authorities. Any diminution of this
principle would appear to be a retreat from the goal of more effective in-
vestigation and prosecution of criminals.
Third, an affirmative response should be provided to the demand for improved
gun control laws. Such laws can be directed primarily against the criminal
misuse of handguns without imposing substantial inconvenience on law-abiding
citizens who purchase and possess handguns for legitimate purposes. In the
light of the escalating rate of handgun crime, the following improvements
and changes in current federal law seem essential:
(a) The loopholes in the Gun Control Act of 1968 which have permitted
the increase in the illicit interstate traffic and criminal misuse of hand-
guns should be closed. This would require in the first place the prohibition
of the domestic manufacture of the cheap poorly constructed handgun known
as the "Saturday Night Special," which currently accounts for approximately
fifty percent of traceable handguns used in crime. These "Specials" can
not be imported into the United States, but there is no prohibition of
either the importation of their parts or their domestic manufacture.
Closing the loopholes would also require a reduction in the number of
federally licensed firearms dealers to include only persons legitimately
engaged in the firearms business and a limitation on the ability of pawn-
brokers to deal in firearms. Other minor gaps in the 1968 Act should be
closed such as the failure of that Act to regulate firearms replicas which
FORD
Page 2
are increasingly being used in violent crimes.
(b) The funds and personnel of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco
and Firearms should be increased above the current law levels which
are totally unacceptable in the light of the responsibilities of that
Bureau in the regulation of firearms, explosives, alcohol, tobacco, and
wagering. Moreover, your administration should move against the gun
traffickers and criminals who use firearms in violent crimes, much as
the Federal government moved against organized crime in the early 1960's.
(c) The recordkeeping requirements of current law should be improved
to enable the federal government to trace firearms to facilitate the
investigation and apprehension of persons who use firearms in the commission
of crime. Current federal law constitutes sufficient authority to require
firearms dealers to submit to the Treasury Department the records of sales
of handguns; these records could be retained on a confidential basis and
used in the tracing process. Equally as important is the need for a re-
quirement that handgun owners record with either the federal government
or the states their ownership of handguns, and any transfer, loss or theft
of such handguns. Finally, a system of the identification of handgun
owners should be created to ensure that only law abiding citizens can
acquire and possess handguns. Such systems could be designed to be
financially self-supporting.
(d). Mandatory criminal penalties, especially mandatory prison sentences,
should be imposed for all crimes of violence, but especially for crimes with
firearms.
Fourth, I strongly urge that you omit any specific recommendation to provide
compensation for victims of crime. While such a measure has been passed
by the Senate in previous Congresses, and several such bills are currently
pending in both the Senate and the House, I have my doubts about the
efficacy and wisdom of such a program. The potential expense to the U. S.
Treasury of such a program could rival that of a National Health Program --
and would certainly involve Federal expenditures which might be estimated
in terms of billions of dollars. Your assurance that no new spending programs
would be approved by your Administration would seem to preclude a new massive
Federal program aimed at compensating all who are victims of crime. At the
very least, I would recommend deferring such a recommendation until an
opportunity for more thorough study of this subject has been undertaken.
Fifth, the causes and cure of crime cannot possibly be set forth in a single
message to the Congress, nor even in the delineation of anumber of recom-
mendations. The principal elements in relation to human behavior are the
family, the church, the school, the neighborhood -- and the essentially local
environment. Stricter enforcement of the law, more responsible behavior on
the part of the Judiciary, and improvements in criminal rehabilitation are
vital ingredients to a comprehensive solution to the problem of crime in
America. There is no reason for a single individual to feel that he or she
is excused from making a contribution to a law-abiding society. Public
officials at all levels and representatives of management and labor should
FORD
GERALD
Page 3
be particularly circumspect in helping to provide examples of honorable
behavior which can contribute to a more law-abiding society.
Rahal Member Robert Sincerely McClory of MiCling yours, Congress
RMcC/gc
FORD & 9ERALD LIBRARY
Draft
6-15-15
PB
6-11-75
TO THE Conguas
CRIME MESSAGE
Ever since the first Presidential message on crime, in 1965,
strenuous Federal efforts, as well as State and local initiatives, have
been undertaken to reduce the incidence of crime in the United States.
Yet, throughout this period, crime has increased. It touches the lives
of all Americans. And their are no signs that of dicline the maguitude-of
the crime problem will soon decline.
Indeed, the Federal Bureau of Investigation's latest figures indicate
that the rate of serious crime -- murder, forcible rape, robbery,
aggravated assault, burglary, larceny, and auto theft was 17 per cent
This
44
higher in 1974 than in 1973. is the largest increase in the years
the Bureau has been collecting statistics. Since 1960, although billions of
dollars have been spent on law enforcement programs, the crime rate has
more Then
virtually doubled. Moreover, these figures reflect only the reported
crimes. A study of unreported crime sponsored by the Law Enforcement
Assistance Administration indicates that the actual level of crime in some
cities is three to five times greater than that reported.
there seriously,
thin not only the absolute increase in clime which merits national
confess the change in the types of crimer committed is equally significant.
The number of crimes involving threats of violence or actual violence has
increased. The increased percentage of violent crime in which the
And the S number)
has increased
perpetrator and the victim are strangers & alarming. A recent study
indicate that now approximately 65 per cent of all violent crime is
committed against strangers.
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
(FT topt Jim Ealk Duela Rivers)
2
The personal and social toll which crime exacts from our citizens
is enormous. In addition to the direct damage
to
the
victims
of
crime, violent crimes in our streets and in our homes make fear
pervasive.
In many areas of the country, especially in the most crowded parts
of the inner cities, fear has caused people to rearrange their daily lives.
They plan shopping and recreation around during hours when think the
the possiblities
chances of violent attacks are They avoid commercial areas.
Frightened shopowners arm themselves and view customers with
suspicion. Public transit is also affected and not fully utilized because
of the safety factor.
Fear of crime can threaten our political and social liberty. Fearful
citizens may consider supporting attacks on fundamental constitutional
principles, designed to*protect individuals from oppression, in the hope
that crime will be reduced. The prevalence of crime creates unwarranted
suspicion among our people, turning what once were friendly business
transactions into cold and wary exchanges. Fear of crime limits our
mobility and constrains us like a prison. Fear of crime disturbs and
diminishes our domestic tranquility.
The individual, political and social costs of crime cannot be ignored.
with The fin support 7 The American people,
All levels of government -- Federal, State and local with the firm
support of the American people, must commit themselves to the goal
of reducing crime.
3
In this Message, I shall address myself to what I believe the
Federal government can and should do to reduce crime. The -must-state fact is,
at the outset, however, the constitutional fact that the Federal role in
the fight against crime, particularly violent crime, is a limited one.
with very few Enciptions,
The kinds of crimes that obsess America -- murder, robberies,
rapes, muggings, hold-ups, break-ins -- are polely with few exceptions
within the jurisdiction of State and local governments and not within
Federal jurisdiction. Thus, while the programs that I will propose in
this Message, well if enacted undoubtedly contribute to a safer America,
Our
the level of crime will not be substantially reduced unless State and local
governments follow the Federal example and take action. measures.
with mg igually string
There are three ways in which the Federal government can play
an important role in combatting crime:
improve The guality of Federal justice and
First, it can provide leadership to State and local governments by
enacting a criminal code that can serve as a model for other jurisdictions
to follow and by putting the Federal criminal justice system in order.
Q
Second, it can enact and vigorously enforce laws covering criminal
which,
conduct within the Federal jurisdiction criminal senduct that cannot be
adequately regulated at the State or local level.
Third, it can provide financial and technical assistance to State and
local governments and law enforcement agencies, and thereby enhance
their ability to enforce the law.
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
4
I.
PROVIDING LEADERSHIP
A major contributing factor to the rapidly escalating level of
rime in this country is the increasing crime rate itself We do not
have, and do not went, a police Law enforcement in a democratic
society depends largely upon public respect for the laws and voluntary
compliance with them. Respect and compliance are undermined if
individuals conclude that law enforcement efforts are ineffective and
that crimes may be committed with impunity -- conclusions which are
buttressed by rapidly rising crime rates and by statistics showing only
one arrest for every five serious crimes committed.
A decline in respect for the law leads to the commission of more
The necess my to
crimes. Investigat these additional crimes, prosecut
those
places even 9 reater strain on
accused and punish the convicted strain the already-overburdened
capacities of police, prosecutors I public defenders, courts,
penal institutions and correctional authorities. As a consequence, the
percentage of offenders apprehended, prosecuted and appropriately
sentenced is further reduced. This reduction leads to decline
and
in respect for the law, leading to the commission of even more crimes.
To succeed in the fight against crime we must break this spiral.
There are two direct ways to attack the spiral of crime: One is
through improvements in the law itself. The other is through improve-
ment of the criminal justice system so that it functions more swiftly,
surely and justly.
5
The Federal criminal laws should be a model upon which State
and local governments can pattern their own laws. At the present
These Federal statutes,
time they are not. have developed haphazardly over the decades.
They have been revised here and there in response to changing judicial
interpretation. They are complicated, and sometimes conflicting,
too often
leaving gaps through which criminal activity own slip unpunished.
the laws
Because of their complexity, they invite technical argument that waste
court time without ever going to the heart of the question of guilt or
innocence. The Federal criminal law must be revised into a uniform,
coherent code.
For several years, the Federal government has engaged in a
massive effort to reform the Federal criminal laws with into a coherent
code. The product of this effort was recently introduced in Congress,
Si
"
with wide bipartisan support, as Schale Bill No. 1, the Criminal Justice
Reform Act of 1975.
Since is Crrors
Discusse, gistation_of-this scope, covering every aspect of the
als,
in This
criminal laws, cape Some aspects of the proposed
Actare highly controversial and will undoubtedly precipitate further Howeh
have sterred controvery and
For instance,
certain
debate. Already great Concern has been expressed that the provisions
of the bill that are designed to protect classified information could
freedon of The press,
adversely affect the a bility of the free press be-funation While we must
make sure that national security secrets are adequately protected by the
law, we must take care that the lawnot does unreasonably restrict the free
also
n
flow of information necessary to our form of government.
A reginsible
6
The debate over this and other provisions of S. 1 will be very
useful. Issues can be clarified and differing interests accommodated.
I think everyone will agree that comprehensive reform of the Federal
criminal code is needed. Accordingly, as a legislative priority in the
Federal effort against crime, I urge the 94th Congress to pass the
kind
type of comprehensive code reform embodied in the Criminal Justice
Reform Act.
In connection with this overall effort, let me suggest some specific
reforms I believe essential.
The sentencing provisions of current Federal law are, in my
judgment, inadequate in several respects, Phey often erratic and
inconsistent. Defendants who commit similar offenses may often receive
widely varying sentences. This lack of uniformity is profoundly unfair
and breeds disrespect for the law.
The revision of the criminal code should restore a sense of
consistency in sentencing, so that the fine or term of imprisonment
imposed by the law relates directly to the gravity of the offense. For
example, criminal fines are woefully inadequate and provide little
deterrence to offenders whose business is crime a business profitable
enough to support current levels of criminal fines as an ordinary business
the maximen fine when he imposed or
expense. Other than under the antitrust laws, serious violators generally
can now maximider 1 of $10,000. That amount is often not
too
commensurate with the crime. We should raise the maximum level to
planed he increases
$100, 000 if the defendant is an individual and $500, 000 if the defendant
is an organization.
GERALDY FORD VIBRARY
7
of The argused ade should he
The most disturbing deficioney the sentencing provisions
however is their failure to give judges with any standards sunda by which to
modified to provide
s are inposed Hgon connection
sentence defendants. mprisonment too seldom follows conviction
for a serious offense. should I believe that persons convicted of prodatory
In Part
violent crime oughtito be sent to prison.
There
should
be
There should be no guistum in The munds of
broadcast by our law and our enfo rcement of it that those who commit
That They
violent crimes especially crimes involving a gun will suffer less he
sint to preson upon convection under
of liberty, through legal processes that are fair, prompt and certain.
(Since Fedual anthority M limited, class onlynik
propose that incarceration be made mandatoryfor: (1) Ecdoral Exceptes
under Federal junisdictions
offenders who commit violent predatory offenses using a dangerous
weapon; (2) persons committing such extraordinarily serious crimes
as aircraft hijacking, kidnapping, and trafficking in hard drugs; and
(3) repeat offenders who commit Federal crimes with or without a
weapon that cause or have a potential to cause personal injury.
Exceptions to mandatory incarceration should apply only if
Lurge urge Gongress to pass a law making incarceration mandatory for persons
convicted of these erimes unless the judge specifically finds that the
loop Tro
many Biles
defendant was under 18 when the offense was committed, or was
mentally impaired, or was acting under substantial duress, or was
in a crime actually committed
only implicated in natually committed by others and participated
only
in the actual crime in a very minor way. I have asked the Attorney
(this modification.
General to assist the Congress in drafting such a law.)
I calLupon the
dall
ThE
Since
ugan States to set up similar mandatory sentencing systems because most
violent crime is in the jursidiction of State and local criminal courts,
8 not the state level
fersons
too many of these tried and convicted never spend a day in prison
after conviction.
I would emphasize that the aim of this program of mandatory
imprisonment is not vindictive punishment of the criminal, but protection
of the innocent victim by means of separating the criminal from the
community. These victims -- most of them old or poor or disadvantaged
have a valid claim on the rest of society for the protection and the personal
safety that they cannot provide for themselves.
Rodmals Mandatory minimum sentences can restore the sense of certainty
of imprisonment upon which the deterrent impact of the criminal law is
based. Mandatory sentences need not be long sentences; the range of
in sentencing
indeterminacy need not be great. In fact, wide disparities in sentences
for essentially equivalent offenses give a look of unfairness to the law.
To help eliminate that unfairness, Federal appeals courts should be given
some authority to review sentences given by Federal trial court judges
to increase or reduce them so that the punishments will be more nearly
uniform throughout the Federal system. I am also asking the Attorney
General to review this problem to ensure that the Federal sentencing
structure, which is now based on the indeterminate sentence, is both
Among other things, it may be
fair and appropriate. erhaps it is time to give serious study to the
time
concept of so-called "flat ^ sentencing" in the Federal law.
In addition to reform of the criminal law, we must improve the
manner in which our criminal justice system operates. Effective
deterrence to law-breaking is currently lacking because our criminal
justice system simply does not operate effectively.
9
A logical place to begin discussion of such improvement is the
prosecutor's office, for it is there that important decisions are made
as to which offenders should be prosecuted, what cases should be brought
to trial, when plea bargains should be struck, and how scarce judicial
resources should be allocated. Many prosecutors' offices currently
correctly
lack the manpower or management devices to make those decisions Well.
on a
Prosecutors often lack the information of a
defendant's criminal history and thus cannot identify career criminals
who should be tried by experienced prosecutors and, if convicted,
700
incarcerated. In many cases, they lack efficient systems to monitor
1
the status of the numerous cases they handle. If improved management
techniques could be made available to prosecutors, the likelihood of
swift and sure punishment for crime would be substantially increased.
At the Federal level, I have directed the Department of Justice to
develop and implement a program to deal with career criminals, with
the objectives of (1) providing quick identification of career criminals,
the mosT
(2) according priority to their prosecution by experienced prosecutors,
and (3) assuring that, if convicted, they receive appropriate sentences
which will prevent Them tom returning TO priety 70 onci again
and are not quickly released to victimize the community once again.
Programs to deal with career criminals will be encouraged at
the State and local levels through the use of Law Enforcement Assistance
Administration model programs and discretionary grants.
the Bronx County Disdrit Aftariey's
10
Office, c.ty of New York,
The results of a career criminal project recently launched in
large urban area/are hopeful. The first year's experience showed a
97 per cent felony conviction rate and a reduction of time in case
disposition from an average of 24 months to an average of three months.
In addition, jail sentences were secured in 95 per cent of the career
criminal cases prosecuted.
A second improvement in the criminal justice system may be
obtained by diverting certain first offenders not all, but some into
rehabilitation programs before proceeding to trial. The Department of
Justice has begun a pilot program of this kind which will achieve two
important goals. First, it will reduce the caseloads of Federal courts
and prosecutors through expeditious treatment of offenders who are
good prospects for rehabilitation. Second, it will enable the offenders
who successfuly satisfy the requirements of the diversion programs to
will
avoid a criminal record and thus increase the likelihood that they
return to productive lives.
Experimentation with pretrial diversion programs should continue
these programs
and expand. However, careful efforts must be taken to prevent them
from either treating serious offenders too leniently or, on the other hand,
violating defendants' constitutional rights. By coupling this pretrial
diversion program with a mandatory term of imprisonment for violent
offenders, we will ensure that disering offenders who deserve to to juil will
go to jail, while those may who need not be imprisone mont will be dealt with
and
quickly in a way that minimizes the burden on the criminal justice system.
11.
The criminal and civil caseloads in trial and in appellate courts
have grown over the years, while the number of judges assigned to
kept pace.
handle those cases has not proportionately In 1972, the Judicial
Conference of the United States recommended the creation of 51 additional
Federal District Court judgeships in 33 separate judicial districts across
the country. Senate hearings on legislation incorporating this proposal
were conducted in 1973. To date, however, this legislation has not
been scheduled for floor action. The increasing needs of the Federal
courts make this measure an urgent national necessity of a nonpartisan
nature
x justice delayed is too often justice denied. In addition,
seemingly technical but important reform in the Federal criminal justice
system can be achieved by expanding the criminal jurisdiction of United
States Magistrates. This reform will enable the relatively small
number of Federal judges to focus their efforts on the most significant
criminal cases. The Criminal Justice Reform Act contains a provision
well
which would achieve that result, and I am giving it my specific support.
When a defendant is convicted, even for a violent crime, judges
are too often unwilling to sentence him to prison, in part because prison
conditions are sometimes inhumane. Moreover, a cruel and dehumanizing
penal institution can actually be a breeding ground for criminality. In
any case, a civilized society cannot condone prisons where murder,
vicious assault and homosexual rapes are not uncommon occurrences.
The Federal Bureau of Prisons has embarked on a program to
replace old, overcrowded prisons with smaller, more modern ones.
FORD is LIBRARY 07V838
12
The Bureau has seven new corrections institutions of this sort under
construction. All are designed to be civilized places that can be
carrectural appens
governed by the wardens and guards rather than by the most brutal
is opening
and inhuman prisoners. In addition, the Bureau is opening new
institutions in three major cities in R were
INCD (70 reflace your
which Formerly housed
used to behousedin crowded, antiquated local jails while they awaited
Federal prismas awarting
trial. This program to improve Federal prisons must be parallelled by
State efforts because the problem of decrepit prison facilities that are
hothouses of crime is worst at the State and local level. Unless prisons
are improved, many judges will continue to hesitate commit offenders
only X reluctority to
to them, even if they are convicted of serious crimes and have previous
records.
I know that grave questions have been raised by qualified experts
about the ability of the corrections system to rehabilitate offenders. The se
questions about the effectiveness of rebabilitation are important and
greations
serious, They go to the very heart of the corrections system. While
criminal
the problem of rehabilitation is difficult, we must not give up our efforts
Nachine it.
to find ways to achieve greater success. This is especially true in dealing
young people
with youthful offenders. Crime by youth represents a large part of crime
in general. The 1975 orime statistics indicate that 45 per cent of persons
arrested for violent crime S are under 18 years of age. Whatever the
all
difficulty we have in our efforts, we must commit ourselves to trying
FORD
178817
13
to rehabilitate offenders, especially youthful offenders. To do less
would be to write off great numbers of young people as unsalvageable
before they have even come of age. I have directed the Attorney General,
as Chairman af the Cabinet Committee m Crime Prevention and Rehabilitation,
therefore to work in close cooperation with the Secretary of Labor and
other concerned gancies of the Executive Branch
(with the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to ensure that the
Federal government is making the best possible use of its resources
in this crucial area.
Whatever the corrections system might accomplish in rehabilitating
offenders while they are in prison will be lost if the individual leaves jail
and cannot find a job because he has been convicted of a crime. Nothing
makes it more likely that an ex convict will turn to crime again than an
imposed inability to find a way to make his living honestly. I
oncourage urge employers to open their minds and to not discriminate in the
keep an open mind on The huring of persons
job market a gainst purden who has been convicted Chronimo. The
is formerly converted of a Crime sE -
U. S. Civil Service Commission currently administers a program designed
to prevent Federal employers from unjustly discriminating against ex-felons.
I am directing the Commission to review this program to ensure that it is
accomplishing its objectives. I am also calling on the United States
the
Governors Conference to consider what steps States might take to eliminate
unjustified discriminatory practices. Giving ex-offenders who have paid
their penalty and seek new to "go straight" a fair shake in the job market
can be an effective means of reducing crime and improving our criminal
justice system.
OPTIONAL
:
14
In addition to this general effort to reform and improve the
criminal justice system, the Federal law should be specifically revised
to take into greater account the needs of victims of crime. They, as
well as the general public, must be shown that the government will not
neglect the law-abiding citizens whose cooperation and efforts are crucial
to the effectiveness of law enforcement. For too long, law has centered
its attention on the criminal defendant. It is time for law to concern
itself more with the people it exists to protect.
I urge the Congress to pass legislation to meet the uncompensated
economic losses of victims of Federal crimes who suffer personal
injury. In order to promote the concept of restitution within the
criminal law, the monetary benefits should come from a fund consisting
of fines paid by convicted Federal offenders
15
II. BETTER LAWS AND ENFORCEMENT
Except in limited circumstances, street crime is a State and local
of
encur
law enforcement problem and not direct Federal problem. There
is a dimension to this problem, however, that cannot be adequately dealt
with on just the State and local levels the regulation of handguns. It
the ise of violent
is indisputable that handguns play a key role in crime in America. They
can't
are involved in one-fourth of all aggravated assaults and one-third of all
dyament
The past dease
this
robberies. Hundreds of policemen have been killed through the criminal
by criminds,
Knyb
use of handguns in the past decade. These-cold, undeniable statistics
unmistakably portray the handgun as an important ewee in the rise of
violent crime.
enact Id stiff laws
Many State and local governments have already taken drastle steps
against possession of handguns, with varying degrees of effectiveness.
In? This iffort, The Federal government cant plan he helpful.
In my gment, additional Federal help is needed. I feel that Federal
assistance to State enforcement efforts in this difficult area should be
directed toward
NING
sale of
the
focused on (1) tighter control over the commerce in handguns invorder
H
vagoe
controls
that the gun control measures taken by State and local governments will
meal of The lanon
not be engulfed in interstate firearms trafficking; (2) strengthened enforce
sated en Parcement of Federal firearms ING laws
ment effouts in metropolitan areas with a high incidence of handgun
violence; and (3) prohibities INC of the manufacture of handguns that have
no apparent use other than against humans.
Thus, current Federal gun laws should be revised to provide that
be
only responsible, bona fide gun dealers are permitted to obtain Federal
to sell weapons
also
licenses Bealors' licenses should be withheld from persons who are not
1
16
particularly
pitimate gun dealers who have violated State laws, including
entrols
The Role of handgend,
firearms laws. Additional administrative powers over game dealers
ban on
and a prohibition of multiple sales of hundguns would be designed to make sure
will help to establish
known
in
as suyo that dealer hundred assume greater responsibility toy
stopping illicit gun trafficking. A waiting period between the purchase
verify That
and receipt of a handgun should be imposed to enable dealers to make sure
are net sold
that they do not sell handguns to persons whose possession of them would
OPTIONAL:
be
illegal.
Handgun sales to persons who reside in localities with strict
}
Ster.
handgun lawsshould be prohibited, unless such persons are authorized
under local law to own or possess handguns.]
Second, I have ordered the Treasury Department's Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, which has primary enforcement
responsibility enforing for Federal firearms laws, to edouble its investigative
action
efforts in the nation's ten largest metropolitan areas. This will assist
in controlling
the
local law enforcement authorities MP their enoth to control illegal
commerce in weapons. I have directed, therefore, that the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms employ and train an additional
agents and inspectors for this priority function.
Third, the domestic manufacture, assembly or sale -- as well as
the importation of cheap, highly concealable handguns should be pro-
hibited. These so-called "Saturday Night Specials" are involved in an
extraordinarily large number of street crimes. Most have no legitimate
sporting purpose. They are such a threat to domestic tranquility that
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
17
we should eliminate their manufacture and sale heart entirely.
These recommendations go to the very conter of the problem of
handgun abuse. If enacted, they should add significantly to the efforts
of State and local law enforcement authorities to prevent the criminal
use of handguns.
There are several other areas in which Federal law and enforce-
ment can be improved to strike at those who have made crime a business.
The leaders of organized crime can be prosecuted under current
it
Federal law only when they can be shown participated in a specific
that to have They
offense, such as gambling, loansharking or narcotics. A reformed
criminal code should strike directly at organized criminal activity by
making it a Federal crime to operate or control a racketeering syndicate.
revision will
This would make the criminal law apply to organized crime leaders who
seeh
(conceal role
are sophisticated enough to try to cover up up their part in the syndicate's
criminal
dirty work.
any
Lsince
Current Federal laws restrict the government's ability to attack
prosecution
consumer frauds In ord er to make the Federal effort more effective
the statutes punishing fraud and theft should be revised to facilitate
prosecution of frauds Pyramid sales schemes clever
moth work
Federal
confidence games should be specifically prohibited. Jurisdiction over
toerable
To move
these frauds should be extended sothat the Federal government cannet
on a mathonwide lases
against them in all their national aspects.
18
The protection of constitutionally guaranteed civil rights is a
primary duty of the Federal government. Yet, a private citizen can
be punished for violating constitutional rights only if he acted in concert
with others. Under current law, even if a State official intentionally
commits acts that violate an individual's constitutional rights, proof of
alme
these acts may be insufficient to secure a conviction. W. should
eliminate restrictions which prevent our laws from protecting the
constitutional rights of Americans slined be eleminated
Finally, I am particularly concerned about the crimes of illegal
trafficking in narcotics and dangerous drugs. These crimes victimize
the entire nation, bringing personal tragedy and family destruction to
Cocumed han't Can
hundreds of thousands. In addition to the human toll, even conservative
estimates of the social costs of drug abuse exceed $10 billion a year, with The
Then
property crimes committed in order to finance addicts' drug habits are
as
$15
estimated to account for some $6 to $7 billion each year.
This
Federal, State and local governments must continue their
vigorous law enforcement efforts aimed at major traffickers in narcotics
and dangerous drugs. This Administration is committed to maintaining
a strong Federal drug enforcement programs argemey to provide leadership in this
fight. At the same time, I continue to recognize our responsibility to
provide compassionate treatment and rehabilitation programs for the
hapless victim of narcotics traffickers.
19
Recent evidence suggests an increase in the availability and use of
dangerous drugs in spite of the creation of special Federal agencies and
massive Federal funding during the past six years. I am deeply concerned
over these developments and have, therefore, directed the Domestic
Council to undertake a comprehensive review and assessment of the
overall Federal drug abuse prevention and treatment effort to ensure
that our programs, policies and laws are appropriate and effective.
III.
PROVIDING FINANCIAL AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
The Federal government must continue to help State and local
governments in carrying out their law enforcement responsibilities.
20
Therefore, I am submitting to Congress a bill that will continue the
Law Enforcement Assistance Administration through 1981.
The LEAA annually provides millions of dollars of support to
State and local governments to assist them in improving the overall
operation of their criminal justice systems. Additionally, the LEAA
center In The developments of new ideas on
serves as a place who re new ideas about how to fight crime are constantly
being developed. Examples of several LEAA innovations have already
will
been noted in this Message. The bill that I am submitting would
authorize $6. 5 billion for LEAA to continue this work through 1981.
K
Several aspects of the reauthorization bill deserve special mention.
It will
The bill would increase the funding authorization for LEAA from
$1.25 billion to $1. 3 billion annually. The additional #259 $50 million would
over fire years
will emable the agercis $
to place quata
be made available to LEAA discretionary program so that additional
emphasis may be placed on programs aimed at reducing crime in heavily
populated urban areas. It is in these areas that the problem of violent
street crime has reached critical proportions. The LEAA "High Impact"
program, which is designed to provide additional assistance for cities
and counties with high crime rates, has had encouraging success. This
additional authorization will permit LEAA to build upon that success.
will
The bill would also place special emphasis on State and local court
it will such reform
reform by specifically include this within the statement of purposes for
can
a through
which LEAA block grant funds should be utilized the context of
an overall State plan. Too often A the courts are overlooked in the
the prosecutors and the public defenders
21
allocation of criminal justice resources. If we are to be at all effective
in fighting crime, however State and loca court systems must be
(including prosecution and defense,
improve expanded and enhanced.
In conclusion, I wishite again emphasize that the Federal government
cannot, by itself, bring an end to crime in the streets. The Federal
government can seek the cooperation and participation of State and local
governments. Such cooperation is vitally important to this effort. The
cumulative effect of persistent Federal, State and local efforts to improve
our laws and eliminate the difficulties that encumber our criminal justice
3
system offerthe only hope of achieving a permanent reduction in crime a
and restoring that domestic tranquility and justice pledged to the law-
abiding citizen in the Preamble of our Constitution.
I am confident that, if the Congress enacts the programs which
arsenal for
I have recommended, the seeds of an effective attack on crime will have
substantially fortified,
been planted. I call upon the Congress to act swiftly on these recommenda-
Nove rapualy
tions. I also call upon State and local governments to act in like manner
to strengthen ING their processes of criminal justice. Our combined efforts,
together, we will unione
from>The to elemate fear The Craminal from The streets of
believe, will bring us closer to the day when we can rest free from the
America and restore to this nature Than dormestic tranquility phdged
fear and anxieties which accompany crime, and domestic transfullity
IS Rehieved to The law-atiding atzer w The Constitution
[If a longer conclusion is desirable Bob Goldwin suggests that
no
something along the following lines might be appropriate:
Since 1960, we have spent billions of dollars in the effort to reduce
crime, and in that time the rate of crime has more than doubled. This
H
22
is a sobering thought
and should have several effects on our
proposals and actions:
-- we should be modest in any predictions about results of our
proposed programs;
-- we should not think that we know for sure what will work;
- - we should not think that big expenditures will necessarily
accomplish commensurate results;
-- "crackdowns" are rarely effective and often put the enforcers
of law in the embarrassing position of being violators instead
of upholders of law: and
-- past failures are not an excuse for diminished effort, but
rather the reverse: we must redouble our efforts to find
effective programs and new ways of thinking and acting to
reduce crime of every osrt -- and especially violent crime.
It is in the spirit of all of the above considerations that I submit
to the Congress this Message on crime.
]
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
Draft 5
6-11-75
CRIME MESSAGE
To the Congress:
Ever since the first Presidential message on
crime, in 1965, strenuous Federal efforts, as well
as state and local initiatives, have been undertaken
to reduce the incidence of crime in the United States.
Yet, throughout this period, crime has increased. It
touches the lives of all Americans. And there are
no signs of decline.
Indeed, the Federal Bureau of Investigation's
latest figures indicate that the rate of serious
crime--murder, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated
assault, burglary, larceny, and autho theft--was
17 percent higher in 1974 than in 1973. This is the
largest increase in the 44 years the Bureau has been
collecting statistics. Since 1960, although billions
of dollars have been spent on law enforcement programs,
the crime rate has more than doubled. Moreover, these
figures reflect only the reported crimes. A study of
unreported crime sponsored by the Law Enforcement
Assistance Administration indicates that the actual
level of crime in some cities is three to five times
greater than that reported.
FORD LIBRARY &
More seriously, the number of crimes involving
threats of violence or actual violence has increased.
And the number of violent crimes in which the perpetrator
and the victim are strangers has increased. A recent
study indicates that approximately 65 percent of all
violent crime is committed against strangers.
The personal and social toll which crime exacts
from our citizens is enormous. In addition to the
direct damage to victims of crime, violent crimes in
our streets and in our homes make fear pervasive.
In many areas of the country, especially in the
most crowded parts of the inner cities, fear has caused
people to rearrange their daily lives. They plan
shopping and recreation during hours when the possibilities
of violent attacks are low. They avoid commercial areas.
Frightened shopowners arm themselves and view customers
with suspicion. Public transit is not fully utilized
because of the safety factor.
The individual, political and social costs of
crime cannot be ignored. With the firm support of the
American people, all levels of government--Federal,
State and local--must commit themselves to the goal of
reducing crime.
In this Message, I shall address myself to what
I believe the Federal government can and should do to
3
reduce crime. The fact is, however, that the Federal
role in the fight against crime, particularly violent
crime, is a limited one.
With very few exceptions, the kinds of crimes that
obsess America--murder, robberies, rapes, muggings,
hold-ups, break-ins--are solely within the jurisdiction
of State and local governments. Thus, while the programs
that I will propose in this Message will, if enacted,
contribute to a safer America, the level of crime will not
be substantially reduced unless State and local
governments follow the Federal example with equally strong
measures.
There are three ways in which the Federal government
can play an important role in combatting crime:
First, it can improve the quality of Federal justice
and provide leadership to State and local governments by
enacting a criminal code that can serve as a model for
other jurisdictions to follow.
Second, it can enact and vigorously enforce
laws covering criminal conduct within the Federal
jurisdiction which cannot be adequately regulated at
the State or local level.
Third, it can provide financial and technical
assistance to State and local governments and law
enforcement agencies, and thereby enhance their ability
to enforce the law.
I. Providing Leadership
Law enforcement in a democratic society depends
largely upon public respect for the laws and voluntary
compliance with them. Respect and compliance are
undermined if individuals conclude that law enforcement
efforts are ineffective and that crimes may be committed
with impunity--conclusions which are buttressed by rapidly
rising crime rates and by statistics showing only one
arrest for every five serious crimes committed.
A decline in respect for the law leads to the
commission of more crimes. The necessity to investigate
these additional crimes, prosecute those accused, and
punish the convicted places even greater strain on the
already-overburdened capacities of police, prosecutors,
public defenders, courts, penal institutions and
correctional authorities. As a consequence, the percentage
of offenders apprehended, prosecuted and appropriately
sentenced is further reduced. This leads to an even
greater decline in respect for the law and to the commission
of even more crimes. To succeed in the fight against
crime, we must break this spiral.
There are two direct ways to attack the spiral of
crime: One is through improvements in the law itself.
The other is through improvement of the criminal justice
system SO that it functions more swiftly, surely and justly.
GERALD 114817 FORD
5
The Federal criminal laws should be a model upon
which State and local governments can pattern their own
laws. At the present time, they are not. These Federal
statutes developed haphazardly over the decades. They
have been revised here and there in response to changing
judicial interpretation. They are complicated, and sometimes
conflicting, leaving gaps through which criminal activity
too often slips unpunished. Because of their complexity,
the laws invite technical arguments that waste court time
without ever going to the heart of the question of guilt
or innocence.
For several years, the Federal government has
engaged in a massive effort to reform the Federal criminal
laws into a uniform, coherent code. The product of this
effort was recently introduced in Congress, with wide
bipartisan support, as S. 1, the "Criminal Justice
Reform Act of 1975. "
Since it covers every aspect of criminal law, some
of the proposals in this Act have stirred controversy
and will undoubtedly precipitate further debate. For
instance, concern has been expressed that certain
provisions of the bill designed to protect classified
information could adversely affect freedom of the press.
While we must make sure that national security secrets
are protected by law, we must also take care that the law
does not unreasonably restrict the free flow of
information necessary to our form of government.
6
A responsible debate over this and other provisions
of S. 1 will be very useful. Issues can be clarified
and differing interests accommodated. I think everyone
will agree that comprehensive reform of the Federal
criminal code is needed. Accordingly, as a legislative
priority in the Federal effort against crime, I urge the
94th Congress to pass the kind of comprehensive code
reform embodied in the Criminal Justice Reform Act.
In connection with this overall effort, let me suggest
some specific reforms I believe essential.
The sentencing provisions of current Federal law
are, in my judgment, inadequate in several respects,
often erratic and inconsistent. Defendants who commit
similar offenses may receive widely varying sentences.
This lack of uniformity is profoundly unfair and breeds
disrespect for the law.
The revision of the criminal code should restore a
sense of consistency in sentencing, so that the fine or
term of imprisonment imposed by the law relates directly
to the gravity of the offense. For example, criminal
fines are woefully inadequate and provide little deterrence
to offenders whose business is crime--a business profitable
enough to support current levels of criminal fines as an
ordinary business expense. Other than under the antitrust
laws, the maximum fine which can be imposed on serious
violators is $10,000. That amount is too often not
7
commensurate with the crime. The maximum level should be
increased to $100,000, if the defendant is an individual,
and $500,000 if the defendant is an organization.
The sentencing provisions of the proposed code should
be modified to provide judges with standards under which
sentences are imposed upon correction. Imprisonment too
seldom follows conviction for a serious offense. I believe
that persons convicted of violent crime should be sent to
prison. There should be no question in the minds of those
who commit violent crimes--especially crimes involving a
gun--that they be sent to prison upon conviction under
legal processes that are fair, prompt and certain.
I propose that incarceration be made mandatory for:
(1) offenders who commit violent offenses under Federal
jurisdiction using a dangerous weapon; (2) persons
committing such extraordinarily serious crimes as
aircraft hijacking, kidnapping, and trafficking in hard
drugs; and (3) repeat offenders who commit Federal
crimes--with or without a weapon--that cause or have a
potential to cause personal injury. Exceptions to
mandatory incarceration should apply only if the judge
specifically finds that the defendant was under 18 when
the offense was committed, or was mentally impaired, or
was acting under substantial duress, or was implicated
in a crime actually committed by others and participated
in the actual crime only in a very minor way. I have
asked the Attorney General to assist the Congress in
drafting this modification. Since most violent crime
is in the jurisdiction of State and local criminal courts,
I call upon the States to set up similar mandatory
sentencing systems. Too many persons tried and convicted
at the state level never spend a day in prison after
conviction.
I would emphasize that the aim of this program of
mandatory imprisonment is not vindictive punishment of
the criminal, but protection of the innocent victim by
means of separating the criminal from the community.
These victims--most of them old or poor or disadvantaged--
have a valid claim on the rest of society for the protection
and the personal safety that they cannot provide for
themselves.
Rational mandatory minimum sentences can restore
the sense of certainty of imprisonment upon which the
deterrent impact of the criminal law is based. Mandatory
sentences need not be long sentences; the range of
indeterminacy in sentencing need not be great. In fact,
wide disparities in sentences for essentially equivalent
offenses give a look of unfairness to the law. To help
eliminate that unfairness, Federal appeals courts should
be given some authority to review sentences given by
Federal trial court judges--to increase or reduce them
so that the punishments will be more nearly uniform
9
throughout the Federal system. I am also asking the
Attorney General to review this problem to ensure that
the Federal sentencing structure, which is now based
on the indeterminate sentence, is both fair and appropriate.
Among other things, it may be time to give serious study
to the concept of so-called "flat time sentencing" in
the Federal law.
In addition to reform of the criminal law, we must
improve the manner in which our criminal justice system
operates. Effective deterrence to law-breaking is
currently lacking because our criminal justice system
simply does not operate effectively.
A logical place to begin discussion of such improvement
is the prosecutor's office, for it is there that important
decisions are made as to which offenders should be
prosecuted, what cases should be brought to trial, when
plea bargains should be struck and how scarce judicial
resources should be allocated. Many prosecutors' offices
currently lack the manpower or management devices to make
those decisions correctly. Prosecutors often lack
information on a defendant's criminal history and thus
cannot identify career criminals who should be tried by
experienced prosecutors and, if convicted, incarcerated.
In too many cases, they lack efficient systems to monitor
the status of the numerous cases they handle. If
improved management techniques could be made available
SEPALD
10
to prosecutors, the likelihood of swift and sure punishment
for crime would be substantially increased.
At the Federal level, I have directed the Department
of Justice to develop and implement a program to deal with
career criminals, with the objectives of (1) providing
quick identification of career criminals, (2) according
priority to their prosecution by the most experienced
prosecutors, and (3) assuring that, if convicted, they
receive appropriate sentences which will prevent them
from immediately returning to society to once again
victimize the community.
Programs to deal with career criminals will be
encouraged at the State, and local levels through the use
of Law Enforcement Assistance Administration model
programs and discretionary grants.
The results of a career criminal project recently
launched in the Bronx County District Attorney's Office,
City of New York, are hopeful. The first year's experience
showed a 97 percent felony conviction rate and a reduction
of time in case disposition from an average of 24 months
to an average of three months. In addition, jail
sentences were secured in 95 percent of the career
criminal cases prosecuted.
A second improvement in the criminal justice system
may be obtained by diverting certain first offenders--not
all, but some--into rehabilitation programs before
proceeding to trial. The Department of Justice has
11
begun a pilot program of this kind which will achieve
two important goals. First, it will reduce the caseloads
of Federal courts and prosecutors through expeditious
treatment of offenders who are good prospects for
rehabilitation. Second, it will enable the offenders
who successfully satisfy the requirements of the diversion
programs to avoid a criminal record and thus increase the
likelihood that they will return to productive lives.
Experimentation with pretrial diversion programs
should continue and expand. However, careful efforts
must be taken to prevent these programs from either
treating serious offenders too leniently or, on the other
hand, violating defendants' constitutional rights. By
coupling this pretrial diversion program with a mandatory
term of imprisonment for violent offenders, we will ensure
that deserving offenders will go to jail, while those
who may not need imprisonment will be dealt with quickly
and in a way that minimizes the burden on the criminal
justice system.
The criminal and civil caseloads in trial and in
appellate courts have grown over the years, while the
number of judges assigned to handle those cases has not
kept pace. In 1972, the Judicial Conference of the
United States recommended the creation of 51 additional
Federal District Court judgeships in 33 separate
judicial districts across the country. Senate hearings
on legislation incorporating this proposal were conducted
12
in 1973. To date, however, this legislation has not
been scheduled for floor action. The increasing needs
of the Federal courts make this measure an urgent
national necessity of a nonpartisan nature--for justice
delayed is too often justice denied. In addition,
seemingly technical but important reform in the Federal
criminal justice system can be achieved by expanding
the criminal jurisdiction of United States Magistrates.
This reform will enable the relatively small number of
Federal judges to focus their efforts on the most
significant criminal cases. The Criminal Justice Reform
Act contains a provision which will achieve that result,
and I am giving it my specific support.
When a defendant is convicted, even for a violent
crime, judges are too often unwilling to sentence him to
prison, in part because prison conditions are sometimes
inhumane. Moreover, a cruel and dehumanizing penal
institution can actually be a breeding ground for
criminality. In any case, a civilized society cannot
condone prisons where murder, vicious assault and
homosexual rapes are not uncommon occurrences.
The Federal Bureau of Prisons has embarked on a
program to replace old, overcrowded prisons with smaller,
more modern ones. The Burea has seven new corrections
13
institutions of this sort under construction. All are
designed to be civilized places that can be governed by
the wardens and correctional officers rather than by the
most brutal and inhuman prisoners. In addition, the
Bureau is opening new institutions in three major
cities to replace overcrowded, antiquated local jails
which formerly housed Federal prisoners awaiting trial.
This program to improve Federal prisons must be paralleled
by State efforts, because the problem of decrepit prison
facilities that are hothouses of crime is worst at the
State and local level. Unless prisons are improved,
many judges will only reluctantly commit offenders to
them, even if they are convicted of serious crimes and
have previous records.
I know that grave questions have been raised by
qualified experts about the ability of the corrections
system to rehabilitate offenders. These are important
and serious questions. They go to the very heart of the
corrections system. While the problem of criminal
rehabilitation is difficult, we must not give up our
efforts to achieve it. This is especially true in
dealing with youthful offenders. Crime by young people
represents a large part of crime in general. The 1975
statistics indicate that 45 percent of persons arrested
14
for all crimes are under 18 years of age. Whatever the
difficulty we have in our efforts, we must commit
ourselves to trying to rehabilitate offenders, especially
youthful offenders. To do less would be to write off
great numbers of young people as unsalvageable before
they have even come of age. I have directed the Attorney
General, as Chairman of the Cabinet Committee on Crime
Prevention and Rehabilitation, to work in close cooperation
with other concerned agencies at the Executive Branch
to ensure that the Federal government is making the best
possible use of its resources in this crucial area.
Whatever the corrections system might accomplish in
rehabilitating offenders while they are in prison will
be lost if the individual leaves jail and cannot find a
job because he has been convicted of a crime. I urge
employers to keep an open mind on the hiring of persons
formerly convicted of a'crime. The U.S. Civil Service
Commission currently administers a program designed to
prevent Federal employers from unjustly discriminating
against ex-felons. I am directing the Commission to
review this program to ensure that it is accomplishing
its objectives. I am also calling on the United States
Governors Conference to consider steps the States might
take to eliminate unjustified discriminatory practices.
Giving ex-offenders who have paid their penalty and seek
to "go straight" a fair shake in the job market can be
15
an effective means of reducing crime and improving our
criminal justice system.
OPTIONAL: In addition to this general effort
to reform and improve the criminal justice system, the
Federal law should be specifically revised to take into
greater account the needs of victims of crime. They,
as well as the general public, must be shown that the
government will not neglect the law-abiding citizens
whose cooperation and efforts are crucial to the
effectiveness of law enforcement. For too long, law
has centered its attention on the criminal defendant.
It is time for law to concern itself more with the people
it exists to protect.
I urge the Congress to pass legislation to meet the
uncompensated economic losses of victims of Federal
crimes who suffer personal injury. In order to promote
the concept of restitution within the criminal law, the
monetary benefits should come from a fund consisting of
fines paid by convicted Federal offenders.
II. Better Laws and Enforcement
Except in limited circumstances, street crime is
a State and local law enforcement responsibility, and
not of direct Federal concern. There is a dimension to
this problem, however, that cannot be adequately dealt
with on just the State and local levels--the regulation
gt
of handguns. It is indisputable that handguns play a
key role in the rise of violent crime in America. They
are involved in one-fourth of all aggravated assaults
and one-third of all robberies. Hundreds of policemen
have been killed in the past decade through the use of
handguns by criminals.
Many State and local governments have already
enacted stiff laws against possession of handguns, with
varying degrees of effectiveness. In this effort, the
Federal government can be helpful. I feel that Federal
assistance to State enforcement efforts in this difficult
area should be directed toward (1) tightening control
over the sale of handguns; (2) strengthening
enforcement of Federal firearms laws in metropolitan
areas with a high incidence of handgun violence; and
(3) prohibiting of the manufacture of handguns that have
no apparent use other than against humans.
Thus, current Federal gun laws should be revised
to provide that only responsible, bona fide gun dealers
be permitted to obtain Federal licenses to sell weapons.
Licenses should also be withheld from persons who have
violated State laws, particularly firearms laws.
Additional administrative controls over the sale of
handguns, including a ban on multiple sales, will help
to establish dealer responsibility in stopping illicit
gun trafficking. A waiting period between the purchase
and receipt of a handgun should be imposed to enable
7
dealers to verify that handguns are not sold to persons
whose possession of them would be illegal. OPTIONAL:
Handgun sales to persons who reside in localities with
strict handgun laws should be prohibited, unless such
persons are authorized under local law to own or
possess handguns.
Second, I have ordered the Treasury Department's
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, which has
primary responsibility for enforcing Federal firearms
laws, to double its investigative efforts in the
Nation's ten largest metropolitan areas. This action
will assist local law enforcement authorities in
controlling illegal commerce in weapons. I have directed,
therefore, that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms employ and train an additional
agents
and inspectors for this priority function.
Third, the domestic manufacture, assembly or sale--as
well as the importation--of cheap, highly concealable
handguns should be prohibited. These so-called "Saturday
Night Specials" are involved in an extraordinarily large
number of street crimes. Most have no legitimate sporting
purpose. They are such a threat to domestic tranquility
that we should eliminate their manufacture and sale entirely.
These recommendations go to the very heart of the
problem of handgun abuse. If enacted, they should add
significantly to the efforts of State and local law
18
enforcement authorities to prevent the criminal use of
handguns.
There are several other areas in which Federal law
and enforcement can be improved to strike at those who
have made crime a business.
The leaders of organized crime can be prosecuted
under current Federal law only when it can be shown that
they participated in a specific offense, such as gambling,
loansharking or narcotics. A reformed criminal code
should strike directly at organized criminal activity by
making it a Federal crime to operate or control a
racketeering syndicate. This revision will make the
criminal law apply to organized crime leaders who seek
to conceal their role in the syndicate's criminal
activities.
Since current Federal laws restrict the government's
ability to attack consumer frauds, the statutes punishing
fraud and theft should be revised to make Federal
prosecution more effective. Pyramid sales schemes--clever
confidence games, in other words--should be specifically
prohibited. Federal jurisdiction over these frauds should
be extended to enable the government to move against them
on a nationwide basis.
The protection of constitutionally guaranteed civil
rights is a primary duty of the Federal government. Yet,
a private citizen can be punished for violating constitutional
19
rights only if he acted in concert with others. Under
current law, even if a State official intentionally
commits acts that violate an individual's constitutional
rights, proof of these acts alone may be insufficient
to secure a conviction. Restrictions which prevent our
laws from protecting the constitutional rights of Americans
should be eliminated.
Finally, I am particularly concerned about the
illegal trafficking in narcotics and dangerous drugs.
These crimes victimize the entire Nation, bringing
personal tragedy and family destruction to hundreds of
thousands. In addition to the human toll, the property
crimes committed to finance addicts' drug habits are
estimated at $15 billion each year.
Federal, State and local governments must continue
their vigorous law enforcement efforts aimed at major
traffickers in narcotics and dangerous drugs. This
Administration is committed to maintaining a strong
Federal drug enforcement program to provide leadership in
this fight. At the same time, I continue to recognize
our responsibility to provide compassionate treatment and
rehabilitation programs for the hapless victim of narcotics
traffickers.
Recent evidence suggests an increase in the availability
and use of dangerous drugs in spite of the creation of
special Federal agencies and massive Federal funding during
the past six years. I am deeply concerned over these
20
developments and have, therefore, directed the Domestic
Council to undertake a comprehensive review and
assessment of the overall Federal drug abuse prevention
and treatment effort to ensure that our programs, policies
and laws are appropriate and effective.
III. Providing Financial and Technical Assistance
The Federal government must continue to help State
and local governments in carrying out their law enforcement
responsibilities. Therefore, I am submitting to Congress
a bill that will continue the Law Enforcement Assistance
Administration through 1981.
The LEAA annually provides millions of dollars of
support to State and local governments in improving the
overall operation of their criminal justice systems.
Additionally, the LEAA serves as a center for the
development of new ideas on how to fight crime. Examples
of several LEAA innovations have already been noted in
this Message. The bill that I am submitting will
authorize $6.5 billion for LEAA to continue this work
through 1981.
Several aspects of the reauthorization bill deserve
special mention. It will increase the funding authorization
for LEAA from $1.25 billion to $1.3 billion annually.
The additional $250 million over five years will enable
the agency's discretionary program to place greater
21
emphasis on programs aimed at reducing crime in
heavily populated urban areas. It is in these areas
that the problem of violent street crime has reached
critical proportions. The LEAA "High Impact" program,
which is designed to provide additional assistance for
cities and counties with high crime rates, has had
encouraging success. This additional authorization will
permit LEAA to build upon that success.
The bill will also place special emphasis on State
and local court reform. Specifically, it will include
such reform within the statement of purposes for which
LEAA block grant funds can be utilized. Too often, the
courts, the prosecutors and the public defenders are
overlooked in the allocation of criminal justice resources.
If we are to be at all effective in fighting crime,
state and local court systems, including prosecution
and defense, must be expanded and enhanced.
In conclusion, I emphasize again that the Federal
government cannot, by itself, bring an end to crime in
the streets. The Federal government can seek the cooperation
and participation of State and local governments. Such
cooperation is vitally important to this effort. The
cumulative effect of persistent Federal, State and local
efforts to improve our laws and eliminate difficulties
that encumber our criminal justice system offers the only
22
hope of achieving a permanent reduction in crime.
I am confident that, if the Congress enacts the
programs which I have recommended, the arsenal for an
effective attack on crime will have been substantially
fortified. I call upon the Congress to act swiftly on
these recommendations. I also call upon State and local
governments to move rapidly in strengthening their
processes of criminal justice. Together, we will remove
the criminal from the streets of America and restore to
this nation that domestic tranquility pledged to the
law-abiding citizen in the Constitution.