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
118568050
label
JGR/Department of Justice (3 of 5)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
118568050
contentType
document
title
JGR/Department of Justice (3 of 5)
citationUrl
identifierLocal
485
collections
Records of the Office of Counsel to the President (Reagan Administration)
John Roberts' Subject Files
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
118568050
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1986-12-31
year
1986
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1982-01-01
year
1982
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
fa2957862a6683b5
ocrText
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
Digital Library Collections
This is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.
Collection: Roberts, John G.: Files
Folder Title: JGR/Department of Justice (3 of 5)
Box: 16
To see more digitized collections visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library
To see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection
Contact a reference archivist at: [email protected]
Citation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing
National Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of the Deputy Attorney General
THE
February 26, 1985
TO: John Roberts
FROM: Roger Clegg
Per our conversation.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
William H. Webster, Director of the Federal Bureau of
investigation, announced today the indictment of nine individuals,
charged with violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Statute, with predicate offenses of Hobbs Act, Extortion,
Murder and Labor Racketeering. The indictment charges the following
individuals to comprise a group associated in fact and also known
as the "Commission" of La Cosa Nostra, and that they operate in New
York and other areas of the United States and in other countries:
1. Anthony Salerno, Boss, Genovese Family
2. Paul Castellano, Boss Gambino Family
3. Aniello Dellacroce, Underboss, Gambino
4. Gennaro Langella, Acting Boss, Colombo
5. Anthony Corallo, Boss, Luchese Family
6. Salvatore Santoro, Underboss, Luchese
7. Christopher Furnari, Consigliere, Luchese
8. Philip Rastelli, Boss, Bonnano Family
9. Ralph Scopo, Soldier, Colombo Family
Director Webster noted that the guiding principle
of the FBI's Organized Crime Program is to reach beyond the streets
to those who exercise real power and control. He said, "for the first
time, the existence of LCN's national structure and far reaching
influence is revealed through the defendants' own words and actions."
In announcing the indictments and arrests, Mr. Webster
acknowledged that this represented the culmination of many years
of intensive investigation by the FBI into the activities and
organizational structure of the LCN and its "Commission." He said,
"The indictments of the heads of all five New York LCN families
which comprise the "Commission" firmly demonstrated the existence
of a national organized criminal structure with extensive control
emanating from New York." He added that the success was only
possible through years of FBI effort, manpower, sophisticated
techniques, cooperating witnesses, many Title III intercepts, the
development of witnesses now willing to testify and the retrieval
capabilities of the FBI's Organized Crime Information System.
Mr. Webster also attributed the success of this complex
case to much of the law enforcement community, from high-level
informants, to the full use of the RICO Statute to indict enterprises
and family structures, to the totally coordinated effort with the
New York Police Department's Organized Crime Task Force.
Director Webster stated that the mere existence of the
"Commission was known as early as the 1930's, but in 1979, with
expanded use of undercover Special Agents, highly placed informants
and electronic intercepts, the FBI was able to infiltrate the
Bonanno family and obtain concrete information on the "Commission's"
function. During 1980-1982, through addituonal wire intercepts and
informants, sufficient information was developed to indict the
Columbo family as an enterprise in October, 1984.
Law enforcement efforts between 1981 and 1985, according
to Mr. Webster, resulted in the recent indictments of the Gambino and
Genovese families.
Mr. Webster specifically expressed appreciation to the
following agencies who assisted Special Agents of the FBI and
contributed significantly:
United States Attorney's Office and Strike Force,
Southern District of New York.
United States Attorney's Office and Strike Force,
Eastern District of New York.
New York City Police Department
New York State Organized Crime Task Force.
District Attorney's Office, Brooklyn, New York.
3*
OUTLINE OF TALKING POINTS
FEBRUARY 26, 1985
LCN COMMISSION
PRESS CONFERENCE
I. SCOPE OF TODAY'S INDICTMENTS AND ARRESTS
A. CULMINATION OF MANY YEARS OF INTENSIVE INVESTIGATION
BY THE FBI INTO THE LCN's.
1. ACTIVITIES
2. ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
3. "COMMISSION" OR RULING BODY
B. INVESTIGATIVE RESOURCES INCLUDED
1. 175 FBI SAs DURING LAST FOUR YEARS
2. 25 NYPD DETECTIVES DURING LAST TWO YEARS
II. SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS INVESTIGATION
A. INDICTMENTS INCLUDE THE HEADS OF ALL FIVE NY LCN
FAMILIES WHO COMPRISE THE COMMISSION.
B. INVESTIGATION CONFIRMS THE EXISTENCE OF A NATIONAL
ORGANIZED CRIME STRUCTURE WITH SUBSTANTIAL CONTROL
EMANATING FROM NEW YORK.
III. A VARIETY OF INVESTIGATIVE TECHNIQUES AND TOOLS USED
GATHER EVIDENCE OF THE COMMISSION INCLUDING
A. EXTENSIVE PHYSICAL AND ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE
B. COOPERATIVE WITNESSES
C. UNDERCOVER SPECIAL AGENTS
D. OCIS
E. COMPLETE APPLICATION OF RICO STATUTES
IV. WE CAN NOW SAY THE FOLLOWING ABOUT THE COMMISSION:
A. IT IS A GOVERNING BODY SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM
INDIVIDUAL LCN FAMILIES
B. IT INCLUDES HIGH RANKING MEMBERS OF ALL FIVE
NY LCN FAMILIES
C. LCN FAMILIES THROUGHOUT THE U. S. COMMUNICATE WITH
EACH OTHER THROUGH THE COMMISSION
D. ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES THAT CROSS FAMILY LINES MUST HAVE
THE COMMISSION'S APPROVAL
E. IT SETTLES LEADERSHIP DISPUTES
V. INVESTIGATION SENDS A MESSAGE TO BOTH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
AND THE LCN
A. WE WILL NOT BE STOPPED IN OUR EFFORTS TO SEVERE THE
TENACLES OF ORGANIZED CRIME
B. WE ARE DEDICATED TO THE ELIMINATION OF THE LCN AND OTHER
ORGANIZED, ILLEGAL ENTERPRISES
C. THE LCN CODE OF SILENCE HAS - BEEN BROKEN - WE ARE GETTING
MORE COOPERATION THAN EVER BEFORE
D. THOSE WHO PARTICIPATE IN ORGANIZED CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES,
DO so AT GREAT RISK OF DETECTION AND PROSECUTION
cigdate
II
LCN COMMISSION INDICTMENT 2/26/85
PREDICATION OF CASE
Information developed as a result of prior and ongoing
investigations of individual LCN families which indicated the existance of
a "Commission of La Cosa Nostra", i.e. FBI New York's Colombo, Genovese,
Gambino, and Bonanno family investigations, and New York State Organized
Crime Task Force investigation of Luchese family. Not only have these
investigations demonstrated the existance of a "Commission", but also the
LCN s significant control over industries and unions. This was recently
demonstrated in the Colombo family indictment of October 23, 1984 wherein
it is alleged that the Colombo family controlled the pouring of concrete
on New York construction sites through its member Ralph Scopo. Scopo
accomplished this as a result of his position as an official of the
Concrete Workers District Counsel of New York. Additionally, on
February 21, 1985 Luchese family members were indicted in the KENRAC
matter relating to their control of unions involved in the freight
industry at JFK Airport.
SUBJECTS INDICTED
1. Anthony Salerno, Boss, Genovese Family
2. Paul Castellano, Boss, Gambino Family
3. Aniello Dellacroce, Underboss, Gambino
4. Gennaro Langella, Acting Boss, Colombo
5. Anthony Corallo, Boss, Luchese Family
6. Salvatore Santoro, Underboss, Luchese
7. Christopher Furnari, Consigliere, Luchese
8. Philip Rastelli, Boss, Bonnano Family
9. Ralph Scopo, Soldier, Colombo Family
CHARGES
RICO with predicates of Hobbs Act - Extortion, Murder, and
Labor Racketeering. The indictment charges that the defendants comprise
a group associated in fact and are known as the "Commission" of La Cosa
Nostra and that they operate in New York, other areas of the United
States, and other countries.
PURPOSE OF COMMISSION
1. To regulate and facilitate relationships between and among LCN
families.
2. To promote and carry out joint ventures between and among LCN
families, i.e., extortion of building contractors, murder, and labor
racketeering.
3. To resolve actual and potential disputes among LCN families regarding
ECT victims, gambling turf, control of businesses, etc.
4. To give recognition to the new Boss of LCN families and resolve
disputes regarding leadership within families.
5. To take action to keep peace between families, i.e., authorize
murders of high ranking members.
6. To approve initiation of new members.
7. To establish rules, regulations, and policies for overall LCN
membership, i.e., narcotics trafficking.
"THE CLUB"
The Club was formed by the Commission in the Spring of 1981
and consists of approximately eight concrete companies which are usually
the only companies "permitted" to be awarded concrete pouring contracts
whose value exceed $2 million. Seven of these companies are listed as
victims in the indictment. The Commission controls the construction
industry in New York through this club by:
1. Controlling the pouring of concrete on all construction sites
exceeding $2 million. (Contracts valued at less than $2
million may be allocated by individual LCN families).
2. Authorizing which construction companies get the right to bid on
construction jobs.
3. Resolving disputes between families over control of contractors
and/or specific construction sites.
4. Enforcing decisions as to who gets construction bids by:
(a) Cutting off concrete supplies to contractors.
(b) Creating labor problems for contractors through control of
unions.
(c) Through extortion of money and property from concrete
contractors who seek contracts.
(d) By authorizing payment of bribes to officials of the Concrete
Workers District Counsel of New York.
SPECIFICS OF INDICTMENT
The defendants, as members of the Commission, committed the
following acts:
1. The extortion of DeGaetano and Vozzi Construction Company.
(Commission settled dispute between four families as to how much
this company was to pay for receiving contract).
2. Extortion of legitimate business. (Commission settled dispute
between Gambino and Luchese LCN families regarding placing of video
gaming devices in Jane's Pizzeria on Staten Island).
3. Authorized the murders of:
(a) Carmine Galante, former Boss, Bonanno family.
(b) Leonard Copolla, Galante associate.
(c) Alphonse Indelicato, capo, Bonanno family.
(d) Dominick Trichera, capo, Bonnano family.
(e) Philip Giaccone, capo, Bonanno family.
(f) Anthony Indelicato, solider, Bonanno family.
PROOFS USED IN CASE
1. Physical Surveillances
2. Court approved electronic intercepts conducted by FBI and New York
State Organized Crime Task Force.
3. Testimony of LCN member James Fratiano.
#4. Immunized testimony of LCN Boss Joseph Bonanno.
5. Testimony of other cooperating witnesses developed during New York
organized Crime investigations.
6. Testimony of UCAs (Pistone).
*This information should not be made public.
AGENCIES INVOLVED IN INVESTIGATION
1. FBI (In excess of 175 SAs utilized over four-year period).
2. Southern District of New York United States Attorney's Office and
Strike Force (Supported overall strategy and preparation of
indictment).
3. Eastern District of New York, United States Attorney's Office and
Strike Force (Provided information obtained from LCN investigations
which corroborated the existance of "Commission, 1.e., CASTAWAYS).
4. New York City Police Department (Provided 25 detectives to work on a
daily basis with the New York Office as well as providing
intelligence information and other investigative information which
was used in proving the existance of the "Commission.")
5. New York State Organized Crime Task Force (Made available
information developed during the Luchese family electronic
intercepts which demonstrated the existance of the "Commission.")
6. Brooklyn District Attorney's Office (Provided information relating
to the Galante murder which is one of the predicate offenses of the
Commission indictment).
CAUSES OF CURRENT SUCCESSES
1. OCIS - Historical intelligence information and results of past
investigative efforts are now readily retrievable. This information
can now be used in building probable cause in requests for court
approved electronic intercepts and for presentation to the Federal
grand jury.
2. RICO STATUTE - Although available since 1970, it has taken time for
both investigators and prosecutors to realize the full benefit of
this statute. Rather than indicting individual LCN members for
specific overt acts, this statute is currently being used to charge
organizations such as the LCN as criminal enterprises.
3. TITLE III - Improved equipment and the placing of this equipment in
locations used by high-ranking members of the LCN to discuss their
criminal activity has significantly improved the types of cases
being developed through the use of chis technique. In excess of 80
Title IIIs were used by the NYO during the course of the Gambino,
Genovese, Colombo, and Bonanno-family investigations.
4. COOPERATING WITNESSES - As a result of the succeses against
organized crime by the FBI, during the past five years more and
more individuals are willing to come forward, cooperate, and
testify. During FY 83, 1,331 convictions and 2,405 indictments were
obtained in the Organized Crime Program as compared to 2,194
convictions and 3, 118 indictments in FY 84.
5. UNDERCOVER OPERATIONS - The use of this technique has been greatly
expanded during the past five years and has resulted in the
development of information and testimony which previously was not
available.
6. PHYSICAL SURVEILLANCES - Previously, this was limited to Agents
surveilling individuals in cars. During the past ten years, this
technique has been expanded to include the use of closed circuit
video taping, fixed surveillance plants, planes, and the use of
computers identifying individuals with whom subjects are meeting.
7. INFORMANTS - Continued development and maintenance of high quality
informants.
OF
EFF
AMOUNT
JUSTITIA
Department of Justice
ADVANCE FOR RELEASE AT 6 P.M., EST
BJS
SUNDAY, MARCH 3, 1985
(202) 724-7782
About 61 percent of the offenders who entered a state prison
during 1979 had been previously incarcerated as an adult, a
juvenile or both, the Bureau of Justice Statistics announced
today. Of these repeat offenders or recidivists, nearly half
(46 percent) would still have been incarcerated for earlier
crimes if they had served the maximum term of their prior
sentences to confinement.
"The recidivists who would still have been serving time
constituted about 28 percent of all offenders who entered prison,
and most of them were still on parole for their earlier crimes,"
commented Steven R. Schlesinger, Director of the Bureau, which is
a U.S. Department of Justice agency. "They were responsible for
20 percent of the violent crimes, 28 percent of the burglaries
and auto thefts and 31 percent of the stolen property offenses
attributable to all admissions," Schlesinger said.
The Bureau also reported that almost 60 percent of those who
entered prison without a prior incarceration had at least one
previous conviction for a criminal offense.
"In other words," said Schlesinger, "almost 84 percent of
the people entering a state prison during 1979 were repeat
offenders." "
(MORE)
-2-
The special report, "Examining Recidivism," also announced
that 40 percent of all persons admitted to prison during 1979
were either on parole or probation at the time.
"These findings raise serious questions about the impact of
probation and parole decisions on public safety and create a
challenge for those who set sentences and shape sentencing
policy," Schlesinger commented.
(A recently released study funded by the National Institute
of Justice found that 65 percent of convicted felons on probation
in selected California counties were subsequently rearrested for
new crimes, and more than half were convicted. Their new crimes
were usually serious offenses, such as robbery, burglary or
theft. )
"Few issues in criminal justice in recent years have drawn
as much scholarly and public attention as the impact of
recidivism on public safety and its implications for sentencing
policy," Schlesinger remarked.
"However," he added, "we are not able to determine from this
study how much crime would have been avoided under different
sentencing and release policies or how much different policies
would cost. "
(MORE)
-3-
The report is based on data gathered from interviews with
5,357 inmates conducted during October and November 1979. These
inmates were a nationwide sample representing 153,000 male
admissions to state prison that year. The bureau plans another
such survey later this year.
The study estimates that about half of those who are
released from state prisons will return within 20 years, and 60
percent of these repeaters will be back by the end of the third
year. Most of the recidivists return to prison within two years.
Those recidivists who were committing new robberies,
burglaries or auto thefts were returning more rapidly than were
those committing other crimes, the report said.
About one-half of the recidivists had four or more prior
sentences to probation, jail or prison, and about one in nine of
them had more than 10 prior convictions, it said.
The report said, too, that the younger the former prisoners
were at release, the higher was the first-year return rate, that
is:
Age 18 to 24 years
21.8 percent back in one year.
Age 25 to 34 years
12.1 percent.
Age 35 to 44 years
7.1 percent.
Age 45 or more
2.1 percent.
(MORE)
-4-
Single copies of the special report (NCJ-96501) may be
obtained by writing the National Criminal Justice Reference
Service, Box 6000, Rockville, Maryland 20850, telephone (301)
251-5500. The toll-free number is (800) 732-3277.
85-17
After hours contact: Stu Smith (301) 654-1185
DOJ-1985-02
PRO MENT DOMINA JUSTITIA OF SECURITY
Department of Justice
*
ADVANCE FOR RELEASE AT 6 P. M., EST
AG
SUNDAY, MARCH 3, 1985
(202) 633-2028
Assistant Attorney General Stephen S. Trott, head of the
Criminal Division of the Department of Justice, issued the
following comment today on a report by the Bureau of Justice
Statistics concerning recidivism:
"These findings graphically illustrate the enormous impact
repeat offenders have on public safety and the criminal justice
system.
"Almost 84 percent of the people entering state prisons
during the period studied were repeat offenders. Three-quarters
of these prisoners had already served time. Almost half of the
recidivists had four or more earlier criminal convictions.
"The statistics also give us some sense of how much
additional crime could be reduced if criminals actually served
the increased sentences which could be imposed under present law.
It is particularly disturbing to see that about one-fourth of all
the crimes committed by the prisoners studied were committed
while they would have been in prison if they had served the
maximum sentence for their crimes.
"I know of no more dramatic evidence of the need to continue
this administration's efforts to lead and assist state and local
(MORE)
- 2 -
law enforcement in the apprehension and vigorous prosecution of
those who continue to victimize the innocent."
###
(Editors: These remarks are for use with a press release,
also moved in advance for 6 p.m., March 3, about the Bureau of
Justice Statistics report on recidivism. Copies of that release
and report may be obtained from the Office of Congressional and
Public Affairs, Office of Justice Programs, Room 1242, 633
Indiana Avenue N. W., Washington, D. C. Contact: Stuart Smith,
724-7782; after hours, (301) 654-1184.)
U.S. Department of Justice
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Special Report
Examining Recidivism
By Lawrence A. Greenfeld
BJS Statistician
February 1985
The effectiveness of criminal justice
Few issues in criminal justice have
inmates in 1974 and 11,397 inmates
policies and practices is often gauged
drawn as much scholarly and public
by the extent to which offenders, after
in 1979, these surveys collected de-
the imposition of punishment, continue
attention as the impact of recidivism
tailed information on the Nation's
to engage in crime. This study ex-
on public safety and the implications
prisoners, including accounts of prior
of this issue for sentencing policy.
convictions and incarcerations. Cur-
amines recidivism through an analysis
Career criminal programs and man-
rently, the BJS inmate surveys are
of a nationwide survey of inmates of
datory or enhanced sentences for
the only source of criminal history
State prisons conducted in October and
repeat offenders are examples of pol-
information for a representative
November of 1979 and sponsored by the
icies designed to reduce the threat
sample of inmates in the Nation's
Bureau of Justice Statistics. The
recidivists pose to society. This
State prisons. The wealth of data
following are the key findings of this
special report presents important
contained in these surveys is avail-
survey:
new findings relevant to the contem-
able to researchers in automated
porary debate on recidivism, public
form through the BJS Criminal Jus-
An estimated 61% of those admitted
safety, and sentencing policy.
tice Archive. A third survey is
to prison in 1979 were recidivists (i.e.,
Perhaps the most striking finding
scheduled for later in 1985.
they had previously served a sentence
of this report is that approximately
The findings presented in this spe-
to incarceration as a juvenile, adult, or
28% of those who entered prison in
cial report, combined with the results
both). Of those entering prison without
1979 would still have been in prison
of other research, raise serious ques-
a history of incarceration (an estimated
at the time of their admission if they
tions about the impact of probation
39% of all admissions), nearly 60% had
had served their maximum prior con-
and parole decisions on public safety
prior convictions that resulted in pro-
finement sentence. Most of these
and create a challenge for those who
bation and an estimated 27% were on
"avertable recidivists" were still on
shape sentencing policy.
probation at the time of their prison
parole for a prior crime when they
Studies of this type are only pos-
admission.
reentered prison. The study also
sible with the generous cooperation
found that about two-fifths of all
of the departments of corrections of
An estimated 46% of the recidivists
offenders admitted to prison were on
the 50 States and the District of
entering prison in 1979 would still have
probation or parole (nearly equally
Columbia. The Bureau of Justice
been in prison at the time of their
divided) at the time of their admis-
Statistics wishes to express its
admission if they had fully served the
sion.
continued gratitude to those who
maximum term I of their last sentence
This study is based upon the 1979
have assisted its efforts to collect
to confinement. This group, referred to
Survey of State Prison Inmates, the
accurate and timely data on corréc-
as "avertable recidivists," constituted
most recent of two major national
tions in the United States.
approximately 28% of all those who
inmate surveys sponsored by the
entered prison in 1979.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. Through
Steven R. Schlesinger
personal interviews with 9,040
Director
Recidivists were estimated to
account for approximately two-thirds
or more of the burglaries, auto thefts,
the "avertable recidivists" accounted
The maximum term of confinement is
defined in the Inmate Survey as the maxi-
and forgery/fraud/embezzlement offen-
for approximately 20% of the violent
mum sentence to incarceration imposed upon
ses attributable to all the admissions.
crimes, 28% of the burglaries and auto
an offender by a sentencing court. Frequent-
When their past criminal histories were
thefts, 30% of the forgery/fraud/em-
ly, courts impose a minimum and maximum
examined, however, recidivists were
bezzlement offenses, and 31% of the
sentence so that the sentence reflects a
range of duration (e.g., 1 to 3 years). For
found to be as likely as first-time
stolen property offenses.
purposes of this study, the maximum of the
admissions to have a current or prior
range imposed is considered to be the maxi-
violent offense.
Based on recidivist self-reports of
mum sentence. Note that the maximum im-
posed sentence is not necessarily the same as
how long it took them to reenter prison
the maximum sentence allowed by the
Of the estimated 200,000 offenses
by 1979, it is estimated that nearly half
statutes of a State.
reported by the 1979 prison admissions,
(48.7%) of all those who exit prison will
return within 20 years of release. Most
Table 1. Estimated probability of imprisonment given arrest for robbery, 1978-83
of the recidivism, however, was found
to occur within the first 3 years after
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
(F)
(G)
release: an estimated 60% of those
Estimated
Number
number
Number
Percent of
who will return to prison within 20
Number
Probability of
entering
Estimated
robbers
UCR
robbery
adult
imprisonment
years do so by the end of the third year.
prison with
percent
entering
robbery
arrests who
robbers
given arrest
Year
new offense
robbers
prison
arrests
are adults
arrested
(C/F)
Among the recidivists entering prison
1978
123,083
X
18.9
=
23,263
148,903
66.0
"
98,276
.237
in 1979, those committing new offenses
1979
129,614
X
18.9
=
24,497
140,640
68.5
=
96,338
.254
of robbery, burglary, and auto theft
1980
144,209
X
18.9
=
27,256
146,270
69.9
=
102,243
.267
were found to return more rapidly than
1981
164,857
X
18.9
=
31,158
153,890
X
71.9
=
110,647
.282
1982
183,440
X
18.9
=
34,670
157,630
X
=
those committing other crimes.
73.6
116,016
.299
1983
197,006
X
18.9
=
37,234
146,170
X
73.7
=
107,727
.346
An estimated half of the recidivists
Notes:
because table 4 of that report indicated a
had four or more prior sentences to
(A) Admissions received from courts plus
stable 39% violent admissions for 4 of the 6
conditional release violators with new
probation, jail, or prison. About 1 in 9
years for which data are currently available.
sentences obtained from National Prisoner
(D) Obtained from FBI Uniform Crime
of the recidivists had more than
Statistics.
Reports tables on total estimated arrests.
prior convictions.
(B) Estimated from Prison Admissions and
(E) Obtained from F BI Uniform Crime
Releases, 1981, Table 3. The proportion was
Reports tables on the age distribution of
An estimated 42% of those entering
assumed to be stable over the 6-year period
robbery arrestees.
prison in 1979 were on probation or
parole for prior offenses at the time of
mates return to prison within the first
sponsored two nationwide surveys of in-
their admission.
year after release, another 10% during
mates of State prisons. The first was
the second year, and another 5% during
conducted in January 1974 and the sec-
Current interest in recidivism
the third year; about 30% of all re-
ond in October and November 1979.
leases were found to return to prison
Both surveys involved face-to-face
In recent years many State legis-
within 3 years. As will be shown in this
interviews with large representative, 2
latures have demonstrated popular
report, the self-reported rates of prison
samples of inmates of State prisons.
concern for the impact of recidivism
return are nearly identical (29.4% as
on public safety by instituting man-
shown in table 3) to those gathered
The findings presented in this report
from official records.
datory prison terms or sentence en-
are based upon an admissions sample
hancements for repeat offenders.
derived from the 1979 survey. An
Other reforms-such as determinate
Analyzing the inmate survey
admissions sample was used to estimate
sentencing, sentencing guidelines, and
how many recidivists entered prison and
The Bureau of Justice Statistics has
parole guidelines-have been introduced
how much time had passed since their
to limit discretion and make punish-
last release from incarceration. Be-
ment policies explicit.
Males admitted to prison
cause the survey was conducted during
in 1979
153,465
October and November 1979, a refer-
Available national data indicate
100.0%
ence date of October 31, 1979, was
that the certainty of imprisonment is
Prior confinement
chosen. Male inmates who reported
increasing. Table 1 shows how the cer-
history
Yes
No
entering State prison between
94,134
59,331
tainty of imprisonment has increased
61.3%
38.7%
2 The number of cases for the 1979 Survey of
for arrested robbers. The estimated
State Prison Inmates was 11,397.
probability that an arrested robber
Figure 1
would go to prison has increased from
about 24% of those arrested in 1978 to
Table 2. Location and year of last release from confinement
nearly 35% in 1983. In addition, rates
for recidivists entering State prisons in 1979 (males only)
of prison committment from courts evi-
Location of last release
dence a similar pattern of increase
Year of
State
Juvenile
from 1978 to 1983. In 1978, there were
last release
prison
Jail
facility
Other*
Total
7.2 court commitments to prison for
1979
18,067
8,842
2,662
740
30,311
every 10,000 adults in the general popu-
1978
11,212
5,326
2,167
673
19,378
lation. The equivalent rates were 7.4 in
1977
6,923
3,706
1,139
506
12,274
1976
4,466
2,448
606
316
1979, 8.0 in 1980, 9.0 in 1981, 9.8 in
7,836
1975
3,869
1,589
667
86
6,211
1982, and 10.1 in 1983.
1974
2,602
878
382
122
3,984
1973
1,735
618
414
138
2,905
The increased reliance on imprison-
1972
1,135
571
237
18
1,961
1971
967
509
116
45
1,637
ment is not simply a reflection of
1970
653
463
138
27
1,281
hardening public attitudes toward crime
1969
654
235
90
26
1,005
and criminals. It is also based upon the
1968
585
205
0
61
851
growing body of knowledge about crimi-
1967
489
248
144
0
881
1966
114
120
541
0
288
nal careers and the likelihood that
1965
326
241
38
88
693
many offenders will continue to commit
1964
184
203
0
55
442
crimes after they are released from
1963
307
143
0
60
510
prison.
1962
206
29
59
57
351
1961
170
91
0
32
293
1960
90
62
0
39
191
For example, the Bureau of Justice
1959 and earlier
490
182
60
119
851
Statistics recently published prison
Total
55,244
26,709
8,973
3,208
94,134
return rates based upon official records
Percent of recidivists
58.7%
28.4%
9.5%
3.4%
100.0%
in 14 States (Returning to Prison,
November 1984, NCJ-95700) collected
Median time to prison entry
since last confinement
22.4 mos.
22.3 mos.
22.3 mos.
29.2 mos.
22.5 mos.
over a 3-year period after release.
According to this study, 14-15% of in-
*Includes federal and military facilities.
November 1, 1978, and October 31,
Table 3. Constructing a 20-year estimate for returning to State prison
1979, were selected to represent a
1-year sample of male admissions. A
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
(F)
Total number
Cumulative
total of 5,357 inmates were included in
Number enter-
released from
Percent return-
return rate
Percent of total
the sample, representing 153,465 ad-
Year of
ing prison
State prisons
ing to prison
through
returns occur-
missions. (For more detail on the
last release
in 1979
in that year
by 1979 (B/C)
year 20
ring in each year
construction and analysis of the sample,
see the Methodological Note at the end
1979
18,067
128,980
14.01%
14.01% (1)
28.7%
1978
11,212
118,920
9.43
23.44
(2)
19.3
of this report.)
1977
6,923
116,162
5.96
29.40
(3)
12.2
1976
4,466
108,442
4.12
33.52
(4)
8.5
One assumption underlying the
1975
3,869
109,035
3.55
37.07
(5)
7.5
1974
2,602
91,183
2.85
39.92
(6)
5.8
research is that those who return most
1973
1,735
95,324
1.82
41.74
(7)
3.7
rapidly after release from confinement
1972
1,135
96,373
1.18
42.92
(8)
2.4
are the most criminally active offend-
1971
967
96,701
1.00
43.92
(9)
2.1
ers. Because the survey was conducted
1970
653
76,649
0.85
44.77
(10)
1.7
1969
654
74,109
0.88
45.65
(11)
1.8
only among those in prison, it is not
1968
585
70,250
0.83
46.48
(12)
1.7
possible to describe persons who do not
1967
489
79,835
0.61
47.09
(13)
1.3
reenter confinement. Future studies
1966
114
83,237
0.14
47.23
(14)
0.3
must examine the level of criminal
1965
326
86,876
0.38
47.61
(15)
0.8
1964
184
87,030
0.21
47.82
(16)
0.4
activity among those who continue in
1963
307
85,101
0.36
48.18
(17)
0.7
crime but manage to evade reimprison-
1962
206
86,589
0.24
48.42
(18)
0.5
ment and those who disengage entirely
1961
170
81,599
0.21
48.63
(19)
0.4
from crime.
1960
90
77,870
0.12
48.75
(20)
0.2
Note: Column B derived from table 2. Column
Does not include those released from prison
Estimating recidivism
C derived from National Prisoner Statistics.
prior to 1960. Column F was calculated by
a
Total returns over the 20-year period.
dividing column D by 48.75 from column E.
Figure 1 illustrates the estimated
distribution of recidivists (those with
provide the estimated proportion
of a year or more within 15 years of
any prior adult or juvenile sentences to
returning by year 20. Column F shows
prison release, nearly identical to the
incarceration in a prison, jail, or juve-
the proportion of all returns (over the
47.6% estimated here (see table 4).
nile facility) and first-time admissions
20-year period) estimated to occur in
based on the admissions sample derived
each year. This approach, though rely-
Age and time to prison return
from the inmate survey. An estimated
ing on retrospective, cross-sectional
61.3% of male State prison admittees in
data, attempts to provide a prospec-
Table 5 shows the rates of prison
1979 had a history of incarceration as
tive, longitudinal estimate of prison
return by age at last release. The
either a juvenile or an adult or both.
return rates. The method assumes that
younger the releasee, the higher is the
future releasee behavior will be similar
rate of prison return within the first
Table 2 shows where the recidivists
to that of offenders released in earlier
year. While an estimated 21.8% of
were last confined (preceding the 1979
years.
those 18 to 24 years old at release re-
admission) and the year of their last
turn to prison within the first year,
release. An estimated 59% of the re-
These calculations show that nearly
12.1% of those aged 25 to 34 at release,
cidivists who entered State prison in
49% of State prisoners return to prison
7.1% of those aged 35 to 44, and 2.1%
1979 were last incarcerated in a State
within a 20-year period after release.
of those aged 45 and over do so within
prison facility (or about 36% of all
Most of the recidivism, however, occurs
the first year. Similarly, through 7
153,465 admissions that year). Sub-
within the first few years after re-
years after release nearly half (49.9%)
stantial numbers also enter State pris-
lease. An estimated 28.7% of those
of those aged 18 to 24 at release will
ons after serving time in a local jail
who will recidivate over 20 years return
have returned to prison, compared to
(28.4% of recidivists and 17.4% of all
to prison within 1 year of release;
12.4% of those 45 and over at release.
admissions) or in a juvenile facility
48.1% within 2 years; and 60.3% within
Interestingly, offenders released from
(9.5% of recidivists and 5.8% of all
3 years. Clearly, the greatest risk for
admissions). The median time to prison
public safety is within the first few
Table 4. Comparison of prison return rates
entry was about the same regardless of
years after release from prison.
through year 15: Inmate survey and
where the recidivists were last con-
Kitchener, Schmidt, Glaser followup
fined-about 22 months after release.
These cumulative return rates esti-
Cumulative return rate
mated from self-report data are
Inmate
Kitchener,
Assuming that those recidivists who
consistent with the return rates ob-
Number of years
survey
Schmidt,
entered prison in 1979 represent a
tained from official records noted
after release
estimate
Glaser
typical admission cohort, it is possible
earlier (see Returning to Prison,
1
14.01%
8.56%
to estimate how many releasees would
November 1984, NCJ-95700). The cor-
2
23.44
26.89
be back in prison after a specified num-
respondence between these two data
3
29.40
34.22
ber of years. Table 3 presents a 20-
sources suggests that offenders reliably
5
37.06
41.22
report information on their recent con-
10
year estimate of returns to prison
44.77
46.67
15
47.61
47.44
(derived from table 2). It shows the
finement histories (by the third year
number of inmates who reported a last
offical-record estimates are that 30%
Note: The Kitchener, Schmidt, Glaser follow-
release from a State prison in a
of those released will have returned to
up was conducted with 927 inmates released
particular year and reentered a State
prison compared to 29.4% derived from
from Federal prisons in 1956 and tracked
through BI rap sheets and contact with local
prison in 1979 (columns A and B). The
the inmate survey). The reliability of
arresting authorities to obtain dispositional
total number of prison inmates released
the self-report data is indicated even
information. The return definition used for
in each year (column C), is used to
for prior releases occurring many years
comparison (parole violation or new sentences
estimate how long (until admission in
earlier. In their study of 1956 Federal
to confinement of more than 1 year) was used
to approximate closely the return-to-prison
1979) it took recidivists to reenter
releasees, Kitchener, Schmidt, and Gla-
definition used for the inmate survey. Data
prison (column D). These yearly esti-
ser found that 47.4% of those exiting
were supplied by Annesley Schmidt (see
mates are then cumulated (column E) to
prison received confinement sentences
Kitchener, et al., 1977).
prison at age 45 and older demonstrate
Table 5. Cumulative rates of return to prison by age groups
a relatively stable pattern over time,
with between 1% and 2% returning to
Number of years
Age at last release from State prison
Median age of
prison each year. These data indicate
after prison release
18-24
25-34
35-44
45+
All ages
those returning
that the most rapid failures after
1 year
21.8%
12.1%
7.1%
2.1%
14.0%
23.5 years
release occur among the youngest re-
2
34.2
21.3
14.0
3.7
23.4
25.5
leasees. Consequently, the estimate
3
41.1
27.9
18.3
5.7
29.4
26.3
that 14% of those released from prison
4
44.8
32.7
22.4
7.9
33.5
27.2
5
47.8
37.0
26.3
9.7
37.1
27.8
will return within 1 year masks consid-
6
49.4
40.8
30.2
10.8
40.0
28.6
erable variation across the different
7
49.9
42.8
34.0
12.4
41.7
32.4
age groups.
tence but for violating the conditions of
Offense and time to prison return
Table 6. Median time (in months) to prison
return and percent returning in first year
a prior release. Among those admitted
after release by new admission offense
to prison in 1979 with new sentences,
Table 6 shows, by offense, the medi-
(in 1979)
first-timers were estimated to be
an time to prison return for recidivists
Percent re-
40.6% of the total; nonavertable
Median
who received sentences for new crimes
months
turning in
recidivists were 34.5%; and avertable
(excluding those returned as parole vio-
New admission
to prison
first year
recidivists were 24.9% (table 7).
lators only). Estimated median return
offense
return
after release
times for those committing new offen-
Violent
27.9
24.2%
Table 8 provides the admission of-
ses of burglary (19.7 months), auto
Murder
38.9
17.2
fense distribution for those entering
theft (20.3 months), and robbery (21.1
Rape/sexual assault
28.6
15.1
prison in 1979 with new crimes only
months) were the most rapid rates of
Robbery
21.1
29.4
(excluding conditional release violators)
Assault
32.1
22.3
prison reentry. By contrast, median
by the three admission types. (Because
prison return times for those commit-
Property
21.9
26.4
some inmates were convicted of more
ting murder (38.9 months), drug
Burglary
19.7
30.1
Auto theft
20.3
29.8
than one crime, there are more admis-
offenses (37.0 months), and assault
Forgery/fraud/
sion offenses-200,189-than persons
(32.1 months) were the longest.
embezzlement
27.6
21.7
admitted with new offenses-145,993.)
Larceny
24.9
23.3
As the table illustrates, an estimated
Stolen property
27.7
24.9
Table 6 also shows the proportion of
24.4% of the admission offenses were
those returning to prison within 20
Drugs
37.0
21.5
committed by avertable recidivists,
years who do so in the first year after
Public order/other
27.6
23.5
including 20.3% of the violent offenses
release for each offense type. Those
All crimes
26.0ᵇ
25.1°
and 27.9% of the property offenses.
committing new offenses of burglary,
The proportion of violent crimes com-
Note: Excludes those admitted as conditional
auto theft, and robbery have the high-
release violators without new sentences.
mitted by avertable recidivists was
est proportions of first-year failures.
a Percent of all those returning over 20
highest for assault (23.2%) and robbery
years who return in first year after release.
(22.2%). With respect to property
b The median time to prison return and the
crimes, the avertable recidivists were
Prison entry and prior sentence
proportion returning in the first year after
estimated to account for 28.3% of the
release are different from tables 3, 4,
and 6 because conditional release violators
burglaries, 28.2% of the auto thefts,
Another way to examine recidivism
without new offenses have been excluded.
30.3% of the forgery/fraud/embezzle-
is to distinguish recidivists who entered
Conditional release violators had a median
ment offenses, 27.1% of the larcenies,
time to prison return of 12.6 months; the
prison in 1979 who would still have been
effect of this group would be to decrease
and 30.8% of the stolen property
incarcerated at the time of their ad-
the median (to 22.4 months) and increase
offenses.
mission had they fully served the maxi-
the percent returning in the first year
mum term of their last confinement
(to 28.7%).
Table 8 also shows that first-timers
sentence (whether in a prison, jail, or
are overrepresented (i.e., they repre-
juvenile facility). Those whose prior
Figure 2 illustrates the estimated
sent a larger proportion of a particular
sentence would have extended beyond
distribution of avertable recidivists,
offense category than of all admissions)
their 1979 admission date are referred
nonavertable recidivists, and first-time
for violent crimes such as murder, rape,
to as "avertable recidivists." By con-
admissions of males entering State pris-
and robbery. By contrast, the two re-
trast, those whose 1979 admission to
ons in 1979. First-timers constituted
cidivist groups are overrepresented for
prison would not have been affected by
an estimated 38.7% of those entering
property offenses. The recidivists
their prior confinement sentence are
prison in 1979; nonavertable recidivists
represent an estimated 59.4% of the
called "nonavertable recidivists."
were an additional 33.2%; and avertable
admissions with new offenses but
Those who had never received a prior
recidivists were 28.2% of admissions.
account for 67.3% of the burglaries,
confinement sentence are defined as
Thus, about 46% (28.2%/ 61.3%) of the
67.4% of the auto thefts, and 70.8% of
"first-timers."
recidivists entering prison in 1979
the forgery/fraud/embezzlements.
would not have been free to commit
their most recent offense if they had
These data suggest the importance
Males admitted to prison
served their entire prior sentence to
of both the seriousness of the current
in 1979
153,465
100.0%
confinement. Some of the recidivists
offense and the prior criminal record in
returned to prison not with a new sen-
Prior confinement
the imprisonment decisions of courts.
history
Yes
No
94,134
59,331
Table 7. Distribution of 1979 admission types with and without new sentences
61.3%
38.7%
Admission types
Non-
Avertable by prior
avertable
Avertable
confinement sentence
Yes*
No
No
New sentence status
recidivists
recidivists
First-timers
Total
43,235
50,899
59,331
28.2%
33.2%
38.7%
Number entering in 1979
50,899
43,235
59,331
153,465
*Includes 2,395 offenders admitted
Without sentences for new crimes
549
6,923
0
7,472
with prior life or death sentences
With sentences for new crimes
50,350
36,312
59,331
145,993
Percent of total with new sentences
34.5%
24.9%
40.6%
100.0%
Figure 2
4
For those with no prior record, it is
Table 8. Offense distribution of 1979 admissions with new sentences by admission type
generally the most serious offenses that
result in imprisonment. Conversely, for
Admission types
those with extensive criminal histories,
Non-
a less serious offense may be adjudged
avertable
Avertable
First-
Number of
Offense
recidivists
recidivists
timers
Total
offenses
imprisonable. Thus the likelihood of
going to prison is related to both the
Percent of conviction offenses accounted for by each admission type
seriousness of the current offense and
All crimes
34.8%
24.4%
40.8%
100%
200,189
prior record and is consistent with the
Violent
32.4
20.3
47.4*
100
79,391
theory of retributive social debt 3 justice
Murder/manslaughter
27.1
15.7
57.2*
100
7,469
(see Boland and Wilson, 1978).
Rape/sexual assault
24.9
18.7
56.4*
100
10,300
Robbery
32.5
22.2
45.3*
100
35,331
Assault
40.3*
23.2
36.5
100
17,020
The prevalence of violence among
Other violent
29.9
12.9
57.2*
100
9,271
those entering prison
Property
38.4*
27.9*
33.7
100
84,169
Burglary
39.0*
28.3*
32.7
100
40,381
The above data might suggest that
Auto theft
39.2*
28.2*
32.6
100
6,740
recidivists mainly commit property
Forgery/fraud/embezziement
40.5*
30.3*
29.2
100
10,691
offenses. Indeed, as table 9 shows,
Larceny
34.9*
27.1*
38.0
100
17,095
Stolen property
35.9*
30.8*
33.2
100
5,002
55.9% of the nonavertable recidivists
Other property
42.5*
18.0
39.5
100
4,260
and 59.5% of the avertable recidivists
Drugs
30.4
24.3
45.2*
100
17,634
entered prison in 1979 for a nonviolent
Public order/other
32.9
26.3*
40.8
100
18,995
crime. If, however, offenses associated
with prior incarcerations are also con-
NOTE: As shown in table 7, nonavertable
a Excludes 7,472 revoked conditional release
sidered, then the prevalence of violence
offenders are 34.5% of the admissions with
violators.
new crimes, avertable offenders are 24.9%,
b Includes attempted murder.
among the two recidivist groups rises to
e
and first-time offenders are 40.6%. Items
The number of offenses exceeds the num-
more than a majority. As table 9
marked with an asterisk on this table indicate
ber of offenders because some offenders
shows, an estimated 56.8% of the non-
where an admission type is overrepresented
have more than one conviction offense.
avertable recidivists and 53.7% of the
for a particular offense relative to their
The number of offenders with new crimes
was 145,993.
avertable recidivists have been incar-
distribution among all admissions.
cerated for a violent offense at some
time over their criminal careers. These
nonavertable recidivists and 28.0% of
tween the avertable and nonavertable
proportions are not significantly dif-
the avertable recidivists reported
recidivists for the nine variables
ferent from the estimated 54.5% of the
regular use of heroin at some time in
considered here. One minor exception
first-timers incarcerated for a violent
the past.
is age. Although the median ages for
offense. These data suggest that
the two recidivist groups are nearly the
recidivists are as likely as first-time
Prior military service also presents
same, a significantly larger fraction of
prison admissions to have committed
an interesting contrast between the two
nonavertables are under 22 years old.
violent crimes. In addition, these data
recidivist groups and the first-timers.
The fact that the two recidivist groups
indicate that violent offenders are
The three groups are equally likely to
are generally similar suggests that it
more numerous in the current prison
have served in the military, but of
would be quite difficult to discriminate
population than is often reported by
those who did serve, recidivists are
between them for the purposes of pros-
studies that fail to consider prior
more likely than first-timers to have
pective prediction.
criminal history.
received an unacceptable discharge or a
sentence to confinement. In fact,
Entry to prison from probation
Comparing recidivists and first-timers
about a quarter of the recidivists who
and parole
served in the military spent some time
Table 10 compares the two recidi-
in military confinement.
As indicated in table 11, an esti-
vist groups and first-timers across nine
mated 41.6% of all those entering State
variables. There are no significant
Although significant differences can
prison in 1979 were on either probation
differences between the recidivists and
be seen between recidivists and first-
or parole for prior offenses at the time
the first-timers with respect to race,
timers with respect to age, military
of their admission. The two categories
educational attainment, marital status,
service record, employment, family
were almost equally divided: 21.1% of
and alcohol use at the time of the
involvement in crime, and drug use,
those entering were on probation and
offense. More substantial differences
there seems to be little difference be-
20.5% were on parole or some other
exist for age at prison admission,
military service, employment record,
Table 9. Prevalence of violence among those entering prison in 1979
family member incarceration history,
and drug use.
Admission types
Nonavertable
Avertable
recidivists
recidivists
First-timers
The recidivists tend to be older than
Percent
Percent
Percent
those entering prison for the first time
of this
of this
of this
Total
in 1979. They are also more likely to
1979 admissions
Number
type
Number
type
Number type
number
have been unemployed at the time of
Total admitted in 1979
50,899
100.0%
43,235
100.0%
59,331
100.0%
153,465
their arrest, to have a family member
Admitted in 1979 for a
who had been incarcerated, and to have
violent offense
22,429
44.1
17,512
40.5
32,339
54.5
72,280
used illegal drugs. Prior use of heroin
Admitted in 1979 for a
was significantly more prevalent among
nonviolent offense, but
the two recidivist groups: 24.2% of the
previously incarcerated
for a violent offense
6,489
12.7
5,698
13.2
-
I
12,187
3 This has been referred to as the theory of
Total incarcerated at some
retributive social debt justice. The theory
time for a violent offense
28,918
56.8
23,210
53.7
32,339
54.5
84,467
predicts that those in prison with the least
criminal history will have the most serious
Note: These data include conditional release
to be the offense(s) for which they were last
offenses and those with the most criminal
violators whose current offense(s) is considered
confined preceding their conditional release.
history will have the least serious ifenses.
5
form of conditional release. This
Table 10. Profile of State prison admissions, 1979, by type of admission
suggests that improved selection for
probation (versus prison) could possibly
Admission types
avert as much crime through incapaci-
Non-
avertable
Avertable
tation as proper selection for parole or
Characteristics
recidivists
recidivists
First-timers
Total
other conditional release. Further
research on the crime rates of proba-
Number of admissions
50,899
43,235
59,331
153,465
tioners and parolees is necessary to
Age at admission (cumulative)
establish this point.
18 years old or less
4.0%
1.2%
5.1%
3.6%
20 or less
16.6
10.4
22.2
17.0
22 or less
29.1
21.5
41.6
31.8
Table 11 also indicates that an
24 or less
40.5
37.0
55.1
45.2
estimated 27.1% of those who entered
26 or less
52.4
49.0
65.3
56.6
prison for the first time in 1979 were
29 or less
65.1
66.1
75.6
69.5
32 or less
74.9
76.4
82.4
78.2
on probation for a prior conviction at
36 or less
83.4
87.0
88.3
86.3
the time of their admission. Thus,
40 or less
90.0
91.8
91.5
91.1
"first-timers" (in terms of admission to
50 or less
96.4
97.7
96.9
96.9
51+
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
prison) are not necessarily "first of-
fenders." This is shown in greater
Median age
25.6 years
26.2 years
23.2 years
24.9 years
detail in table 12. An estimated 59.4%
Race
of the first-timers have at least one
White
50.7%
55.9%
54.7%
53.7%
Black
46.5
41.2
42.6
43.5
prior conviction resulting in a sentence
Other
2.8
2.9
2.7
2.8
to probation; 29.1% have two or more
Education
such prior convictions. In fact, 38.7%
0-6 years
6.0%
4.3%
5.3%
5.2%
of the admissions are serving their first
7-8 years
12.8
12.6
8.3
11.0
confinement sentence, but only 16.1%
9-11 years
51.6
48.0
49.4
49.7
12 years
20.8
23.2
25.0
23.1
of admissions (about 1 in 6 inmates)
More than 12 years
8.7
12.0
12.0
10.9
have no prior convictions.
Median
10.2 years
10.4 years
10.5 years
10.4 years
The recidivists generally have more
Marital status
Married
26.2%
26.1%
25.2%
25.8%
than three times as many prior con-
Widowed/divorced/separated
23.3
24.2
18.5
21.7
victions as the first-timers. Nonavert-
Never married
50.5
49.7
56.3
52.5
able recidivists were estimated to have
Military service
a median of 4.3 prior convictions com-
Percent with military service
22.9%
21.3%
26.8%
24.0%
pared to a median of 4.6 for the avert-
Percent of those serving with undesirable/
able recidivists entering prison in
bad conduct/dishonorable discharges
29.5
23.5
11.6
20.4
Percent of those serving who were
1979. By contrast, first-time admis-
sentenced to confinement in the military
25.9
23.7
10.8
18.8
sions were estimated to have a median
Employed prior to arrest
of 1.3 prior convictions. In fact, nearly
No
28.0%
28.8%
22.5%
26.1%
1 in 10 (9.5%) of the nonavertable re-
Full-time
60.0
61.9
66.8
63.2
cidivists and 1 in 8 (13.8%) of the
Part-time
12.0
9.3
10.7
10.7
avertable recidivists were estimated to
Family member ever incarcerated
40.7%
39.8%
27.3%
35.3%
have more than 10 prior convictions.
Drug user
Ever use heroin regularly
24.2%
28.0%
11.4%
20.3%
Conclusion
Use heroin month before arrest
10.9
13.8
5.5
9.5
Under influence any drug at time
of offense
35.7
37.8
29.1
33.7
The results presented in this study
Under influence heroin at time of offense
7.9
10.4
3.5
6.9
add to the growing body of knowledge
Alcohol use
of the impact of recidivists on crime
Drinking at time of ffense
52.2%
48.8%
49.2%
50.1%
and corrections. An estimated three-
Very drunk at time of offense
(percent of those drinking)
39.3
36.1
33.4
36.1
fifths of those admitted to prison in
1979 had previously served a sentence
of incarceration as a juvenile, adult, or
Table 11. Criminal justice status at time of entry to State prison in 1979
both. Although the recidivists were
more likely than the first-timers to
Admission types
enter prison for a nonviolent offense,
Non-
the prevalence of violence was found tc
avertable
Avertable
Status at admission
recidivists
recidivists
First-timers
Total
be the same for both groups when
criminal histories were taken into
Number of admissions
50,899
43,235
59,331
153,465
consideration. Many of these recid-
Percent of admissions on each type
ivists had long criminal records: about
of supervision
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
half had 4 or more prior sentences to
No supervision
66.7
28.8
72.9
58.4
Probation
25.5
7.8
27.1
21.1
probation, jail, or prison, and 1 in 9 had
Parole/other conditional release
7.3
63.4
I
20.5
more than 10 prior sentences.
a Includes persons admitted as escapees.
Even more striking than these re-
sults is the finding that nearly half of
the recidivists who entered prison in
fenses for which the 1979 inmates were
parole decisions, and the incapacitative
1979 would still have been in prison at
convicted-including 22% of the rob-
effects of imprisonment.
the time of their admission if they had
beries, 23% of the assaults, and 28% of
fully served the maximum term of their
the burglaries.
last confinement sentence. These
"avertable recidivists" were estimated
Findings of this type are directly
to account for a quarter of all the of-
relevant to issues of sentencing policy,
6
Bibliography
Table 12. Prior conviction history at time of entry to State prison in 1979
Admission types
Boland, Barbara, and James Q. Wilson. "Age,
Non-
Crime, and Punishment," Public Interest, #51,
avertable
Avertable
1978, pp. 22-34.
Number of prior convictions
recidivists
recidivists
First-timers
Total
Bureau of Justice Statistics. Prisoners in State and
Federal Institutions, Washington, D.C.: U.S. De-
Number of admissions
50,899
43,235
59,331
153,465
partment of Justice, 1978 to 1983 (forthcoming).
Bureau of Justice Statistics. Prison Admissions
Percent of each admission type
and Releases, 1981, Sept. 1984, NCJ-95043.
with prior convictions
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Cohen, Jacqueline. "Incapacitating Criminals:
No prior convictions
0.0
0.0
40.6
16.1
Recent Research Findings." National Institute of
1 prior conviction
10.1
14.2
30.3
19.2
Justice: Washington, D.C., Dec. 1983.
2
19.1
16.0
15.3
16.8
Dunford, Franklyn W., and Delbert S. Elliott.
3
17.0
13.1
5.3
11.3
"Identifying Career Offenders Using Self-
4
13.6
10.9
2.7
8.6
Reported Data," Journal of Research in Crime
5
8.5
8.6
2.1
6.0
and Delinquency, Vol. 21, #1, Feb. 1984 p. 57-86.
6-10
22.2
23.4
2.6
14.7
Federal Bureau of Investigation. Crime in the
11-20
7.7
11.1
0.8
5.9
United States. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Depart-
21+
1.8
2.7
0.3
1.4
ment of Justice, 1978 to 1983.
Median number of convictions per offender
4.3
4.6
1.3
2.9
Forst, Brian. "Selective Incapacitation: An Idea
Whose Time Has Come?," Federal Probation,
sentences to probation, jail, prison, or
Sept. 1983, pp. 19-23.
NOTE: Prior conviction history is defined as
the sum of all prior juvenile or adult
juvenile facilities.
Gordon, Robert A. "Preventive Sentencing and the
Dangerous Offender," British Journal of
Criminology, Vol. 22, #3, July, 1982, p. 285.
Methodological note
attributed to the fact that this study design
Gottfredson, Stephan D. and Gottfredson, Don M.
equates the 12 months prior to October 31,
"Screening for Risk: A Comparison of Methods,"
Criminal Justice and Behavior, Vol. 7, #3, Sept.
The weighted estimate for the study
1979, with the 12 months of calendar 1979.
1980, pp. 315-330.
sample of 5,357 was 153,465. Census data
Greenberg, David F. "The Incapacitative Effect of
To assess the representative validity of
place the number of males admitted to State
Imprisonment: Some Estimates," Law and Society
the study sample, the self-reported race,
Review, Vol. 9, p. 541, 1975.
prisons during 1979 with sentences longer
than 1 year at 147,957. Because the inmate
age, and offense data of the sample were
Greenwood, Peter W. Selective Incapacitation.
survey estimate included all males admitted
compared to the same data for admissions to
Rand Corporation: Santa Monica, 1982.
(regardless of sentence length), some of the
prison in 1981 derived from official records
Hardt, Robert H. and Peterson-Hardt, Sandra. "On
Determining the Quality of the Delinquency Self-
difference between the two numbers could be
in 33 jurisdictions (1981 is the only year for
Report Method," Journal of Research in Crime
which published data are available; see
accounted for by offenders who were admit-
and Delinquency, Vol. 14, #2, p. 247, 1977.
Prison Admissions and Releases, 1981, Sept.
ted with sentences of less than 1 year.
Hindelang, Michael J., Travis Hirschi, and Joseph
1984, NCJ-95043). Appendix A shows that
G. Weis. Measuring Delinquency. Sage Publica-
Analysis of the survey sample yielded an
the two groups are quite similar in terms of
tions: Beverly Hills, 1981.
estimated 149,628 inmates admitted to pris-
the distributions of age and race (official
Hoffmann, Peter B., and Barbara Stone-
on in 1979 with sentences longer than 1
records often classify Native Americans and
Meierhoefer. "Reporting Recidivism Rates: The
year. This difference of 1,671 between the
Asian/Pacific Islanders as white). Offense
Criterion and Follow-up Issues," Journal of
two measures of prison admissions could be
Criminal Justice, Vol. 8, #1, 1980, pp. 53-60.
distributions, however, are significantly dif-
Hood, Roger, and Richard Sparks. Key Issues in
ferent for the two data sources; the inmate
Criminology. McGraw Hill: New York, 1970.
Appendix A. Comparison of 1979 sample survey
survey reflects a higher proportion of violent
Kantrowitz, Nathan. "How to Shorten the Follow-
admissions to 1981 State prison admissions
offenders. The reasons for such differences
up Period in Parole Studies," Journal of Research
may relate to the representativeness of the
in Crime and Delinquency, Vol. 14, #2, p. 222,
1977.
Sample
Official
33 States for which data were available, the
Kitchener, Howard, Annesley K. Schmidt, and
survey
records
years being compared, or the rules under
Characteristic
1981ª
Daniel Glaser. "How Persistent is Post-Prison
1979
which offenses may have been recoded.
Success," Federal Probation, March 1977.
Number of cases
Langan, Patrick A. "The Prevalence of Imprison-
5,357
109,223
All differences reported as significant in
ment," Bureau of Justice Statistics (forthcoming).
Weighted estimate
153,465
the text were tested at the 90% confidence
Maltz, Michael D., and Richard McCleary. "The
Race, total
100.0%
100.0%
level (1.6 standard errors).
Mathematics of Behavioral Change: Recidivism
White
53.7
55.5
and Construct Validity," Evaluation Quarterly,
Black
43.5
43.5
Sage Publications, Vol. 1, #3, August 1977, pp.
Other
2.8
1.0
421-438.
Marquis, Kent. Quality of Prisoner Self-Reports.
Age, total
100.0%
100.0%
Rand Corporation: Santa Monica, 1982.
17 or less
1.4
1.3
National Academy of Sciences. Deterrence and
18-24
44.0
43.2
Incapacitation: Estimating the Effects of
25-34
37.3
38.9
Criminal Sanctions on Crime Rates. NAS:
35-44
11.3
11.5
Washington, D.C., 1978.
45-54
4.2
3.8
National Academy of Sciences. The Rehabilitation
55+
1.8
1.4
Bureau of Justice Statistics
of Criminal Offenders: Problems and Prospects.
Median age
25
25
Special Reports are prepared prin-
NAS: Washington, D.C., 1979.
Offense distribution total
100.0%
100.0%
cipally by BJS staff under the
Petersilia, Joan, Peter W. Greenwood, and Marvin
Lavin. Criminal Careers of Habitual Felons.
direction of Joseph M. Bessette,
Violent, total
46.4
38.5
Rand Corporation: Santa Monica, 1977.
Murder/manslaughter/
deputy director for data analysis.
Petersilia, Joan, and Peter W. Greenwood.
attempted murder
9.3
7.1
This report was written by
"Mandatory Prison Sentences: Their Projected
Rape/sexual assault
5.5
4.3
Lawrence A. Greenfeld, director
Effects on Crime and Prison Populations," The
Robbery
22.3
18.9
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol.
of the corrections unit, and was
Assault
8.2
6.9
69, #4, p. 604, 1978.
Other
1.1
1.2
edited by Mr. Bessette. Marilyn
Rajek, Dean G., and Maynard L. Erickson.
Property, total
39.9
48.0
Marbrook, publications unit chief,
"Delinquent Careers: A Test of the Career
Burglary
23.2
administered the production, as-
Escalation Model," Criminology, Vol. 20, #1, May
27.2
1982, pp. 5-28
Larceny
5.8
9.0
sisted by Millie J. Baldea, Joyce
Waldo, Gordon-P., and Theodore G. Chiricos. "Work
Auto theit
2.8
1.5
M. Stanford, and Betty Sherman.
Release and Recidivism: An Empirical Evaluation
Forgery/fraud/
embezzlement
5.0
5.9
Patrick A. Langan offered
of a Social Policy," Evaluation Quarterly, Sage
Other
3.1
4.4
valuable comments during the
Publications, Vol. 1, #2, Feb., 1977, pp. 87-108.
Wallerstedt, John F. "Returning to Prison," Bureau
Drugs, total
8.1
7.7
preparation of this report.
of Justice Statistics, NCJ-95700, Nov. 1984.
Public order/other, total
5.6
5.8
Wilkins, Leslie T. Evaluation of Penal Measures.
February 1985, NCJ-96501
Random House: New York, 1969
a From official 1981 records from 33 States.
DOJ-1985-02
U.S. Department of Justice
STATES
Office of the Deputy Attorney General
Associate Deputy Attorney General
Washington, D.C. 20530
March 18, 1985
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Honorable Richard A. Hauser
Deputy Counsel to the President
The White House
FROM:
Roger Clegg RC
Associate Deputy Attorney General
Here are some background materials on Vanguards of
Cleveland V. City of Cleveland and Local No. 93. I have
talked with John Roberts about this.
Attachment
CC: John Roberts
Background on
Vanguards of Cleveland V. City of Cleveland and Local No. 93
Event: On Friday, March 15, 1985, the Department of
Justice filed an amicus brief in support of rehearing en banc
in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. We are challenging the
Sixth Circuit's panel decision upholding a district court's
entry of a consent decree between minority plaintiffs and a
municipal employer, which requires the promotion of one
minority officer for every white officer in supervisory
ranks, as violative of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964. Civil rights groups may criticize us for this action.
I. FACTS: The Vanguards of Cleveland ("Vanguards"), an asso-
ciation of black and Hispanic firefighters em-
ployed by the City of Cleveland, brought an action
on October 23, 1980, challenging the City fire
department's promotion policy as discriminatory.
Shortly thereafter, the parties submitted to the
court a proposed consent decree which contained a
one-to-one quota for the promotion of black and
Hispanic firefighters to the ranks of lieutenant,
captain, battalion chief, and assistant chief.
Despite the objection of nonminority employees,
represented by their Union, to this provision,
the district court adopted the decree as a rea-
sonable remedy in light of the history of past
discrimination. The Union now has submitted
a petition for rehearing en banc by the Sixth
Circuit Court of Appeals.
II. POSITION OF THE UNITED STATES: The United States objects
to the panel majority opinion as contrary to the
Supreme Court's recent decision in Memphis Firefighters
V. Stotts. Stotts precludes the entry of a judicial
decree, whether entered by consent of the parties or
after a full trial, which contains a promotion quota.
III. RELATIONSHIP TO ADMINISTRATION PHILOSOPHY: The dministra-
tion has consistently stated that all governmental
entities must behave in a "colorblind" manner and
must not prefer any person who is not a victim of
discrimination over another on the basis of race,
sex, or national origin. Courts therefore cannot
discriminate against any person of whatever racial
or ethnic group by means of settlement decrees.
- 2 -
IV. ANTICIPATED CRITICISM AND PLANNED DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE RESPONSE:
Criticism: Numerical devices such as goals and
quotas are necessary to correct the effects of
past discrimination. The Justice Department is
interfering and trying to disrupt a voluntary
settlement agreement that was recognized by a
a federal district court and the majority panel
of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals as a
reasonable remedy in light of the previous
discrimination.
Response: Court-ordered quotas and other prefer-
ential devices are illegal and cannot be justified
as a remedy for past discrimination. The Supreme
Court made this clear in the Stotts decision and
their rulings must be followed by the lower federal
courts. The United States will vigorously oppose any
consent decree which results in the violation of
the civil rights of any person.
V. TALKING POINTS:
The Justice Department will continue to strive
to enforce the rights of all persons and to seek
relief for those actually victimized by discrimi-
nation.
Our intervention in this dispute supports the
actual victims of the discriminatory provision
in the proposed consent decree -- the white
firefighters who stand to be denied jobs or
promotions solely on the basis of their skin
color.
This action is fully consistent with our enforce-
ment responsibilities under Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act which guarantees equal treatment
to all employees regardless of their race.
This action is fully consistent with our position
that courts should be required to order settlement
agreements on a "colorblind" basis.
The Court of Appeals' decision is directly
contrary to the Supreme Court's unambiguous
directive that courts are not permitted to
order quota relief.
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of the Deputy Attorney General
March 1, 1985
TO: John Roberts
FROM: Roger Clegg
This should get some press.
P.L. 98-473
LAWS OF 98th CONG.-2nd SESS.
Oct. 12
Sec. 1304
(6) use the mails in the same manner as any other department
or agency of the executive branch.
(d) Notwithstanding the authority granted in this section, the
Board and the Chairman shall not interfere with routine law
enforcement or intelligence decisions of any agency and shall under-
take no activity inconsistent with the authorities and responsibil-
ities of the Director of Central Intelligence under the provisions of
the National Security Act of 1947, as amended, or Executive Order
12333.
(e) The Administrator of the General Services Administration
shall provide to the Board on a reimbursable basis such administra-
tive support services as the Chairman may request.
SEC. 1305. The Chairman shall submit to the Congress, within
nine months after enactment of this Act, and biannually thereafter,
a full and complete report reflecting United States policy with
respect to illegal drug law enforcement, plans proposed for the
implementation of such policy, and, commencing with the submis-
sion of the second report, a full and complete report reflecting
accomplishments with respect to the United States policy and plans
theretofore submitted to the Congress.
SEC. 1306. Title II of the Drug Abuse Prevention, Treatment and
Rehabilitation Act (21 U.S.C. 1112) is amended by adding at the end
of section 201 (21 U.S.C. 1111) a new subsection (d) as follows:
"(d) SUPPORT TO NATIONAL DRUG ENFORCEMENT POLICY BOARD.-
One of the duties of the White House Office of Drug Abuse Policy
shall be to insure coordination between the National Drug Enforce-
ment Policy Board and the health issues associated with drug
abuse.".
SEC. 1307. This chapter and the amendments made by this chapter
shall take effect January 20, 1985.
CHAPTER XIV-VICTIM COMPENSATION AND ASSISTANCE
SEC. 1401. This chapter may be cited as the "Victims of Crime Act
of 1984".
CRIME VICTIMS FUND
SEC. 1402. (a) There is created in the Treasury a separate account
to be known as the Crime Victims Fund (hereinafter in this chapter
referred to as the "Fund").
(b) Except as limited by subsection (c), there shall be deposited in
the Fund-
(1) all fines that are collected from persons convicted of
offenses against the United States except-
(A) fines available for use by the Secretary of the Treas-
ury pursuant to-
(i) section 11(d) of the Endangered Species Act (16
U.S.C. 1540(d)); and
(ii) section 6(d) of the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981
(16 U.S.C. 3375(d)); and
(B) fines to be paid into-
(i) the railroad unemployment insurance account
pursuant to the Railroad Unemployment Insurance
Act (45 U.S.C. 351 et seq.);
(ii) the Postal Service Fund pursuant to sections
2601(a)(2) and 2003 of title 39 of the United States Code
98 STAT 2170
Oct. 12
CONT. APPROP.-CRIME CONTROL ACT
P.L. 98-473
Sec. 1403
and for the purposes set forth in section 404(a)(8) of
such title 39;
(iii) the navigable waters revolving fund pursuant to
section 311 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(33 U.S.C. 1321); and
(iv) county public school funds pursuant to section
3613 of title 18 of the United States Code;
(2) penalty assessments collected under section 3013 of title 18
of the United States Code;
(3) the proceeds of forfeited appearance bonds, bail bonds, and
collateral collected under section 3146 of title 18 of the United
States Code; and
(4) any money ordered to be paid into the Fund under section
3671(c)(2) of title 18 of the United States Code.
(c)(1) If the total deposited in the Fund during a particular fiscal
year reaches the sum of $100 million, the excess over that sum shall
be deposited in the general fund of the Treasury and shall not be a
part of the Fund.
(2) No deposits shall be made in the Fund after September 30,
1988.
(d)(1) Sums deposited in the Fund shall remain in the Fund and be
available for expenditure under this subsection for grants under this
title without fiscal year limitation.
(2) Fifty percent of the total deposited in the Fund during a
particular fiscal year shall be available for grants under section
1403 and fifty percent shall be available for grants under section
1404.
(e) Any sums awarded as part of a grant under this chapter that
remain unspent at the end of a fiscal year in which such grant is
made may be expended for the purpose for which such grant is made
at any time during the next succeeding fiscal year, at the end of
which year any remaining unobligated sums shall be returned to the
general fund of the Treasury.
(f) As used in this section, the term "offenses against the United
States" does not include-
(1) a criminal violation of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice (10 U.S.C. 801 et seq.);
(2) an offense against the laws of the District of Columbia; and
(3) an offense triable by an Indian tribal court or Court of
Indian Offenses.
CRIME VICTIM COMPENSATION
SEC. 1403. (a)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the Attorney
General shall make an annual grant from the Fund to an eligible
crime victim compensation program of 35 percent of the amounts
awarded during the preceding fiscal year, other than amounts
awarded for property damage. A grant under this section shall be
used by such program only for awards of compensation.
(2) If the sums available in the Fund for grants under this section
are insufficient to provide grants of 35 percent as provided in
paragraph (1), the Attorney General shall make, from the sums
available, a grant to each eligible crime victim compensation pro-
gram so that all such programs receive the same percentage of the
amounts awarded by such program during the preceding fiscal year
other than amounts awarded for property damage.
98 STAT. 2171
P.L. 98-473
0
LAWS OF 98th CONG.-2nd SESS.
Oct. 12
Sec. 1403
(b) A crime victim compensation program is an eligible crime
victim compensation program for the purposes of this section if-
(1) such program is operated by a State and offers compensa-
tion to victims of crime and survivors of victims of crime for-
(A) medical expenses attributable to a physical injury
resulting from compensable crime, including expenses for
mental health counseling and care;
(B) loss of wages attributable to a physical injury result-
ing from a compensable crime; and
(C) funeral expenses attributable to a death resulting
from a compensable crime;
(2) such program promotes victim cooperation with the rea-
sonable requests of law enforcement authorities;
(3) such State certifies that grants received under this section
will not be used to supplant State funds otherwise available to
provide crime victim compensation;
i
(4) such program, as to compensable crimes occurring within
to
the State, makes compensation awards to victims who are
nonresidents of the State on the basis of the same criteria used
es
to make awards to victims who are residents of such State;
]
(5) such program provides compensation to victims of crimes
occurring within such State that would be compensable crimes,
but for the fact that such crimes are subject to Federal jurisdic-
tion, on the same basis that such program provides compensa-
tion to victims of compensable crimes; and
(6) such program provides such other information and
assurances related to the purposes of this section as the Attor-
ney General may reasonably require.
(c) A State crime victim compensation program in effect on the
date grants may first be made under this section shall be deemed an
eligible crime victim compensation program for the purposes of this
section until the day after the close of the first regular session of the
legislature of that State that begins after such date.
(d) As used in this section-
(1) the term "property damage" does not include damage to
prosthetic devices or dental devices;
(2) the term "medical expenses" includes, to the extent pro-
vided under the eligible crime victim compensation program,
expenses for dental services and devices and prosthetic devices
and for services rendered in accordance with a method of
healing recognized by the law of the State;
(3) the term "compensable crime" means a crime the victims
of which are eligible for compensation under the eligible crime
victim compensation program; and
(4) the term "State" includes the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any other possession or
territory of the United States.
CRIME VICTIM ASSISTANCE
SEC. 1404. (a)(1) Subject to the availability of money in the Fund,
the Attorney General shall make an annual grant from any portion
of the Fund not used for grants under section 1403 with respect to a
particular fiscal year, and after any deduction under subsection (c),
to the chief executive of each State for the financial support of
eligible crime victim assistance programs.
(2) Such chief executive shall-
98 STAT. 2172
Oct. 12
CONT. APPROP.-CRIME CONTROL ACT
P.L. 98-473
Sec. 1404
(A) certify that priority shall be given to eligible crime victim
assistance programs providing assistance to victims of sexual
assault, spousal abuse, or child abuse;
(B) certify that funds awarded to eligible crime victim assist-
ance programs will not be used to supplant State and local
funds otherwise available for crime victim assistance; and
(C) provide such other information and assurances related to
the purposes of this section as the Attorney General may rea-
sonably require.
(3) The amounts of grants under paragraph (1) shall be-
(A) $100,000 to each State; and
(B) that portion of the then remaining available money to
each State that results from a distribution among the States on
the basis of each State's population in relation to the population
of all States.
(4) If the amount available for grants under paragraph (1) is
insufficient to provide $100,000 to each State, the funds available
shall be distributed equally among the States.
(b)(1) A victim assistance program is an eligible crime victim
assistance program for the purposes of this section if such
program-
(A) is operated by a public agency or a nonprofit organization,
or a combination of such agencies or organizations or of both
such agencies and organizations, and provides services to vic-
tims of crime;
(B) demonstrates-
(i) a record of providing effective services to victims of
crime and financial support from sources other than the
Fund; or
(ii) substantial financial support from sources other than
the Fund;
(C) utilizes volunteers in providing such services, unless and
to the extent the chief executive determines that compelling
reasons exist to waive this requirement;
(D) promotes within the community served coordinated public
and private efforts to aid crime victims; and
(E) assists potential recipients in seeking crime victim com-
pensation benefits.
(2) An eligible crime victim assistance program shall expend sums
received under subsection (a) only for providing services to victims of
crime.
(c)(1) The Attorney General may in any fiscal year deduct from
amounts available under section 1404 an amount not to exceed 5
percent of the amount in the Fund, and may expend the amount so
deducted to provide services to victims of Federal crimes by the
Department of Justice, or reimburse other instrumentalities of the
Federal Government otherwise authorized to provide such services.
(2) The Attorney General shall appoint or designate an official of
the Department of Justice to be the Federal Crime Victim Assist-
ance Administrator (hereinafter in this chapter referred to as the
"Federal Administrator") to exercise the responsibilities of the
Attorney General under this subsection.
(3) The Federal Administrator shall-
(A) be responsible for monitoring compliance with guidelines
for fair treatment of crime victims and witnesses issued under
section 6 of the Victim and Witness Protection Act of 1982
(Public Law 97-291);
98 STAT. 2173
P.L. 98-473
LAWS OF 98th CONG.-2nd SESS.
Oct. 12
Sec. 1404
(B) consult with the heads of Federal law enforcement agen-
cies that have responsibilities affecting victims of Federal
crimes;
(C) coordinate victim services provided by the Federal Govern-
ment with victim services offered by other public agencies and
nonprofit organizations; and
(D) perform such other functions related to the purposes of
this title as the Attorney General may assign.
(4) The Attorney General may reimburse other instrumentalities
of the Federal Government and contract for the performance of
functions authorized under this subsection.
(d) As used in this section-
(1) the term "State" includes the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and, except for the purposes of
paragraphs (3)(A) and (4) of subsection (a) of this section, any
other territory or possession of the United States; and
(2) the term "services to victims of crime" includes-
(A) crises intervention services;
(B) providing, in an emergency, transportation to court,
short-term child care services, and temporary housing and
security measures;
(C) assistance in participating in criminal justice proceed-
ings; and
(D) payment of all reasonable costs for a forensic medical
examination of a crime victim, to the extent that such costs
are otherwise not reimbursed or paid;
(3) the term "services to victims of Federal crime" means
services to victims of crime with respect to Federal crime, and
includes—
(A) training of law enforcement personnel in the delivery
of services to victims of Federal crime;
(B) preparation, publication, and distribution of informa-
tional materials-
(i) setting forth services offered to victims of crime;
and
(ii) concerning services to victims of Federal crime for
use by Federal law enforcement personnel; and
(C) salaries of personnel who provide services to victims
of crime, to the extent that such personnel provide such
services;
(4) the term "crises intervention services" means counseling
to provide emotional support in crises arising from the occur-
rence of crime; and
(5) the term "chief executive" includes a person designated by
a chief executive to perform the functions of the chief executive
under this section.
PENALTY ASSESSMENT
SEC. 1405. (a) Chapter 201 of title 18 of the United States Code is
amended by adding at the end the following:
"§ 3013. Special assessment on convicted persons
"(a) The court shall assess on any person convicted of an offense
against the United States-
"(1) in the case of a misdemeanor-
98 STAT. 2174
Oct. 12
CONT. APPROP.-CRIME CONTROL ACT
P.L. 98-473
Sec. 1406
"(A) the amount of $25 if the defendant is an individual;
and
"(B) the amount of $100 if the defendant is a person other
than an individual; and
"(2) in the case of a felony-
"(A) the amount of $50 if the defendant is an individual;
and
"(B) the amount of $200 if the defendant is a person other
than an individual.
"(b) Such amount so assessed shall be collected in the manner that
fines are collected in criminal cases.".
(b) The table of sections for chapter 201 of title 18 of the United
States Code is amended by adding at the end the following:
"3013. Special assessment on convicted persons.".
SPECIAL FORFEITURE OF COLLATERAL PROFITS OF CRIME
SEC. 1406. (a) Title 18 of the United States Code is amended by
adding after chapter 231 the following:
"CHAPTER 232-SPECIAL FORFEITURE OF
COLLATERAL PROFITS OF CRIME
"Sec.
"3671. Order of special forfeiture.
"3672. Notice to victims of order of special forfeiture.
"§ 3671. Order of special forfeiture
"(a) Upon the motion of the United States attorney made at any
time after conviction of a defendant for an offense against the
United States resulting in physical harm to an individual, and after
notice to any interested party, the court shall, if the court deter-
mines that the interest of justice or an order of restitution under
chapter 227 or 231 of this title SO requires, order such defendant to
forfeit all or any part of proceeds received or to be received by that
defendant, or a transferee of that defendant, from a contract relat-
ing to a depiction of such crime in a movie, book, newspaper,
magazine, radio or television production, or live entertainment of
any kind, or an expression of that defendant's thoughts, opinions, or
emotions regarding such crime.
"(b) An order issued under subsection (a) of this section shall
require that the person with whom the defendant contracts pay to
the Attorney General any proceeds due the defendant under such
contract.
"(c)(1) Proceeds paid to the Attorney General under this section
shall be retained in escrow in the Crime Victims Fund in the
Treasury by the Attorney General for five years after the date of an
order under this section, but during that five year period may-
"(A) be levied upon to satisfy-
"(i) a money judgment rendered by a United States dis-
trict court in favor of a victim of an offense for which such
defendant has been convicted, or a legal representative of
such victim; and
"(ii) a fine imposed by a court of the United States; and
"(B) if ordered by the court in the interest of justice, be used
to-
9A U.S.Cong.News '84-12
98 STAT. 2175
P.L. 98-473
LAWS OF 98th CONG.-2nd SESS.
Oct. 12
Sec. 1406
"(i) satisfy a money judgment rendered in any court in
favor of a victim of any offense for which such defendant
has been convicted, or a legal representative of such victim;
and
"(ii) pay for legal representation of the defendant in
matters arising from the offense for which such defendant
has been convicted, but no more than 20 percent of the total
proceeds may be so used.
"(2) The court shall direct the disposition of all such proceeds in
the possession of the Attorney General at the end of such five years
and may require that all or any part of such proceeds be released
from escrow and paid into the Crime Victims Fund in the Treasury.
"(d) As used in this section, the term 'interested party' includes
the defendant and any transferee of proceeds due the defendant
under the contract, the person with whom the defendant has con-
tracted, and any person physically harmed as a result of the offense
for which the defendant has been convicted.
"§ 3672. Notice to victims of order of special forfeiture
"The United States attorney shall, within thirty days after the
imposition of an order under this chapter and at such other times as
the Attorney General may require, publish in a newspaper of gen-
eral circulation in the district in which the offense for which a
defendant was convicted occurred, a notice that states-
"(1) the name of, and other identifying information about, the
defendant;
"(2) the offense for which the defendant was convicted; and
"(3) that the court has ordered a special forfeiture of certain
proceeds that may be used to satisfy a judgment obtained
against the defendant by a victim of an offense for which the
defendant has been convicted.".
(b) The table of chapters for part II of title 18 of the United States
Code is amended by adding after the item for chapter 231 the
following:
"232. Special forfeiture of collateral profits of crime.".
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS
SEC. 1407. (a) The Attorney General may establish such rules,
regulations, guidelines, and procedures as are necessary to carry out
any function of the Attorney General under this chapter and may
delegate to any officer or employee of the Department of Justice any
such function as the Attorney General deems appropriate.
(b) Each recipient of sums under this chapter shall keep such
records as the Attorney General shall prescribe, including records
that fully disclose the amount and disposition by such recipient of
such sums, the total cost of the undertaking for which such sums are
used, and that portion of the cost of the undertaking supplied by
other sources, and such other records as will facilitate an effective
audit.
(c) The Attorney General or any duly authorized representative of
the Attorney General shall have access, for purpose of audit and
examination, to any books, documents, papers, and records of the
recipient of sums under this chapter that, in the opinion of the
Attorney General or any duly authorized representative of
98 STAT. 2176
12
Oct. 12 CONT. APPROP.-CRIME CONTROL ACT
P.L. 98-473
Sec. 1408
in
the Attorney General, may be related to the expenditure of funds
dant
received under this chapter.
(d) Except as otherwise provided by Federal law, no officer or
employee of the Federal Government, and no recipient of sums
in
under this chapter, shall use or reveal any research or statistical
information furnished under this chapter by any person and identi-
fiable to any specific private person for any purpose other than the
purpose for which such information was obtained in accordance
in
with this chapter. Such information, and any copy of such informa-
tion, shall be immune from legal process and shall not, without the
consent of the person furnishing such information, be admitted as
evidence or used for any purpose in any action, suit, or other
judicial, legislative, or administrative proceeding.
(e) No person shall on the ground of race, color, religion, national
origin, handicap, or sex be excluded from participation in, denied
the benefits of, subjected to discrimination under, or denied employ-
ment in connection with, any undertaking funded in whole or in
part with sums made available under this chapter.
(f) If, after reasonable notice and opportunity for a hearing on the
he
record, the Attorney General finds that a State has failed to comply
as
substantially with any provision of this chapter or a rule, regula-
tion, guideline, or procedure issued under this chapter, or an appli-
a
cation submitted in accordance with this chapter or the provisions of
any other applicable law, the Attorney General shall-
(1) terminate payments to such State;
(2) suspend payments to such. State until the Attorney
General is satisfied that such noncompliance has ended; or
in
(3) take such other action as the Attorney General deems
appropriate.
(h) The Attorney General shall, no later than December 31, 1987,
report to the President and to the Congress on the revenue derived
from each source described in section 1302 and on the effectiveness
of the activities supported under this chapter. The Attorney General
may include in such report recommendations for legislation to
improve this chapter.
PAROLE PROCEEDING AMENDMENTS
SEC. 1408. (a) Section 4207 of title 18 of the United States Code is
amended-
(1) by striking out "and" at the end of paragraph (4); and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following new
paragraph:
"(5) a statement, which may be presented orally or otherwise,
by any victim of the offense for which the prisoner is impris-
oned about the financial, social, psychological, and emotional
harm done to, or loss suffered by such victim; and".
(b) Section 6(a) of the Victim and Witness Protection Act of 1982 is
amended-
(1) in the catchline of paragraph (4), by striking out "Major";
(2) in paragraph (4), by striking out "if possible, of judicial
proceedings relating to their case, including-" and inserting in
lieu thereof "if possible, of-"; and
(3) in subparagraph (D) of paragraph (4)-
(A) by inserting "and punishment" after "prosecution";
and
98 STAT. 2177
P.L. 98-473
LAWS OF 98th CONG.-2nd SESS.
Oct. 12
Oct. 12
Sec. 1408
(B) by inserting "a hearing to determine a parole release
"(c) All
date and" after "imposed,".
dies that
(c) Section 4215 of title 18 of the United States Code is amended—
shall be a)
(1) SO that the heading of such section reads as follows:
tion unde
"§ 4215. Appeal";
proof, by :
defense.
(2) in subsection (a)-
"(d) For
(A) in the first sentence-
"(1)
(i) by striking out "have the decision reconsidered"
and inserting in lieu thereof "appeal such decision";
and
(ii) by striking out "regional commissioner" and
inserting in lieu thereof "National Appeal Board"; and
(B) by striking out the second sentence; and
(3) in subsection (b), by striking out the first sentence.
(d) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 311 of title 18
of the United States Code is amended so that the item relating to
section 4215 reads as follows:
"4215. Appeal.".
EFFECTIVE DATES
S
SEC. 1409. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), this chapter and
V
the amendments made by this chapter shall take effect thirty days
b
after the date of enactment of this joint resolution.
but si
(b) Sections 1402, 1403, 1404, and 1407 of this chapter shall take
conne
effect on October 1, 1984.
produ
quest
CONFORMING AMENDMENT
of go
SEC. 1410. Section 3150(a) of title 18 U.S.C. is amended by striking
of the
out "the general fund of".
"(2
dispo
CHAPTER XV-TRADEMARK COUNTERFEITING
make
or dis
SEC. 1501. This chapter may be cited as the "Trademark Counter-
"(3
feiting Act of 1984".
provi
TITLE 18 AMENDMENT
in co
tiona
SEC. 1502. (a) Chapter 113 of title 18 of the United States Code is
1946
amended by adding at the end the following:
"(4
'An
"§ 2320. Trafficking in counterfeit goods or services
appr
"(a) Whoever intentionally traffics or attempts to traffic in goods
(b) The
or services and knowingly uses a counterfeit mark on or in connec-
of the U
tion with such goods or services shall, if an individual, be fined not
following
more than $250,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both,
and, if a person other than an individual, be fined not more than
"2320. Traf
$1,000,000. In the case of an offense by a person under this section
that occurs after that person is convicted of another offense under
this section, the person convicted, if an individual, shall be fined not
more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than fifteen years, or
SEC. 15
both, and if other than an individual, shall be fined not more than
and prot
$5,000,000.
provision
"(b) Upon a determination by a preponderance of the evidence
poses", E
that any articles in the possession of a defendant in a prosecution
(1
under this section bear counterfeit marks, the United States may
obtain an order for the destruction of such articles.
98 STAT. 2178
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of the Deputy Attorney General
/
March 5, 1985
TO: John Roberts
FROM: Roger Clegg
Per our conversation.
Attachment
RIMENT PRO DOMINA JUSTITIA OF STATION
RC-This is public
Department of Justice
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
AAG
TUESDAY, MARCH 5, 1985
202-633-2010
Associate Attorney General D. Lowell Jensen today announced
the arrest of Francesco Pazienza, an Italian businessman
considered by the Italian government as its number one criminal
fugitive.
Pazienza, 38, was arrested by U.S. Customs agents in New York
City yesterday.
Jensen said the defendant, who is wanted on fraud and
corruption charges in Italy, would be taken before a U.S.
magistrate today for arraignment and then would await extradition
to Italy.
The charges against Pazienza are in connection with the
banking fraud scandal at Banco Ambrosian. He has been a fugitive
since April 18, 1983.
"The arrest of Pazienza demonstrates the importance of the
working relationship of the Italian-American Working Group on
Organized Crime and Narcotics Trafficking," said Jensen, who is
Deputy Chairman of the Working Group.
Jensen said that during the meetings of the Working Group in
January, Italian officials emphasized the importance of the
Pazienza case, and Italian and American officials discussed the
appropriate documentation needed to effect speedy extraditions
between the two countries under the new extradition treaty signed
last September.
- 2 -
"This arrest illustrates the intensity of commitment and the
spirit of cooperation expressed by members of the Working Group,
as well as the concrete law enforcement results which can flow
from international cooperative law enforcement arrangements such
as the Italian-American Working Group," Jensen said.
# # # #
U.S. Department of Justice
JUSTICE
bad
Office of the Deputy Attorney General
Associate Deputy Attorney General
Washington, D.C. 20530
March 11, 1985
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Honorable Richard A. Hauser
Deputy Counsel to the President
The White House
FROM:
Roger Clegg RC
Associate Deputy Attorney General
Here are some background materials on our filing in
United States V. District of Columbia Fire Department.
I talked with John Roberts about this case.
CC: John Roberts
Attachment
Background on United States V.
District of Columbia Fire Department
Event: On Monday, March 11, the Department of Justice
filed suit against the District of Columbia Fire Department in
the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
challenging the Department's use of racially preferential
hiring and promotion quotas as violative of Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964. Civil rights groups and the D.C.
government may criticize us for this action.
I. Facts: The quotas were adopted as a result of litigation
brought by minority firefighters challenging the entry level
and promotional selection procedures. The plaintiffs in that
case [Hammon V. Barry] argue that the quotas does not go far
enough to ensure that minorities and women receive employment
opportunities in the Department. We expect to participate in
a hearing in the Hammon case scheduled for Tuesday, March 12.
The collective bargaining agent for the firefighters is also
filing a suit challenging the quotas and the promotion of
five black firefighters over white firefighters solely on
the basis of race.
II. Position of the United States: The United States objected
to the quotas because they grant racial and gender-based
preferences in hiring and promotion to blacks and women who
are not victims of discrimination, in violation of Title VII.
The United States requests that the Fire Department be enjoined
from using such preferences. Instead, the Department should
be required to develop and implement valid and nondiscriminatory
selection procedures, and to use those procedures so as not to
prefer one person over another because of race, sex, or national
origin.
III. Relationship to Administration Philosophy: The
Administration has consistently stated that all governmental
entities must behave in a "colorblind" and "genderblind"
manner, and must not prefer any person, who is not a victim
of discrimination, over another on the basis of race, sex, or
national origin. Governments therefore cannot discriminate
against any person, of whatever racial or ethnic group, by
means of quotas.
IV. Anticipated Criticism and Planned
Department of Justice Response
Criticism: Numerical devices such as "goals" and
quotas are necessary to correct the effects of past
discrimination. The Justice Department is interfering in,
and trying to disrupt, a voluntary effort by the D.C. Fire
Department to atone for such past discrimination.
Response: Past discrimination is not cured by visiting
precisely the same discrimination against innocent third
parties in the form of quotas and other preferential devices.
The United States will vigorously oppose any plan requiring a
government to violate the civil rights of any person, regardless
of whether the government in question has agreed to take such
action. More discrimination is not the way to end discrimination.
We will work with the District to develop an effective nondiscrim-
inatory plan which does not grant preferences on the basis of
race or sex.
V. Talking Points
The Justice Department will continue to strive to
enforce the rights of all Americans, regardless of race, sex,
or national origin.
Our intervention in this dispute is on the side of
victims of discrimination, the white firefighters who are
being denied jobs and promotions solely on the basis of their
skin color.
This action is fully consistent with our enforcement
responsibilities under the Civil Rights Acts, which guarantee
equal treatment to all individuals.