THE CHALLENGE OF CRIME IN A FREE SOCIETY A REPORT BY THE PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION ON LAW ENFORCEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE United States Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. February 1967 ' FOREWORD On July 23, 1965, recognizing the urgency of the Nation's crime problem and the depth of ignorance about it, President Johnson established this Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, through Executive Order 11236. This general report-"The Challenge of Crime in a Free SocietyH--embodies all the major findings we have drawn from our examination of every facet of crime and law enforcement in America. These are summarized in an opening section, and our recommendations are cataloged in a table following chapter 13. I n addition, we are finishing the work on a series of volumes reflecting the detailed and extensive research and analysis underlying this report. These volumes, each dealing with a different major segment of the field of crime and law enforcement, will be issued shortly, as they are completed. We have described, in appendix A, how the Commission went about its work. But one aspect deserves particular note. Our work was, as indeed it should and had to be, in the fullest sense, a joint undertaking. We received the unstinting assistance of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the U.S. Bureau of Prisons, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and every other Federal agency we called on. We had the invaluable assistance of many State, local, and private agencies and groups in this field. We had a t our service the special talent and knowledge of hundreds of expert consultants and advisers who contributed to our work. And, most important, the foundation to our work came from a staff whose energy and endurance was exceeded only by its brilliance and imagination. Eve~y member of this Commission joins me in expressing the warmest gratitude and admiration for James Vorenberg, professor at the Harvard Law School, the Executive Director of the Commission, who directed this extraordinary staff effort, and for each of his colleagues. Nicholas deB. Katzenbach Chairman THE COMMISSION Nicholas deB. Katzenbach, Chairman Genevieve Blatt Charles D. Breitel Kingman Brewster Garrett H. Byrne Thomas J. Cahill Otis Chandler Leon Jaworski Thomas C. Lynch Ross L. Malone James B. Parsons Lewis F. Powell, Jr. William P. Rogers Robert G. Storey Julia D. Stuart Robert F. Wagner Herbert Wechsler Whitney M. Young, Jr. Luther W. Youngdahl THE STAFF Executive Director: James Vorenberg Deputy Director: Henry S. Ruth, Jr. Associate Directors: Gene S. Muehleisen Elmer K. Nelson, Jr Lloyd E. Ohlin Arthur Rosett Assistant Directors: David B. Burnham Bruce J. Terris Samuel G. Chapman ( P o l i c e ) Howard Ohmart (Corrections) Vincent O'Leary (Corrections) Charles H. Rogovin (Organized C r i m e ) Director of Science and Technology Alfred Blumstein William Caldwell Weston R. Campbell, Jr. Gerald M. Caplan Roland Chilton Joseph G. J. Connolly Virginia N. Crawford Elizabeth Bartholet DuBois Paul B. Duruz Robert L. Emrich Floyd Feeney Victor Gioscia Sheldon Krantz Anthony Lapham John L. McCausland Sheila .Ann Mulvihill Albert W. Overby, Jr. Nick Pappas rohn F. . ~ u i n n Robert Rice Gordon D. Rowe Susan Freeman Schapiro Gerald Stem Keith Stubblefield Thelma C. Stevens Martin Timin G. Joseph Vining Richardson White, Jr. Page CONTENTS Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v CHAPTER 1 THE CHALLENGE OF CRIME IN A FREE SOCIETY: INTRODUCTION 1 Toward Understanding and Preventing Crime . . . . . . . 3 America's System of Criminal Justice . . . . . . . . . . . 7 The Foundations of a Crime Control Program . . . . . . . 12 CHAPTER 2 CRIME IN AMERICA 17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Trends in Crime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 The Economic Impact of Crime . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Crime and the Inner City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Characteristics of Offenders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Public Attitudes Towards Crime and Law Enforcement . . . 49 CHAPTER 3 JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND YOUTH CRIME . 55 Facts About Delinquency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 The Amount of Crime The Victims of Crime . . . . . . . 58 58 60 63 66 69 74 The Juvenile Justic.e System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Police: Initial Contact Point With the Juvenile Justice System . The Juvenile Court and Related Agencies . . . . . . . . . . 78 78 79 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 Understanding and Preventing Juvenile Delinquency Focusing Prevention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Slums and Slum Dwellers . . . . . . . . . . . . TheFamily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Youth in the Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . Delinquency and the School . . . . . . . . . . . . Delinquency and Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page CHAPTER 4 THE POLICE 91 . . . . . . . 92 . . . . . . 95 The Community-Service Function of the Police . . . . . . . 97 The Police in the Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 . . . . . 103 The Law Enforcement Function of the Police The Operational Problems of Law Enforcement The Development of Guidelines for Police Action Police Personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 Police Organization. Management and Field Operations . . . 113 Coordination and Pooling of Police Services . . . . . . . . 119 State Commissions on Police Standards . . . . . . . . . . 123 CHAPTER 5 THE COURTS 125 The Constitutional Foundations of the Process . . . . . . . . . Substantive Criminal Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Criminal Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 126 127 The Lower Courts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 . . . . 130 131 133 134 Court Proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 Sentencing Policies and Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 The Initial Stages of a Criminal Case Pretrial Release . . . . . . . . . The Diversion of Cases Before Charge . The Negotiated Plea of Guilty . . . Officers of Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Court Scheduling. Management and Qganization CHAPTER 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 CORRECTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 Community-Based Corrections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 Background of Corrections Today Correctional Institutions Page Correctional Decisionmaking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 Creating Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 CHAPTER 7 ORGANIZED CRIME 187 The Types of Organized Criminal Activities . . . . . . . . 188 Location of Organized Crime Activities . . . . . . . . . . 191 Corruption of the Enforcement and Political Systems . . . . 191 Membership and Organization of Criminal Cartels . . . . . 191 The Nation's Efforts To Control Organized Crime . . . . . 196 A National Strategy Against Organized Crime . . . . . . . 200 CHAPTER 8 NARCOTICS AND DRUG ABUSE 211 The Drugs and Their Regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216 Drug Abuse and Crime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222 Marihuana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224 Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225 Civil Commitment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228 Enforcement Penalties Medical Practice and Addiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230 Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 CHAPTER 9 DRUNKENNESS OFFENSES 233 The Existing System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233 . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 Lines for Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 CHAPTER 10 CONTROL OF FIREARMS . 239 Evaluation of the Existing System Page CHAPTER 11 SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY : 245 Police Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247 Court Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257 CorrectionsOperations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259 . . . . . . . . . . . . 260 . . . . . . . . . . . 261 Criminal Justice Information Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . 266 Scientific and Technological Research and .Development Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269 Reducing Criminal Opportunities Systems Analysis of Criminal Justice CHAPTER 12 RESEARCH-INSTRUMENT REFORM FOR 273 Planning and Organizing Research . . . . . . . . . . . . 274 CHAPTER 13 A NATIONAL STRATEGY . 279. What State and Local Governments Can Do . . . . . . . . 279 Major Lines for State and Local Action . . . . . . . . . . 281 What the Federal Government Can Do . . . . . . . . . . 283 The Commission's Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285 . . . . . . 288 What Citizens and Their Organizations Can Do Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291 Table of Recommendations ..- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293 Additional Views of Individual Commission Members . . . . 302 Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309 A . The Commission and Its Okerations . . . . . . . . . . . . 309 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 326 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327 B . Consultants and Advisers C . Supporting StaJ and Services Picture Credits Index Summary in America-about those who commit it, about those who are its victims, and about what can be done to reduce it. The report is the work of 19 commissioners, 63 staff members, 175 consultants, and hundreds of advisers. The commissioners, staff, consultants, and advisers come from every part of America and represent a broad range of o$nion and profession. I n the process of developing the findings and recommendations of the report the Commission called three national conferences, conducted five national surveys, held hundreds of meetings, and interviewed tens of thousands of persons. The report makes more than 200 specific recomrnendations-concrete steps the Commission believes can lead to a safer and more just society. These recommendations call for a greatly increased effort on the part of the Federal Government, the States, the counties, the cities, civic organizations, religious institutions, business groups, and individual citizens. They call for basic changes in the operations of police, schools, prosecutors, employment agencies, defenders, social workers, prisons, housing authorities, and probation and parole Miters. But the recommendations are more than just a list of new procedures, new .tactics, and new techniques. They are a call for a revolution in the way America thinks about crime. Many Americans take comfort in the view that crime is the vice of a handful of people. This view is inaccurate. I n the United States today, one boy in six is referred to the juvenile court. A Commission survey shows that in 1965 more than two million Americans were received in prisons or juvenile training schools, or placed on probation. Another Commission study suggests that about 40 percent of all male children now living in the United States will be arrested for a nontraffic offeise during their lives. An independent survey of 1,700 persons found that 91 percent of the sample admitted they had committed acts for which they might have received jail or prison sentences. Many Americans also think of crime as a very narrow range of behavior. I t is not. An enormous variety of acts make up the "crime problem." Crime is not just a tough teenager snatching a lady's purse. I t is a professional thief stealing cars "on order." I t is a well-heeled loan shark taking over a previously legitimate business for organized crime. I t is a polite young man who suddenly and inexplicably murders his family. I t is a corporation executive conspiring with competitors to keep prices high. No single formula, no single theory, no single generalization can explain the vast range of behavior called crime. THIS REPORT IS ABOUT CRIME Many Americans think controlling crime is solely the task of the police, the courts, and correction agencies. I n fact, as the Commission's report makes clear, crime cannot be controlled without the interest and participation of schools, businesses, social agencies, private groups, and individual citizens. What, then, is America's experience with crime and how has this experience shaped the Nation's way of living? A new insight into these two questions is furnished by the Commission's National Survey of Criminal Victims. In this survey, the first of its kind conducted on such a scope 10,000 representative American households were asked about their experiences with crime, whether they reported those experiences to the police, and how those experiences affected their lives. An important finding of the survey is that for the Nation as a whole there is far more crime than ever is reported. Burglaries occur about three times more often than they are reported to police. Aggravated assaults and larcenies over $50 occur twice as often as they are reported. There are 50 percent more sobberies than are reported. In some areas, only one-tenth of the total number of certain kinds of crimes arc reported to the police. Seventy-four percent of the neighborhood commercial establishments surveyed do not report to police the thefts committed by their employees. The existence of crime, the talk about crime, the reports of crime, and the fear of crime have eroded the basic quality of life of many Americans. A Commission study conducted in high crime areas of two large cities found that: 43 percent of the respondents say they stay off the streets at night because of their fear of crime. 35 percent say they do not speak to strangers any more because of their fear of crime. 21 percent say they use cars and cabs at night because of their fear of crime. 20 percent say they would like to move to another neighborhood because of their fear of crimc. The findings of the Commission's national survey generally support those of the local surveys. One-third of a representative sample of all Americans say it is unsafe to walk alone at night in their neighborhoods. Slightly more than one-third say they keep firearms in the house for protection against criminals. Twenty-eight percent say they keep watchdogs for the same reason. Under any circumstance, developing an effective response to the problem of crime in America is exceedingly difficult. And because of the changes expected J in the population in the next decade, in years to come it will be more difficult. Young people commit a disproportionate share of crime and the number of young people in our society is growing at a much faster rate than the total population. Although the 15- to 17-vearold age group represents only 5.4 percent bf the population, it accounts for 12.8 percent of all arrests. Fifteen and sixteen year olds have the highest arrest rate in the United States. The problem in the years ahead is dramatically foretold by the fact that 23 percent of the population is 10 or under. Despite the seriousness of the problem today and the increasing challenge in the years ahead, the central conclusion of the Commission is that a significant reduction in crime is possible if the following objectives are vigorously pursued: First, society must seek to prevent crime before it happens by assuring all Americans a stake in the benefits and responsibilities ot American life, by strengthening law enforcement, and by reducing criminal opportunities. Second, society's aim of reducing crime would be better served if the system of criminal justice developed a far broader range of techniques with which to deal with individual offenders. Third, the system of criminal justice must eliminate existing injustices if it is to achieve its ideals and win the respect and cooperation of all citizens. Fourth, the system of criminal justice must attract more people and better people-police, prosecutors, judges, defense attorneys, probation and parole officers, and corrections officials with more knowledge, expertise, initiative, and integrity. Fifth, there must be much more operational and basic research into the problems of crime and criminal administration, by those both within and without the system of criminal justice. Sixth, the police, courts, and correctional agencies must be given substantially greater amounts of money if they are to improve their ability to control crime. Seventh, individumJ&izens, civic and business organizations, religious insfitions, and a! levels - --of govern- and implement must take---responsibili~~orqlanning menting the changes that must be1ajustice system if crime is to be reduced. In tern% of specific recommendations, what do these seven objectives mean? 1. PREVENTING CRIME 0 The prevention of crime covers a wide range of activi- ties: Eliminating social conditions closely associated with crime; improving the ability of the criminal justice system to detect, apprehend, judge, and reintegrate into their communities those who commit crimes; and reducing the situations in which crimes are most likely to be committed. Every effort must be made to strengthen the family, now often shattered by the grinding pressures of urban slums. Slum schools must be given enough resources to make them as good as schools elsewhere and to enable them to compensate for the various handicaps suffered by the slum child-to rescue him from his environment. Present efforts to combat school segregation, and the housing segregation that underlies it, must be continued and expanded. Employment opportunities must be enlarged and young people provided with more effective vocational training and individual job counseling. Programs to create new kinds of jobs-such as probation aides, medical assistants, and teacher helpers-seem particularly promising and should be expanded. The problem of increasing the ability of the police to detect and apprehend criminals is complicated. In one effort to find out how this objective could be achieved, the Commission conducted an analysis of 1,905 crimes reported to the Los Angeles Police Department during a recent month. The study showed the importance of identifying the perpetrator at the scene of the crime. Eighty-six percent of the crimes with named suspects were solved, but only 12 percent of the unnamed suspect crimes were solved. Another finding of the study was that there is a relationship between the speed of response and certainty of apprehension. On the average, response to emergency calls resulting in arrests was 50 percent faster than response to emergency calls not resulting in arrest. On the basis of this finding, and a cost effectiveness study to discover the best means to reduce response time, the Commission recommends an experimental program to develop computer-aided command-and-control systems for large police departments. T o insure the maximum use of such a system, headquarters must have a direct link with every onduty police officer. Because large scale production would result in a substantial reduction of the cost of miniature two-way radios, the Commission recommends that the Federal Government assume leadership in initiating a development program for such equipment and that it consider guaranteeing the sale of the first production lot of perhaps 20,000 units. Two other steps to reduce police response time are recommended : Police callboxes, which are locked and inconspicuous in most cities, should be left open, brightly marked, and designated "public emergency callboxes." The telephone company should develop a single police number for each metropolitan area, and eventually for the entire United States. Improving the effectiveness of law enforcement, however, is much more than just improving police response vii time. For example a study in Washington, D.C., found that courtroom time for a felony defendant who pleads , guilty probably totals less than 1 hour, while the median :time from his initial appearance to his disposition is 4 {months. 'y I n an effort to discover how courts can best speed the process of criminal justice, the known facts about felony cases in Washington were placed in a computer and the operation of the system was simulated. After a number of possible solutions to the problem of delay were tested, it appeared that the addition of a second grand jurywhich, with supporting personnel, would cost less than $50,000 a year-would result in a 25-percent reduction in the time required for the typical felony case to move from initial appearance to trial. The application of such analysis-when combined with the Commission's recommended timetable laying out timespans for each step in the criminal process-should help court systems to ascertain their procedural bottlenecks and develop ways to eliminate them. Another way to prevent crime is to reduce the opportunity to commit it. Many crimes would not be committed, indeed many criminal careers would not begin, if there were fewer opportunities for crime. Auto theft is a good example. According to FBI statistics, the key had been left in the ignition or the ignition had been left unlocked in 42 percent of all stolen cars. Even in those cars taken when the ignition was locked, at least 20 percent were stolen sin~plyby shorting the ignition with such simple devices as paper clips or tinfoil. I n one city, the elimination of the unlocked "off" position on the 1965 Chevrolet resulted in 50 percent fewer of those models being stolen in 1965 than were stolen in 1964. O n the basis of these findings, it appears that an important reduction in auto theft could be achieved simply by installing an ignition system that automatically ejects the key when the engine is turned off. A major reason that it is important to reduce auto theft is that stealing a car is very often the criminal act that starts a boy on a course of lawbreaking. Stricter gun controls also would reduce some kinds of crime. Here, the Commission recommends a strengthening of the Federal law governing the interstate shipment of firearms and enactment of State laws requiring the registration of all handguns, rifles, and shotguns, and prohibiting the sale or ownership of firearms by certain categories of persons-dangerous criminals, habitual drunkards, and drug addicts. After 5 years, the Commission recommends that Congress pass a Federal registration law applying to those States that have not passed their own registration laws. 2. NEW WAYS OF DEALING WITH OFFENDERS O The Commission's second objective-the development of a far broader range of alternatives for dealing with offenders-is based on the belief that, while there are some who must be completely segregated from society, there are many instances in which segregation does more harm than good. Furthermore, by concentrating the resources of the police, the courts, and correctional agencies on the smaller number of offenders who really need them, it should be possible to give all offenders more effective treatment. A specific and important example of this principle is the Commission's recommendation that every community consider establishing a Youth Services Bureau, a community-based center to which juveniles could be referred by the police, the courts, parents, schools, and social agencies for counseling, education, work, or recreation programs and job placement. The Youth Services Bureau-an agency to handle many troubled and troublesome young people outside the criminal system-is needed in part because society has failed to give the juvenile court the resources that would allow it to function as its founders hoped it would. I n a recent survey of juvenile court judges, for example, 83 percent said no psychologist or psychiatrist was available to their courts on a regular basis and one-third said they did not have probation officers or social workers. Even where there are probation officers, the Commission found, the average officer supervises 76 probationers, more than double the recommended caseload. The California Youth Authority for the last 5 years has been conducting a controlled experiment to determine the effectiveness of another kind of alternative treatment program for juveniles. There, after initial screening, convicted juvenile delinquents are assigned on a random basis to either an experimental group or a control group. Those in the experimental group are returned to the community and receive intensive individual counseling, group counseling, group therapy, and family counseling. Those in the control group are assigned to California's regular institutional treatment program. The findings so far: 28 percent of the experimental group have had their paroles revoked, compared with 52 percent in the control group. Furthermore, the community treatment program is less expensive than institutional treatment. T o make community-based treatment possible for both adults and juveniles, the Commission recommends the development of an entirely new kind of correctional institution: located close to population centers; maintaining close relations with schools, employers, and universities; housing as few as 50 inmates; serving as a classification center, as the center for various kinds of community programs and as a port of reentry to the community for those difficult and dangerous offenders who have required treatment in facilities with tighter custody. ... Vlll Such institutions would be useful in the operation of programs-strongly recommended by the Commissionthat permit selected inmates to work or study in the community during the day and return to control at night, and programs that permit long-term inmates to become adjusted to society gradually rather than being discharged directly from maximum security institutions to the streets. Another aspect of the Commission's conviction that different offenders with different problems should be treated in different ways, is its recommendation about the handling of public drunkenness, which, in 1965, ac- counted for one out of every three arrests in America. The great number of these arrests-some 2 millionburdens the police, clogs the lower courts and crowds the penal institutions. The Commission therefore recommends that communities develop civil detoxification units and comprehensive aftercare programs, and that with the development of such programs, drunkenness, not accompanied by other unlawful conduct, should not be a criminal offense. Similarly, the Commission recommends the expanded use of civil commitment for drug addicts. 3. ELIMINATING UNFAIRNESS 0 The third objective is to eliminate injustices so that the system of criminal justice can win the respect and cooperation of all citizens. Our society must give the police, the courts, and correctional agencies the resources and the mandate to provide fair and dignified treatment for all. The Commission found overwhelming evidence of institutional shortcomings in almost every part of the United States. A survey of the lower court operations in a number of large American cities found cramped and noisy courtrooms, undignified and perfunctory procedures, badly trained personnel overwhelmed by enormous caseloads. In short, the Commission found assembly line justice. The Commission found that in at least three States, justices of the peace are paid only if they convict and collect a fee from the defendant, a practice held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court 40 years ago. The Commission found that approximately one-fourth of the 400,000 children detained in 1965-for a variety of causes but including truancy, smoking, and running away from home-were held in adult jails and lockups, often with hardened criminals. In addition to the creation of new kinds of institutions-such as the Youth Services Bureau and the small, community-based correctional centers-the Commission recommends several important procedural changes. I t recommends counsel at various points in the criminal process. For juveniles, the Commission recommends providing counsel whenever coercive action is a possibility. For adults, the Commission recommends providing counsel to any criminal defendant who faces a significant penalty--excluding traffic and similar petty chargesif he cannot afford to provide counsel for himself. In connection with this recommendation, the Commission asks each State to finance regular, statewide assigned counsel and defender systems for the indigent. Counsel also should be provided in parole and probation revocation hearings. Another kind of broad procedural change that the Commission recommends is that every State, county, and local jurisdiction provide judicial officers with sufficient information about individual defendants to permit the release without money bail of those who can be safely released. In addition to eliminating the injustice of holding persons charged with a crime merely because they cannot afford bail, this recommendation also would save a good deal of money. New York City alone, for example, spends approximately $10 million a year holding persons who have not yet been found guilty of any crime. Besides institutional injustices, the Commission found that while the great majority of criminal justice and law enforcement personnel perform their duties with fairness and understanding, even under the most trying circumstances, some take advantage of their official positions and act in a callous, corrupt, or brutal manner. Injustice will not yield to simple solutions. Overcoming it requires a wide variety of remedies including improved methods of selecting personnel, the massive infusion of additional funds, the revamping of existing procedures and the adoption of more effective internal and external controls. The relations between the police and urban poor deserve special mention. Here the Commission recommends that every large department-specially in communities with substantial minority populations-should have community-relations machinery consisting of a headquarters planning and supervising unit and precinct units to carry out recommended programs. Effective citizen advisory committees should be established in minority group neighborhoods. All departments with substantial minority populations should make special efforts to recruit minority group officers and to deploy and promote them fairly. They should have rigorous internal investigation units to examine complaints of misconduct. The Commission believes it is of the utmost importance to insure that complaints of unfair treatment are fairly dealt with. Fair treatment of every individual-fair in fact and also perceived to be fair by those affected-is an essential element of justice and a principal objective of the American criminal justice system. 4. PERSONNEL 0 The fourth objective is that higher levels of knowledge, expertise, initiative, and integrity be achieved by police, judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and correctional authorities so that the system of criminal justice can improve its ability to control crime. The Commission found one obstacle to recruiting better police officers was the standard requirement that all candidates-regardless of qualifications-begin their careers at the lowest level and normally remain at this level from 2 to 5 years before being eligible for promotion. Thus, a college graduate must enter a department at the same rank and pay and perform the same tasks as a person who enters with only a high school diploma or less. The Commission recommends that police departments give up single entry and establish three levels at which candidates may begin their police careers. The Commission calls these three levels the "community service officer," the "police officer," and the "police agent." This division, in addition to providing an entry place for the better educated, also would permit police departments to tap the special knowledge, skills, and understanding of those brought up in the slums. The community service officer would be a uniformed but unarmed member of the police department. Two of his major responsibilities would be to maintain close relations with juveniles in the area where he works and to be especially alert to crime-breeding conditions that other city agencies had not dealt with. Typically, the CSO might be under 21, might not be required to meet conventional education requirements, and might work out of a store-front office. Serving as an apprentice policeman-a substitute for the police cadet-the CSO would work as a member of a team with the police officer and police agent. The police officer would respond to calls for service, perform routine patrol, render emergency services, make preliminary investigations, and enforce traffic regulations. I n order to qualify as a police officer at the present time, a candidate should possess a high school diploma and should demonstrate a capacity for college work. The police agent would do whatever police jobs were most complicated, most sensitive, and most demanding. He might be a specialist in police cornmunity-relations or juvenile delinquency. He might be in uniform patrolling a high-crime neighborhood. He might have staff duties. T o become a police agent would require at least 2 years of college work and preferably a baccalaureate degree in the liberal arts or social scicnces. As an ultimate goal, the Commission recommends that all police personnel with general enforcement powers have baccalaureate degrees. While candidates could enter the ~ o l i c eservice at anv one of the three levels, they also could work their way up through the different categories as they met the basic education and other requirements. I n many jurisdictions there is a critical need for additional police personnel. Studies by the Commission indicate a recruiting need of 50,000 policemen in 1967 just to fill positions already authorized. I n order to increase police effectiveness, additional staff specialists will be required, and when the community service officers are added manpower needs will be even greater. The Commission also recommends that every State establish a commission on police standards to set minimum recruiting and training standards and to provide financial and technical assistance for local police departments. In order to improve the quality of judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys, the Commission recommends a variety of steps: Taking the selection of judges out of partisan politics; the more regular use of seminars, conferences, and institutes to train sitting judges; the establishment of judicial commissions to excuse physically or mentally incapacitated judges from their duties without public humiliation; the general abolition of part-time district attorneys and assistant district attorneys; and a broad range of measures to develop a greatly enlarged and better trained pool of defense attorneys. I n the correctional system there is a critical shortage of probation and parole officers, teachers, caseworkers, vocational instructors, and group workers. The need for major manpower increases in this area was made clear by the findings from the Commissions national corrections survey: Less than 3 percent of all personnel working in local jails and institutions devote their time to treatment and training. CI Eleven States do not offer any kind of probation services for adult misdemeanants, six offer only the barest fragments of such services, and most States offer them on a spotty basis. CI Two-thirds of all State adult felony probationers are in caseloads of over 100 persons. T o meet the requirements of both the correctional agencies and the courts, the Commission has found an immediate need to double the Nation's pool of juvenile probation officers, triple the number of probation officers working with adult felons, and increase sevenfold the number of officers working with misdemcanants. Another area with a critical need for large numbers of expert criminal justice officers is the complcx one of controlling organized crime. Here, the Commission recommends that prosecutors and police in every State and city where organized crime is known to, or may, exist d e v e l o ~swecial organized crime units. 5 . RESEARCH 'I'he fifth objective is that evely s q r r ~ e n tof the systern of criminal justice devote a signifirant 11al.tof its resources for research to irisurc the development of new and effcctive methods of controlling crime. 0 T h e Commission found that little resrarch is being conducted into such rnatters as thc: cconomic impact of crime; the effects on crime of increasing or decreasing criminal sanctions; possible mrthods for improving the cffcctiveness of variou~procedures of the police, courts, and correctional agencies. Organized cri~neis another area in which almost no rescarch has txen conducted. 'I'he C:o~llrnissionfound that the only group with any significant knowledge about this problem was law cnforccment officials. Those in other disciplines social scientists, cxxmomists and lawyers, for example- have not until rercntly considered the I ~ o ~ ~ i b i of l i t r(:s~arch y projects on organized crime. it small fraction of 1 percent of thc crirninal justicc system's total budget is spent on research. This figure could be multiplied ri~anytimes without approaching thc 3 percent industry spimds on rrsearch, ri~uchless thr: 15 percent the Ilrfrnsc llcpartment spc:nds. 'I'hc Commission believes it should be multiplied many times. T h a t research is a powerful forcc: for change in the field of criminal justice perhaps can )lest lx: documented hy the history of the Vera Institute: in New York City. Here the rcsc:arch of a small, nonSo\-c.rnl~~cnt agency has in a veiy short time led to major changes in the bail procedures of approximately 100 citirs, srveral Statcs, and the Federal (;ovt-rnnlent. Because of the in~portanccof research, thc Commission recommends that rr~ajorcriminal justict: agencies--such as State court and corrt:ctional systems and big-city policc departments-orgariizc operational rcsclarch units as integral parts of thrir structures. I n addition, the crirninal justice agencics should welcome thc efforts of scholars and other inder~endrntexperts to understand thtsir problems and o1krations. These agtmcirs cannot uridcl-take needed rcsrarch on their own; they urgently nccd the help of outsiders. 'I'he Commission also rccommcnds the establishment of sc:vrral regional rcwarch institutcs designed to concentrate. a number of diffcrcnt disciplinrs on the problem of crime. I t further rrconimendr thr r~tablishmentof an independent National Clirninal Krsrarch Foundation to stimulate and coordinate research and disseminate its results. One essential rrquircment for resea~chis more com11lcte information about the operation of the crinlinal poems. T o mecXtthis requirement, the Commission recommends the creation of a National Criminal Justicr Statistics Center. 'I'he Ccmter's first re.sponsihility would be to work with thr l:HI, the Children's Ilurcau, the Frdrral Bureau of 13ri50ns,and other ayncics to develop an integrated picturc of the number of rrilllcs reported to police, the nulnhvr of persons a~-rcstc:d,the number of accused persons prosecuted, the number of offenders placed on probation, in prison, and subsequently on parolr. Another major responsibility of the Center would be to continue tht: Cornrnission's initial effort to develop a nelv to rncasure the extent of crime in our society as a supplrrncnt to the FBI's Uniform Crime Krports. The Conlrnision believes that thr Governm m t should he able, to plot the levrls of different kinds of crime in a city or a State as precisely as the Labor r)cpartment and the Census Bureau now plot the rate o f unemployment. Just as unrmploymcnt information is rsscmtial to sound rronomic planning, \o some day may criminal information help official planning in thr systcrn of criminal justice. 6. MONEY Six%h,the policr, the courts, and correctional agenrirs will rcquire substantially more rnoncy if they are to control crime better. 0 Almost all of the specific recommendations made by the Commission will involve increased budgets. Substantially higher salaries rn~lsthe off~,redto attract topflight candidates to thr system of cri~rlinaljustice. For txample, the median annual sala~yfor a patrolman in a large city today is $5,300. l'ypirally, the maximunl salary is somything less than $1,000 above the starting salary. Thc Commission believes thc most important change that can be made in polict: salary scales is to incrcase maxin~umssharply. An FBI agent, for example, starts at $8,421 a year and if he serves long and well cnough can reach $16,905 a year Ivithout being promoted to a s u p r n h r ) - position. The Conlmission is aware that reaching surh ficial Judge ,; Institution p r O Out of b System ~ Chapter 4 The Police ' THE POLICE-some 420,000 people working for approximately 40,000 separate agencies that spend more than $2% billion a year-are the part of the criminal justice system that is in direct daily contact both with crime and with the public. The entire system-courts and corrections as well as the police-is charged with enforcing the law and maintaining order. What is distinctive about the responsibility of the police is that they are charged with performing these functions where all eyes are upon them and where the going is roughest, on the street. Since this is a time of increasing crime, increasing social unrest and increasing public sensitivity to both, it is a time when police work is peculiarly important, complicated, conspicuous, and delicate. "Police work" is a phrase that conjures up in some minds a dramatic contest between a policeman and a criminal in which the party with the stronger arm or the craftier wit prevails. T o be sure, when a particularly desperate or guileful criminal must be hunted down and brought to justice, there are heroic moments in police work. The situations that most policemen deal with most of the time are of quite another order, however. Chapters 2 and 3 of this report have shown that much of American crime, delinquency, and disorder is associated with a complex of social conditions: Poverty, racial antagonism, family breakdown, or the restlessness of young people. During the last 20 years these conditions have been aggravated by such profound social changes as the technological and civil rights revolutions, and the rapid decay of inner cities into densely packed, turbulent slums and ghettos. I t is in the cities that the conditions of life are the worst, that social tensions are the most acute, that riots occur, that crime rates are the highest, that the fear of crime and the demand for effective action against it are the strongest. I t is in the cities that a large proportion of American policemen work and that a large proportion of police money is spent. Though there are 40,000 separate law enforcement agencies in the Nation, 55 of them, the police departments of the cities of more than 250,000 population, employ almost one-third of all police personnel. Policing a city of more than one million population costs $27.31 per resident per year; policing a city of less than 50,000 costs less than one-third as much, or $8.74. A great majority of the situations in which policemen intervene are not, or are not interpreted by the police to be, criminal situations in the sense that they call for arrest with its possible consequences of prosecution, trial, and punishment. This is not to say that the police intervene in these situations mistakenly. Many of them are clear public nuisances that the community wants stopped: Radios blaring or dogs barking at 3 o'clock in the morning, more or less convivial groups obstructing sidewalks, or youths throwing snowballs at passing motorists. Many situations involve people who need help whether they want it or not: Helpless drunks out in freezing weather, runaway boys who refuse to go home, tourists in search of exciting night life in a dangerous neighborhood. Many of them involve conduct that, while unlawful, cannot be prevented or deterred to any great degree by means now at the disposal of the criminal justice system: Using narcotics, prostitution, gambling, alcoholism. Many situations, whether or not they involve unlawful conduct, may be threatening: A sidewalk orator exercising the right of free speech in the midst of a hostile crowd, a midnight street corner gathering of youths whose intentions are questionable, an offer by a belligerent drunk to lick any man in the house. All of these situations could involve the violation of some ordinance or statute. All of them could lead to a serious breach of public order, or for that matter to a serious crime. Much of police work is seeing to it they do not lead to this extreme. This means becoming involved in the most intimate, personal way with the lives and problems of citizens of all kinds. I t is hard to overstate the intimacy of the contact between the police and the community. Policemen deal with people when they are both most threatening and most vulnerable, when they are angry, when they are frightened, when they are desperate, when they are drunk, when they are violent, or when they are ashamed. Every police action can affect in some way someone's dignity, or self-respect, or sense of privacy, or constitutional rights. As a matter of routine policemen become privy to, and make judgments about, secrets that most citizens guard jealously from their closest friends: Relationships between husbands and wives, the misbehavior of children, personal eccentricities, peccadilloes and lapses of all kinds. Very often policemen must physically restrain or subdue unruly citizens: A common kind of situation that illustrates the complexity, delicacy-and frustration--of much police work is the matrimonial dispute, which police experts esti-mate consumes as much time as any other single kind of situation. These family altercations often occur late at night, when the only agency available to people in trouble is the police.- Because they occur late at night, they can disturb the peace of a whole neighborhood. And, of course, they can lead to crime; in fact, they are probably the single &atest cause of homicides. Yet the capacity of the police to deal effectively with such a highly personal matter as conjugal disharmony is, to say the least, limited. ' Arresting one party or both is unlikely to result in either a prosecution or a reconciliation. Removing one of the parties from the scene, an expedient the police often resort to, sometimes by using force, may create temporary peace, but it scarcely solves the problem. An order to see a family counselor in the morning is unenforceable and more likely to be ignored than obeyed. And mediating the difficulty of enraged husbands and wives ad hoc is an activity for which few policemen-or people in any other profession-are qualified by temperament or by training. Again no statistics are available, but there is a strong impression in police circles that intervention in these disputes causes more assaults on policemen than any other kind of encounter. Since police action is so often so personal, it is inevitable that the public is of two minds about the police: Most men both welcome official protection and resent official interference. Upon the way the police perform their duties depends to a large extent which state of mind predominates, whether the police are thought of as protectors or oppressors, as friends or enemies. Yet policemen, who as a rule have been well trained to perform such procedures as searching a person for weapons, transporting a suspect to the stationhouse, taking fingerprints, writing arrest reports, and testifying in court, have received little guidance from legislatures, city administrations, or their own superiors, in handling these intricate, intimate human situations. The organization.of police departments and the training of policemen are focused almost entirely on the apprehension and prosecution of criminals. What a policeman does, orshould do, instead of making an arrest or in order to avoid making an arrest, or in a situation in which he may not make an arrest, is rarely discussed. The peacekeeping and service . activities, which consume the majority of police time, receive too little consideration. Finally, more than public attitudes toward the police and, by extension, toward the law, are influenced by the way any given policeman performs his duties. Every Supreme Court decision that has redefined or limited such important and universal police procedures as search and seizure, inte.rrogation of suspects, amst, and the use of informants has been a decision about the way a specific policeman or group of policemen handled a specific situation. Most of the recent big-city riots were touched off by commonplace street encounters between policemen and citizens. In short, the way any policeman exercises the personal discretion that is an inescapable part of his job can, and occasionally does, have an immediate bearing on the peace and safety of an entire community, or a long-range bearing on the work of all policemen everywhere. THE LAW ENFORGEMENT FUNCTION OF THE POLICE In society's day-to-day efforts to protect its citizens from the suffering, fear, and property loss produced by crime and the threat of crime, the. policeman occupies the front line. I t is he who directly conhnts criminal 4ituations, and it is to him that the public looks for personal safety. The freedom of Americans to walk their streets and be secure in their homes-in fact, to do what they want when they want--depends to a great extent on their policemen. But the fact that the police deal daily with crime does not mean that they have unlimited power to prevent it, or reduce it, or deter it. The police did not create and cannot resolve the social conditions that stimulate crime. They did not start and cannot stop the convulsive social changes that are taking place in America. They do not enact the laws that they are required to enforce, nor do they dispose of the criminals they arrest. The police are only one part of the criminal justice system; the criminal justice system is only one part of the government; and the government is only one part of society. Insofar as crime is a social phenomenon, crime prevention is the responsibility of every part of society. The criminal process is limited to case by case operations, one criminal or one crime at a time. But in order to work effectively, the police should-and all too often do not-recognize crime as a broader phenomenon. They should-and sometimes do-observe its ebbs and flows, accumulate information about what crimes most commonly occur where and when, what kinds of people are most likely to be criminals or victims of crime, or how criminals of different sorts go about their business. However, when that has been said, the fact remains that the mission of the police is not to remove the causes of crime, but to deter crime, and to deal with specific criminals whyever they are, and with specific crimes whenever, wherever and however they occur. Moreover, they perform this mission under a variety of restrictions, some of them within their power to alter, some of them not. THE LEGAL POWERS OF THE POLICE The struggle to maintain a proper balance between effective law enforcement and fairness to individuals pervades the entire criminal justice system. I t is particularly crucial and apparent in police work because, as has been noted, every police action can impinge directly,. a* perhaps hurtfully, on a citizen's freedom of action. To maintain public order, policemen, as 'a matter of routine, issue such orders as "cut down the noise" and "stand back." Such exercise of police power offers no fundamental threat to individual freedom, and is accepted as reasonable by the public and the courts alike. Policemen, as a part of their crime prevention and solution duties, stop citizens on the street, inquire into their business and, if necessary, detain them for brief questioning. The police consider this power to be essential, and they assume that they have the legal right to exercise it. But standard police procedures that are more intrusive have, during the last 30 years, been increasingly circumscribed by court rulings. Personal and property searches and the seizure of the evidence they yield, the use of informants, the arrest of demonstrators, and stationhouse detention and questioning of suspects have been more and more rigorously measured by the courts against the constitutional standards of due process, right to counsel, probable cause, priyilege against self-incrimination, prompt presentment in court, and the rights of free speech and peaceable assembly. Issues that are now under court review, and probably will be for many years to come, are the temporary detention of suspects for questioning on the street, the entry of undercover policemen in suspect premises and electronic surveillance-all of which are practices the police c6nsider essential as either general or specific law enforcement techniques. It is evident that every restriction that is placed on police procedures by the courts-or anyone else -makes deterring or solving crimes more difficult. However, it is also evident that police procedures must be controlled somehow. In 1931, the Wickersham Commission reported that the extraction of confessions through physical Police search youths who crashed road block during riot. brutality was a widespread, almost universal, police practice. During the next several years the Supreme Court issued a number of rulings that excluded such confessions as admissible evidence in court. There can be no doubt that these rulings had much to do with the fact that today the third degree is almost nonexistent. No one can say just how much the third degree helped law enforcement in deterring or solving crimes, but even if it helped considerably few Americans regret its virtual abandonment by the police. America's form of government, its laws and its Constitution, all express the desire to maintain the maximum degree of individual liberty consistent with maintenance of social order. The process of striking this balance is complex and delicate. ' An example is the "probable cause" standard that governs arrest. Probable cause does not insure that no innocent man ever will be arrested, but it does restrict police actions that are arbi, t r a y or discriminatory or intuitive. ,At the same time, it is far less restrictive than the standard that governs conviction in court-"proof beyond a reasonable doubt." If the police had to abide by that standard before making an arrest, law enforcement would be an all but impossible job. In any case, although the courts can review police actions, and do review them more than they once did, most police actions are not so reviewed. Those that do not lead to arrest and prosecution almost never are reviewed for the simple reason that, short of a civil suit governing in-custody interrogation. As noted in JUSagainst the police by a citizen, there is no court machinery tice White's dissentingopinion: for reviewing them. Nevertheless many police officers and citizens believe [The] decision leaves open such questions as whether the that recent judicial interpretations of the Constitution accused was in custody, whether his statements were and various statutes have unduly and inappropriately spontaneous or the product of interrogation, whether the inhibited the work of the police and so have made it accused has eflectively waived his rights, and whsther harder for police to protect the public. Part of this nontestimonial evidence introduced at trial is the fruit of feeling stems, no doubt, from the sharp contrast between statements made during a prohibited interrogation, all of the tense, fast-moving situations in which policemen are which are certain to prove productive of uncertainty durcalled upon to make split-second decisions, and the calm ing investigation and litigation during prosecution **I* * that prevails in the appellate courts while' lawyers and judg& argue the mei& of those decisions, afte; having The majority of the Court did note that the inkerrogasearched lawbooks for apposite precedents. tion methods prescribed in the decision could be replaced Another part of it results from the fact that many of by others devised by legislators and administrators as long those court decisions were made without the needs of law as each accused was apprised of his right to silence and enforcement, and the police policies that are designed afforded continuous opportunity to exercise that sight. to meet those needs, being effectively presented to the Courts always will have the final word as to constitutional court. If judges are to balance accurately law enforce- limitations upon police action, of course. But legislators, ment needs against human rights, the former must be and the police themselves, by not waiting for juclicial articulated. They seldom are. Few legislatures and prodding, can affect the nature and result of court review. police administrators have defined in detail how and They can establish through empirical research what the under what conditions certain police practices are to be needs of law enforcement are, and they can enumerate used. As a result, the courts often must rely exclusively policies and prescribe practices that meet those needs. on intuition and common sense in judging what kinds of If the present trend continues, it is quite likely that ,some police action are reasonable or necessary, even though current investigative practices and procedures thought by their decisions about the actions of one police officer can police to be proper and effective will be held to be unrestrict police activity in the entire Nation. constitutional or subjected to restrictive rules. Whether These problems are illustrated by the recent U.S. this happens will depend in some measure upon whether Supreme Court decision in the case of Miranda v. Ari- the police, first, can develop policies that differentiate zona, which prohibited, by a 5-to-4 decision, the questhe proper from the improper use of particular investitioning of a suspect in custody unless counsel is present, gative practices, and whether, second, they can insure ,or the suspect expressly waives his right to counsel. The through proper supervision that individual officers are majority of the Court, after studying police manuals and held to those policies. In an equally large .measure. textbooks that describe how confessions are best obState legislatures are responsible for establishing police tained, concluded that interrogation in the isolated setAs the New Republic recently observed: "The policy. ting of a police station constituted informal compulsion community acting through its elected representatives to confess. I t concluded further that the need for confessions is overestimated by the police. The minority must decide and state precisely what it wants the police felt that a good many guilty defendants would never to do, not simply admonishing them for disobeying inbe convicted because of the Court's decision voiding distinct or nonexistent commands." police practices, which only 8 years previously had been The Commission feels compelled to comment upon found constitutional by the Court. Neither the majority two investigative practices that are particularly clouded nor the minority had much solid data to go on. Only in controversy and that law enforcement officials believe recently has research commenced to assess the police need are crucial. One of them is wiretapping and electronic for confessions and the possibilities of establishing eavesdropping. The state of the law in this field is so rules under which stationhouse questioning would be thoroughly confused that no policeman, except in States permissible. s he Commission believes that it is too egrly to assess that forbid both practices totally, can be sure about what the effect of the Miranda decision on law enforcement's he is allowed to do. This situation, and the Commisabiiity to secure confessions and to solve crimes. But sion's proposals for clarifying it, are discussed at :some this and other decisions do represent a trend toward length in Chapter 7. The other issue involves the basic police practice of finding by the judiciary that previously permitted police practices are unconstitutionally offensive to the dignity stopping suspects, detaining them for brief questioning and integrity of private citizens. The need for legis- on thk street and, for the policeman's self-protection, lative and administrative policies to guide police through "friskjng" them for weapons. Commission observers of the changing world of permissible activity is pressing. police streetwork in high-crime neighborhoods of some Even such a detailed, prescriptive opinion as Miranda large cities report that 10 percent of those frisked were failed to provide the police with a complete set of rules found to be carrying guns, and another 10 percent were protection from crimes can be struck most properly through this combination of legislative and adrninistrative action. Court review then proceeds under more enlightening circumstances. The Commission notes that the U.S. Supreme Court will review this term at least two cases bearing on police authority to stop persons. Of course, any legislation and administrative rules must be consistent with court rulings on this issue. THE OPERATIONAL PROBLEMS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT PATROL' Plainclothes detectives question suspect. carrying knives. If the police were forbidden to stop persons at the scene of a crime, or in situations that strongly suggest criminality, investigative leads could be lost as persons disappeared into the massive impersonality of an urban environment. Yet police practice must distinguish carefully between legitimate field interrogations and indiscriminate detention and street searches of persons and vehicles. The Commission recommends: State legislatures should enact statutory provisions with respect to the authority of law enforcement officers to stop persons for brief questioning, including specifications of the circumstances and limitations under which stops are permissible. Such authority would cover situations in which, because of the limited knowledge of a policeman just arriving at the scene, there is not sufficient basis for arrest. Specific limitations on the circumstances of a stop, the length of the questioning, and the grounds for a frisk would prevent the kind of misuse of field interrogation that, the Commission study also indicated, occurs today in a substantial number of street incidents in some cities. As discussed in a later section, such statutes should be implemented by the creation by police administrators of specific guidelines for police action on the street. A balance between individual rights and society's need for The heart of the police law enforcement effort is patrol, the movement around an assigned area, on foot or by vehicle, of uniformed policemen. I n practically every city police department at least one-half of the sworn personnel perform their duties in uniform on the street. Patrol officers are not, of course, mere sentries who make their rounds at a fixed pace on a fixed schedI ule. They stop to check buildings, to investigate out-ofthe-way occurrences, to question suspected persons, to converse with citizens familiar with focal events and personalities. If they are motorized, they spend much of their time responding to citizen complaints and the reports of crime that are relayed to them over their radios. There can be no doubt that large numbers of visible policemen are needed on the streets. For example, a ComI mission analysis showed that 61.5 percent of over 9,000 major crimes against the person-including rapes, robberies, and assaults-in Chicago over a 6-month period occurred on the streets or in other public premises. Moreover, there have been a number of demonstrations that increasing the patrol force in an area, through use of special tactical patrols, causes a decline in crimes directed at citizens walking the streets in the heavily patrolled area. The number of crimes committed in the New York subways also declined by 36.1 percent last year after a uniformed transit patrolman was assigned to every train during the late night hours. Although all police experts agree that patrol is an essential police activity, the problem of how many policemen, under what orders and using what techniques, should patrol which beats and when, is a complicated, highly technical one. A principal purpose of patrol is "deterrence" : discouraging people who are inclined to commit crimes from following their' inclinations. Presumably, deterrence would best be served by placing a policeman on every corner. Street crimes would be reduced because of the potential criminal's fear of immkdiate apprehension. Even indoor crimes, such as burgla&, might be lessened by the increased likelihood of detection through a massive police presence. But few Americans would tolerate living under police scrutiny that intense, and in any case few cities could afford to provide it. An adequate number of policemen must be available and must be deployed in the most efficient, effective manner possible. On the theory that the widest patrol coverage is the most deterrent coverage, police have only recently begun to devise systematic ways of obtaining this coverage in the most economical fashion and at the times of day and night when it is most needed. However, resources and talent for proper research have not been devoted in any great extent to discoverifig and analyzing the relationship between police patrol and deterrence. There have been few scientifically controlled experiments concerning deterrent effects of various patrol techniques. One line for such experimenting on the effects of deploying varying numbers of policemen, suggested by the Science and Technology Task Force, is described in chapter 11. There are a multitude of questions about deterrence that the police, in the present state of knowledge, simply cannot answer. One set of questions concerns the extent to which crimes of various kinds can be deterred. Common sense would seem to suggest that crimes like homicide, which are typically committed in moments of high emotion, are less likely to be deterred by fear of arrest and punishment than crimes like burglary, which typically arise from premeditation and calculation. But little or no research into this subject has been done. Another set of questions concerns the extent to which various kinds of people can be deterred from crime. Once again, on the basis of guesswork, it can be maintained that youths are harder to deter than older people because they tend to be more hotheaded, or that people with criminal histories are harder to deter than those who have none because the social stigma of being arrested has already been imposed on them. Once again, there are no data to confirm or refute such theories. A third set of questions concerns where and when what kinds of crimes are most likely to occur. Clearly such knowledge is needed if the police are to look for the right things in the right places at the right times. A number of big-city police departments do have fairly ambitious programs of crime analysis, but they are too recent for meaningful evaluation. The departments must have the aid of representatives of academic disciplines-such as operations analysts, criminologists and other socia1 scientists-before crime trend prediction can be fully developed and usefully related to day to day changes in patrol concentrations and planning for long-range patrol needs. A final set of questions concerns the extent to which different patrol techniques result in arrests and lead to the fear of arrest. There has been a good deal of discussion in police circles about foot patrol versus motor patrol, one-man patrol versus two-man patrol, fixed patrol versus fluid whether or not to use detectives on patrol, and other such technical matters. Lack of knowledge about deterrence has meant that many of these operational patrol decisions have been made on the basis of guesswork or logic, rather than on facts. Perhaps the best proof that much remains to be discovered about police work is that the ratios of policemen per thousand residents in cities of over 500,000 population range from 1.07 to 4.04, while the incidence of reported crime in those cities shows no such gross differences. One part of the explanation for such a disparity is that the size and physical characteristics of a city, its geographic location, and its population mix are factors in determining police needs. However, another part is that there is no consensus among chief administrators about many aspects of the how, what, and when of police patrol. INVESTIGATION When patrol fails to prevent a crime or apprehend the criminal while he is committing it, the police must rely upon investigation. Every sizable department has a corps of investigative specialists-detectives-whose job is to solve crimes by questioning victims, suspects,, and witnesses, by accumulating physical evidence at the scene of the crime, and by tracing stolen property or vehicles associated with the crime. In practically every department the caseloads carried by detectives are too heavy to allow them to follow up thoroughly more .than a small percentage of the cases assigned them. In other words, a great many cases are unsolved by default+r, at least, time will not permit a determination of whether or not they are solvable. The effects of this condition go far beyond lack of redress for many victims of crime. A Commission survey of the reasons citizens give for not reporting crimes to the police shows that the number one reason is the conviction that the police cannot do anything. If this impression of the ineffectiveness of the police is widely held by the public, there is every reason to believe that it is shared by criminal!; and would-be criminals. Under such circumstances, "deterrence" is, to say the least, not operating as well as it might. In the present state of police knowledge and organization many crimes are, in fact, not solvable. ,In the great majority of cases, personal identification by a vic- tim or witness is the only clue to t h e identity of the criminal. The Commission analyzed, 1,905 crimes reported during January of 1966 in Los Angeles, which has a notably well-trained and efficient police department. The police were furnished a suspect's name in 349 of these cases, and 301 were resolved either by arrest or in some other way--either the victim would not -prosecute, subsequent investigation disclosed that the reported crime was not actually a crime, or a prosecutor declined to press the case. Of the 1,375 crimes for which no suspect was named, only 181 cases were cleared.. Since crimes against the person are more likely to be namedsuspect crimes than crimes against property, it is natural that a much higher proportion of them are solved. In 1965, 78 percen,t of reported serious crimes against property were never solved. An increase in the number of investigative personnel would permit a wider search for possible witnesses to a crime and thus increase the number of cases in which suspects are named. However, insufficient manpower is not the only impediment to effective investigation. Scientific crime detection, popular fiction to the contrary notwithstanding, at present is a limited tool. For example, single fingerprints can be used for positive identification when compared to those of a named suspect, but they are of limited utility when there are no suspects. There is no practical method for classifying and searching single latent fingerprints by a manual search of local, State, or national files. Overcoming this.difficulty is a major, long-range technological problem that is discussed in chapter 11. Moreover, there is a shortage of policemen who are skilled in the collection, analysis and preservation of evidence. Only the biggest and best-run departments have personnel with sufficient technical training to search a crime scene effectively and have laboratory facilities to make use of the fruits of such searches. ,By and large, the most productive kinds of criminal investigation today are first, questioning a person who may have some knowledge of the identity of a criminal and, second, tracing stolen property. Successful crime solution also depends on good patrol work. The Los Angeles study, admittedly conducted on a very small scale, bears this out. Nine-tenths of the arrests were made by patrolmen rather than by detectives, although a quarter of the patrolmen's arrests were on the basis of .leads provided by detectives who conducted followup inuestigations. There appears to be a correlation between crime solution and the time it takes for patrol officers to respond to a call. The average response time in cases in whjch arrests were made was 4.1 minutes; in cases in wfii'ch arrests were not made it was 6.3 minutes. The Los Angeles study further shows that almost 36 percent of all arrests were made within one-half hour of the commission of the crime; more than 48 percent were made within.2 hours. What these figures suggest to the Commission is that rapid arrival by the police at the scene of a crime is of sufficient importance that ways should be found 6f getting persons with investigative expertise to crime scenes with the greatest possible rapidity-before crimes, in police terms, are "cold." The new division of police functions that is proposed i n a later section of this chapter has this as one of its aims. THE COMMUNITY-SERVICE FUNCTION O F THE POLICE In the course of inquiring into police activities, the Commission encountered many differences of opinion among police administrators as to whether the primary police responsibility of law enforcement is made easier or more difficult by the many duties other than enforcing the law that policemen ordinarily perform. Policemen, in large numbers, direct and control traffic. Policemen watch the polls on election day, escort important visitors in and out of town, license taxicabs and bicycles, and operate animal shelters. Policemen assist stranded motorists, give directions to travelers, rescue lost children, respond to medical emergencies, help people who have lost their keys unlock their apartments. I t is easy to understand why the police traditionally perform s'uch services. They are services somebody must perform, and policemen, being ever present and mobile, are logical candidates. Since much of a uniformed patrolman's time is spent on simply moving around his beat on preventive patrol, it is natural for the public to believe that he has the time to perform services. Moreover, it is natural to interpret the police role of "protection" as meaning protection not only against crime but against other hazards, accidents or even discomforts of life. Those who believe that policemen should be relieved of all duties not directly relevant to enforcing the law have a number of arguments: That full-time service duties-traffic direction and so forth-are a waste of the time and the skills of people who have been specifically trained for fighting crime; that every minute a patrolman spends off patrol is a minute during which a crime that he might have deterred may be committed; that a patrolman busy on a service call is out of communication with superiors who may want him for an emergency call; that the only way policemen can become the crime specialists they should be is by concentrating exclusively during every working hour on crime; that the routine performance of trivial duties discourages able men from entering police work and drives other able men out of it. The opposing arguments are that traffic officers often do deter crimes or solve them by virtue of their presence and availability; that answering service calls stimulates public esteem for and cooperation with the police, helps familiarize policemen with the community and furnishes investigative leads to alert and intelligent officers; that opportunities to be friendly and useful are psychologically valuable to men who spend much of their time dealing with the seamy side of life. The Commission has had difficulty in analyzing these arguments empirically. Police department records rarely reveal what proportion of working time policemen spend on what activities-preventive patrol, answering service calls, investigating crimes, appearing in court, writing reports, directing traffic and so forth. In the absence of conclusive proof to the contrary, the Commission believes that the performance of many of the nonenforcement duties by the police helps them to control crime, and that radically changing the traditional police role would create more problems than it would solve--including the problem of finding other people to perform the indispensable services the police would be excused from performing. However, the community should take a hard look at such police assignments as running the dog pound, tax collection, licensing, jail duty or chauffeur duty, which are related neither to law enforcement nor to performing essential community services on the street.. Meanwhile, police administrators and other municipal officials should try to arrive at precise answers to such questions as the extent of the contribution to law enforcement made by traffic policemen, the kind of patrolling that demonstrably deters crime, the nature of the services the community demands of its police-in short how policemen should be spending their time. These questions cannot be answered definitively today. The community's study of the role of the poIice should cover additional ground. I t should examine whether it is desirable, or possible, for the police to devote more time than they now generally do to protecting the community against social injustices. Some of these injustices which are criminal, such as loan sharking and consumer frauds, are already police business, although they are more commonly of a sort dealt with by headquarters squads or investigators working for a district attorney than by uniformed patrolmen. Others are not police business, but perhaps should be. Policemen are uniquely situated to observe what is happening in the community. They are in constant contact with the conditions associated with crime. They see in minute detail situations that need to be and can be corrected. If a park is being badly maintained, if a school playground is locked when it is most needed, if garbage goes uncollected, if a landlord fails to repair or heat his building, perhaps the police could make it their business to inform the municipal authoritim of these derelictions. In this way, police would help to represent the cbmmunity in securing services to which it is entitled. In large measure the answer to these questions depends on whether such new activities could be performed without enormous increases in police personnel. In this chapter a recommendation is made for the creation of a new kind of officer, a "community service officer," who rnight be in a position to assume many of these tasks. The Commission is inclined to think that broadening the role of the police in this fashion would not distract the police from law enforcement. On the contrary it would contribute to law enforcement by making the police more active and more valued members of the community. Any course of action that might enhance the community's respect for and sense of identity with the police d ePerves b thorough consideration. In this connection, it appears desirable to consider also how police departments, as well as individual policemen, can broaden their roles. One suggestion that the Commission believes merits attention is the creation of municipal planning boards on which police community-planning experts would sit, along with representatives of other city departments. The work of such city departments as those dealing with housing, parks, welfare, and health are all related to crime; and often such departments have law enforcement functions. Also, community planning is needed since it has a direct bearing on crime, and therefore on police business. The police often have knowledge on such subjects as where and how to build parks, schools, housing, and commercial developments, and as to the effects on the community of urban renewal and the relocation of population-neighborhood conditions to which municipal attention should be directed. The Commission recommends: The police should formally participate in community planning in all cities. THE POLICE I N THE COMMUNITY Carrying out with proper efficiency and discretion the complicated law enforcement and community-service tasks the police are expected to perform is a formidable assignment under the best of circumstances: When the public sympathizes and cooperates with the police. Those circumstances d o exist to a considerable extent in most rural, smalltown and suburban communities, and in many big-city neighborhoods. The chief limitations on police work in those places are the talents and skills of policemen and police administrators, and the funds, equipment, and facilities available to them. In city slums and ghettos, the very neighborhoods that need and want effective policing the most, the situation is quite different. There is much distrust of the police, especially among boys and young men, among the people the police most often deal with. I t is common in those neighborhoods for citizens to fail to report crimes or refuse to cooperate in investigations. Often policemen are sneered at or insulted on the street. S.ometimes they are violently assaulted. Indeed, everyday police encounters in such neighborhoods can set off riots, as many police departments have learned. This is the problem that is usually-and politelyreferred to as "police-community relations." I t is overwhelmingly a problem of the relations between the police and the minority-group community, between the police and Negroes, Puerto Ricans, and Mexican-Americans. I t is as serious as any problem the police have today. Of course, to say that there is much distrust of the police among members of minority groups is not to say that all National Opinion Research Center Poll : members of minority groups distrust the police, or to imply that only members of minority groups distrust the police. A survey of public attitudes toward the police conducted, at the Commission's request, by the National Opinion Research Center shows, naturally enough, a spectrum of opinion. However, the differences in attitude by race are striking. Twenty-three percent of all white people thought that the police were doing an "excellent" job of enforcing the law, while only 15 percent of nonwhites held that view. At the opposite end of the scale, 7 percent of whites thought the police were doing a "poor" job, as contrasted with'l6 percent of nonwhites. Roughly the same kind of response was obtained to a question about how well the police protect citizens. With the questions, "How good a job do the police do on being respectful to people like yourself?" and "Do you think the police around your neighborhood are almost all honest, mostly honest, with a few who are corrupt, or .are they almost all corrupt?", the difference in response by race was more than striking. I t was startling. Sixty-three percent of whites and 30 percent of nonwhites thought the police were "almost all honest." One percent of whites and 10 percent of nonwhites thought the police were "almost all corrupt." I t may be paradoxical that the same people who are most victimized, by crime are most hostile to the palice, but it is not remarkable. I n view of the history of race relations in America and of the ghetto conditions in which most minority-group members live, doubt about American ideals and resentment against authority are to be expected among Negroes, Puerto Ricans, and MexicanAmericans. No doubt the police are condemned by the nature of their work to bear the brunt of such feelings. However, this is nM the heart of the police-community relations problem. Throughout the country minoritygroup residents have grievances not just against society as a whole, but specifically against the police. Commission observers watched policemen work in minority-group neighborhoods in a numberof major cities, and the Commission has studied the findings of those who have made observations in many other cities. These observations indicate that any generalization about how "policemen" Affirmative Answers Do police do "excellent" job? White Non-White Do police do "poor" job? White 7 23% 15% 16% Non-White -- - -- p p - Are police "almost all corrupt"? Are police "almost all honest"? White Non-White % 63% 30.% White -1 % N o n - W h i t e 10% treat "minority-group members," or vice versa, is almost sure to be misleading. For example, one Commission study conducted in a few cities showed that most policemen treat minority-group citizens in a nondiscriminatory manner, and received at least as much cooperation and courtesy from Negroes as from whites. However, Commission studies also showed, and in this finding responsible police officials concur, that too many policemen do misunderstand and are indifferent to minority-group aspirations, attitudes, and customs, and that incidents involving physical or verbal mistreatment of minority-group citizens do occur and do contribute to the resentment against police that some minority-group rpembers feel. C O M M U N I T Y RELATIONS PROGRAMS Citizen hostility toward the police is every bit as disruptive of peace and order, of course, as police indifference to or mistreatment of citizens. I t is so obvious as almost to be a truism that ghetto residents will not obtain the police protection they badly want and need until policemen feel that their presence is welcome and that their problems are understood. However, in the effort to achieve this state of affairs, the duty of taking the initiative clearly devolves on the police, both because they are organized and disciplined and because they are public servants sworn to protect every part of the community. I t is an urgent duty. Social tensions are growing and crime rates are mounting. Police agencies cannot preserve the public peace and control crime unless the public participates more fully than it now does in law enforcement. Bad community feeling does more than create tensions and engender actions against the police that in turn may embitter policemen and trigger irrational responses from them. I t stimulates crime. The Commission believes that a police-community relations program is one of the most important functions of any police department in a community with a substantial minority population. I t believes further that such programs must be organized and administered in accordance with certain principles: 0 A community-relations program is not a publicrelations program to "sell the police image" to the people. I t is not a set of expedients whose purpose is to tranquilize for a time an angry neighborhood by, for example, suddenly promoting a few Negro officers in the wake of a racial disturbance. I t is a long-range, full-scale effort to acquaint the police and the community with each other's problems and to stimulate action aimed at solving those problems. Community relations are not the exclusive business of specialized units, but the business of an entire department from the chief down. Community relations are not exclusively a matter of special programs, but a matter that touches on all aspects of police work. They must play a part in the selection, training, deployment, and promotion of personnel; in the execution of field procedures; in staff policymaking and planning; in the en- forcement of departmental discipline; and in the handling of citizens' complaints. 0 The needs of good community relations and of effective law enforcement will not necessarily be identical at all times. For example, restricting the way field interrogations are carried out could lead, in the short run, to apprehending fewer criminals; imposing harsh penalties on officers who verbally abuse minority-group citizens could temporarily depress departmental morale. Moreover, professionalization of the police has meant, to a considerable extent, improving efficiency by such methods as decreasing the number of officers on foot patrol, reducing the number of precinct stations and insisting that patrol officers spend more time on law enforcement duties and less on maintaining relations with citizens on the street. A result of this has been a lessening of the informal contacts between policemen and citizens. Conflicts of this sort are not easy to resolve, but the attempt must be made. While immediate law enforcement considerations may take precedence, it should be remembered that sound community relations are, in the long run, essential to effective law enforcement. O Improving community relations involves not only instituting programs and changing procedures and practices, but re-examining fundamental attitudes. The police will have to learn to listen patiently and understandingly to people who are openly critical of them or hostile to them, since those people are precisely the ones with whom relations need to be improved. Quite evidently, it is not easy for a man who was brought up to obey the law and to respect law enforcement officers to maintain his poise and equanimity when he is denounced, sneered at, or threatened. However, policemen must do just that if police-citizen relationships on the street are to become person-to-person encounters rather than the black-versuswhite, oppressed-versus-oppressor confrontations they too often are. The police must adapt themselves. to the rapid changes in patterns of behavior that are taking place in America. This is a time when traditional ideas and institutions are being challenged with increasing insistence. The poor want an equal opportunity to earn a share of America's wealth. Minority groups want a final end put to the discrimination they have been subjected to for centuries. Young people, the fastest growing segment of the population, have more freedom than they ever have had. The police must be willing and able to deal understandingly and constructively with these often unsettling, even threatening, changes. The Commission recommends: Police departments in all large communities should have community-relations machinery consisting of a headquarters unit that plans and supervises the department's community-relations programs. I t should also have precinct units, responsible to the precinct commander, that carry out the programs. Community relations must be both a staff and a line function. Such machinery is a matter of the greatest importance in any community that has a substantial minority population. A staff community-relations unit should be commanded by a high-ranking officer who is responsible directly to the chief and who sits on the departmental policymaking board that is proposed later in this chapter. This unit should have a voice in departmental decisions about recruiting, training, promotion, internal discipline, and field operations. I t should be actively involved in departmental planning with respect to demonstrations and riots. I t should represent the department in dealing kith citywide civil rights and minority-group organizations. I t should conduct continuing research into citizens' attitudes toward, or conflicts with, the police, and evaluate the department's performance in the light of its findings. I t should plan and supervise the work of the precinct units, and formulate the community-relations responsibilities and duties of all the department's officers and officials. In short, community-relations work should have the same high status, the same strong support from the chief and the same access to needed resources of manpower, equipment, and money as any other essential police function. According high departmental status to the communityrelations operation, as has been done in San Francisco and a number of other departments, has been an important ingredient in the success of programs in those cities. In the precincts, the units, headed by a lieutenant or, at least, a sergeant, should maintain contacts with neighborhood groups of all kinds, advise the commander about community-relations problems and policies, help individual officers solve problems, conduct rollcall training in community-relations subjects, and provide the headquarters unit with information about neighborhood conditions. An especially important function of precinct units should be to stimulate the organization of neighborhood advisory committees that would meet regularly with precinct officials to discuss problems of conflict between the police and the community. If such subjects as the use of stop-and-frisk or police policies toward juveniles were openly and fully discussed by representatives of the police and the community, much misunderstanding and mutual Citizens' Aduisory Committee Meets With Police Oficers antipathy could be avoided. I t should be possible for the police to consult with community representatives about the most advantageous ways of achieving certain law enforcement objectives. The St. Louis Police Department has been a pioneer in organizing such advisory committees, and a number of other departments have followed its example. The Commission recommends: In each police precinct in a minority-group neighborhood there should be a citizens' advisory committee that meets regularly with police officials to work out solutions to problems of conflict between the police and the community. I t is crucial that the committees be broadly representative of the community as a whole, including those elements who are critical or aggrieved. PERSONNEL CONSIDERATIONS Two general conditions with respect to police personnel must be met before any department can hope to do effective community-relations work. One is that there be a sufficient number of minority-group officers at all levels of activity and authority. The other is that all officers be thoroughly aware of, Bnd trained in, communityrelations problems. They should hold to high standards of fairness and coolness in their behavior toward citizens. Many of the recommendations that will be made in this chapter's sections on "Police Personnel" and "Police Organization, Management, and Field Operations" are specifically designed to achieve these objectives. However, some discussion of the problems is warranted here. A department can show convincingly that it does not practice racial discrimination by recruiting minoritygroup officers, by assigning them fairly to duties of all sorts in all kinds of neighborhoods, and by pursuing promotion policies that are scrupul9usly fair to such officers. If there is not a substantial percentage of Negro officers among the policemen in a Negro neighborhood, many residents will reach the conclusion that the neighborhood is being policed, not for the purpose of maintaining law , and order, but for the purpose of maintaining the ghetto's status quo. They may draw the same conclusion if most or all of a department's Negro officers are assigned to patrol Negro neighborhoods, and are rarely seen in white neighborhoods or performing such duties as criminal investigation or staff work, or teamed in two-man patrols with white officers. And such policies as not entrusting Negro officers with command on the "practical" ground that white officers will not take orders from Negroes will not go unnoticed in the community. These policies are also likely to prove, in the long run, extremely impractical. Inducing qualified young men from minority groups to enter police work is not easy in view of the distrust for the police felt by members of minority groups, and especially by young men. However, it is essential, and some suggestions about how it can be done are made later in this chapter. I n addition to what the police themselves can do, it is vitally important that leaders in the Negro community support and encourage young Negroes to consider police careers. Somewhat easier to achieve is the adjustment of screening and training programs so that community-relations considerations are emphasized in them. Background investigations of and oral interviews with police candidates, and careful scrutiny of recruits during their probationary period, can do much to insure that prejudiced or unstable officers are not added to or retained in the force. Community-relations subjects, such as the psychology of prejudice, the background of the civil rights movement and history of the Negro in the United States should be emphasized in both recruit and inservice training programs. I n addition, the community-relations implications of law enforcement practices like field interrogations and "saturation" patrolling should be stressed in courses dealing with field techniques. All commanding and staff officers should be especially trained in community relations, and the community relations performance of an officer should play a major part in the evaluation of his fitness for promotion. T h e Commission recommends: cities have seen instances of unambiguous physical abuse : officers striking handcuffed suspects, for example. They have heard verbal abuse. They have heard much rudeness. They have reported that officers too seldom use polite forms of address to members of minority groups or juveniles. If officers are under orders to use polite forms of address, they may use them sarcastically or sneeringly. Commission observers have seen a certain amount of harassment in the use of such orders as ''move on" and "break it up." They have found that the enforcement of minor ordinances such as,, for example, those against drinking in public, is sometimes discriminatory. They have found that in some instances highcrime neighborhoods are used as ','punishment" assignments for ineffective or misbehaving officers. These observers also have found that most officers handle their rigorous work with considerable coolness. They have found that there is no pronounced racial pattern in the kind of behavior just described; the most discernible tendency is for officers, regardless of race, to treat "blue collar" citizens, regardless of race, in such a fashion. However, all such behavior is obviously and totally reprehensible, and when it is directed against minority-group citizens it is particularly likely to lead, for qcite obvious reasons, to bitterness in the community. The Commission does not underestimate the provocation that officers must endure in high-crime neighborhoods, nor the physical danger they often run. But as C). W. Wilson, now the Chicago police superintendent, wrote in his book, "Police Administration": T h e oficer * * * must remember that there is n o law against making a policeman angry and that ' h e cannot charge a m a n with offending him. Until the citizen acts overtly i n violation of the law, he should take no action against him, least of all lower himself to the level of the citizen by berating and demeaning h i m i n a loud and angry voice. T h e oficer w h o withstands angry verbal assaults builds his o w n character and raises the standards of the department. I t should be a high-priority objective of all departments in communities with a substantial minority population to recruit minority-group officers, and to deploy and promote them fairly. Every officer in such departments should receive thorough grounding in community-relations subjects. His performance in the field of community relations should be periodically reviewed and evaluated. All responsible police officials subscribe to those views, and departments have regulations prescribing decorous and courteous behavior by its members, although in many departments the regulations are too unspecific. I n many places where such regulations are violated with any frequency, the reason is likely to be an insufficiently effective system of internal discipline. This problem is discussed in more detail later in this chapter. POLICE CONTACTS WITH CITIZENS THE GRIEVANCES OF CITIZENS A community's attitude toward the police is influenced most by the actions of individual officers on the streets. No community-relations or recruiting or training program will avail if courteous and coolheaded conduct by policemen in their contacts with citizens is not enforced. Commission observers in high-crime neighborhoods in several The best way to deal with police misconduct is to prevent it by effective methods of personnel screening, training, and supervision. A department that clearly articulates its community-relations policies and holds its members to them should receive a minimum of complaints from citizens. However, there will always be some citizen complaints, warranted and unwarranted, about treatment by the police. How such complaints should be handled has been the subject of ~ e r h a p sthe fiercest of the many controversies about the police that have raged in recent years. Formal machinery within every police department for the investigation of complaints against police activity or employees is an absolute necessity. I t is also important that the complainant be personally informed of the results of the investigation and the disposition of the complaint. Every large department has machinery of some kind for dealing with charges of misconduct by its members, whether those charges originate inside or outside of the. department. I t typically consists of a board of high-ranking officers or, in some cases, nonsworn departmental officials, that investigates the facts of alleged dereliction and makes a recommendation to the departmental administrator. He properly has the authority and responsibility to take disciplinary action. When this kind of machinery is fully and fairly used it succeeds both in disciplining misbehaving officers and deterring others from misbehaving. If the complainant remains dissatisfied with the disposition of the case, there are other avenues of appeal outside of the police agency: The local prosecutor; the courts; elected officials such as councilmen, or the mayor; the States' attorney general; the U.S. Department of Justice; and various civil rights or human relations commissions. While all of these are traditional institutions of legal redress they are frequently too formal, awesome, or geographically far removed from the often bewildered citizen. Some of them lack the machinery or resources to process grievances. Some can take action only if a criminal law has been violated. But many of the grievances that constitute acts of misconduct will not qualify as a basis for criminal action. In going beyond the established legal procedures, the Commission finds it unreasonable to single out the police as the only agency that should be subject to special scrutiny from the outside. The Commission, therefore, does not recommend the establishment of civilian review boards in jurisdictions where they do not exist, solely to review police conduct. The police are only one of a number of official agencies with whom the public has contact, and in some cases, because they are the most visible and conspicuous representatives of local government, they may be the focus of more attention than they deserve. Incompetence and mistreatment by housing, sanitation, health, and welfare officials can be as injurious to citizens as mistreatment by the police and should be equally subject to public scrutiny. These officials, like policemen, are public servants. In view of the increasing involvement of government officials in the lives of citizens, adequate procedures for the consideration of such individual grievances as citizens may have against such officials are essential to effective government. So far as possible, it is desifable that such procedures be established within the governmental agency involved. T o the extent such procedures are ineffective or fail to inspire general public confidence including the confidence of those who may have legitimate grievances, further recourse is essential. The form that such further recourse should take is dependent on local needs and governmental structure. The Commission recommends: Every jurisdiction should provide. adequate procedures for full and fair processing of all citizen grievances and complaints about the conduct of any public officer or employee. T H E DEVELOPMENT O F GUIDELINES FOR POLICE ACTION I n view of the importance, complexity, and delicacy of police work, it is curious that police administrators have seldom attempted to develop and articulate clear policies aimed at guiding or governing the way policemen exercise their discretion on the street. Many police departments have published "general order" or "duty" or "rules, r e p lations, and procedures" manuals running to several hundred pages. They deal extensively, and quite properly, with the personal conduct of officers on and off duty, with uniform and firearms regulations, with the use of departmental property, with court appearances by officers, with the correct techniques of approaching a building in which a burglary may be in progress. They instruct an officer about taking a suspect into custody and transporting him to the station, or about dealing with sick or injured persons, or about handling stray dogs, or about cooperating with the fire department, or about towing away abandoned automobiles-with, in short, dozens of situations in which policemen commonly, or uncommonly, find themselves. What such manuals almost never discuss are the hard choices policemen must make every day: whether or not to break up a sidewalk gathering, whether or not to intervene in a domestic dispute, whether or not to silence a street-corner speaker, whether or not to stop and frisk, whether or not to arrest. Yet these decisions are the heart of police work. How they are made determines to a large degree the safety of the community, the attitude of the public toward the police and the substance of court rulings on police procedures. No doubt there are several reasons for the failure of the police to set forth consistent law enforcement policies. One is that it is an extremely hard thing to do. For example, defining the amount of objectively based suspicion that justifies a "stop," in such a way that the definition will be of some help to a patrolman on his beat, takes much thought and much expertise: However, it is by no means impossible. The bulletin of the New York State Combined C:ouncil of Law Enforcement Officials affords the patrolman practical guidance for his actions, including examples, factual variables, and guiding principles. I n effect, this carries a New York "stop and frisk" statutory provision into the street situations in which it is ad- ministered. The administrative guidance supplements the general legislative policy. Another reason that law enforcement policies are seldom stated is that many of them would turn out to be, if clearly set forth, highly controversial. For example, if the police announced publicly that nondisorderly drunks would be arrested only if they had no home to go to, they might be accused of discriminatory treatment. Probably the most pervasive reason that the police do not articulate policy formally is that they usually do not realize that they make.policy informally every day. The police are not accustomed to thinking of themselves as employees of an agency that much more often enforces laws administratively than by invoking the formal criminal process through arrest. Yet a decision by a policeman to order a.sidewalk gathering to "break it up," or to take a delinquent youth home rather than arrest him, or to "cool off' a drunk in a precinct lockup rather than formally charge him, is an administrative decision. Not only should policemen be guided by departmental policy in the makinq of such delicate decisions, but the people who will be affected by these decision-the public-have a right to be apprised in advance, rather than ex post facto, what police policy is. The Commission recommends: Police departments should develop and enunciate policies that give police personnel specific guidance for the common situations requiring exercise of police discretion. Policies should cover such matters, among others, as the issuance of orders to citizens regarding their movements or activities, the handling of minor disputes, the safeguarding of the rights of free speech and free assembly, the selection and use of investigative methods, and the decision whether or not to arrest in specific situations involving specific crimes. The issuance of orders to individuals regarding their movements, activities, and whereabouts relates particularly to the common police practice of ordering many street gatherings to "break it up" and "move on." Considerations that might govern the issuance of such orders are the time of day, the amount of disturbance the gathering is causing, whether or not the members are intoxicated, whether or not they are unduly obstructing traffic, and whether or not they are people known to the police as offenders or troublemakers. Also involved are cultural considerations that are more compIex. Some people ordinarily conduct their social lives on the street, particularly if they live in neighborhoods where the housing is dilapidated and overcrowded and where there are few parks or other recreational facilities. Breaking up such groups, rather than contributing to public order, is likely to have the reverse effect. Moreover, formulating and executing policy in this field could make the police more conscious of neighborhood problems and could, therefore, make the police more effective servants of the community. Handling minor disputes is an activity that is regarded as of small importance by most police administrators. Yet it occupies a great deal of the time of many policemen. T o the disputants themselves, who are more often than not law-abiding citizens, the manner in which the police intervene in their affairs is a matter of great importance. Disputes, particularly domestic disputes, as discussed earlier, are a subject about which it would be difficult to formulate policy without first engaging in considerable research. The police should seek to accumulate information about families that cause repeated disturbances, to discover whether certain kinds of disturbances are more likely than others to lead to serious assaults or to homicides, to compile statistics on the typical effects of having one of the parties swear out a coniplaint against the other, to become familiar with the socialservice agencies, if any, to which troubled families can be referred. For the police to mediate, arbitrate or suppress each dispute that they encounter as if it were unique-r as if all disputes were alike--contributes little, in the long run, either to Iaw enforcement or to community service. Chapter 3 has discussed at some length the intimate street relationships between policemen and juveniles. Because juveniles frequent the streets so much, because they are usually in groups, because they are sensitive to real or imagined slights, and because the line between natural and relatively harmless conduct and threatening or injurious behavior is often hard to draw, the police must exercise great discretion in dealing with them. Clear police policies about ways of handling various juvenile situations would be of great help to policemen on the street. There is a trend toward articulating policy about this part of police work. For example, the Chicago Police Department has issued a particularly lucid set of prescriptions for dealing with juveniles. Safeguarding the rights of free speech and free assembly has become in recent years an increasingly important police duty, and one that can, on occasion, divert large numbers of police from patrol Qr, investigative duties. During 1 month in Philadelphia, for example, there were 15 major demonstrations that needed police protection or at least police presence. This figure does not include dozens of street corner meetings and other minor forms of propagandizing or protest-ach of which required the continuous attention of at least one policeman, while it was underway. These demonstrations were either for or against police brutality, a strike of California grape pickers, the Pennsylvania divorce laws, rock and roll music, slum landlords, draft classification examinations, black power, a movie about the Battle of the Bulge, a "rape sentencing" bill, equal rights for homosexuals, low wages at a convalescent home, more post office promotions for Negroes, and the war in Vietnam. Policing demonstrations is a particularly sensitive: job, not only because of the occasional'difficulty in distinguishing between the legitimate exercise of constitutional rights, and trespass or incitement to riot, but because policemen have views of their own about the issues that are being vociferously debated. When spontaneous or Formulation and Execution of Police Policy Identification of need for policy as determined by: Court decisions New legislation Citizen complaints Analysis of crime and social problems Analysis of existing field practices Decision to 'review policy Evaluation of policy based upon: Court decisions New legislation Citizen complaints Analysis of crime and social problems Analysis of existing field practices Referral by Head of Police Department to Planning and Research Unit for study in cooperation with divisions and staff specialists. Execution of policy by field personnel Controlled through supervision and inspection Referral of findings to staff for consideration Promulgation of policy To community through: Published policy statements Neighborhood Advisory Committee meetings To personnel through: Training manual and orders Formulation of policy by . Head of Police Department Consultation by staff with: Chief Political Executive Neighborhood Advisory Committees Prosecution, Court, Corrections, and Juvenile authorities surprise demonstrations take place the policemen on the scene have to decide rapidly whether to protect the demonstrators or to put an end to the demonstration in order to keep order. I n such situations they especially need the guidance of clear policies about which ways of demonstrating are permissible and which are unlawful. The selection of investigative methods is probably the most important field in which police policy is needed. This chapter has already discussed the restrictions that the courts have placed on police practices, due in part to the fact that neither police officials nor legislatures have defined clearly when and how those practices were appropriate. The chapter has also discussed the effects on community relations that can result from police insistence on using certain kinds of aggressive law enforcement techniques in certain neighborhoods. Among police procedures that need definition are surveillance, undercover techniques, the use of informants, the common vice squad practices of giving suspects the opportunity to commit offenses in the presence of policemen, and especially field interrogation. Finally, the police should openly acknowledge that, quite properly, they do not arrest all, or even most, offenders they know of. Among the factors accounting for this exercise of discretion are the volume of offenses and the limited resources of the police, the ambiguity of and the public desire for nonenforcement of many statutes and ordinances, the reluctance of many victims to complain and, most important, an entirely 'proper conviction by policemen that the invocation of criminal sanctions is too drastic a response to many offenses. But while the Commission believes strongly that it is r ~ o tonly appropriate, but necessary, for policemen to exercise discretion about arrests, it also believes that it is both inappropriate and unnecessary for the entire burden of exercising this discretion to be placed on individual policemen in tumultuous situations. I t is incumbent on police departments to define as precisely as possible when arrest is a proper action and when it is not. T H E POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF POLICE POLICYMAKING Some of the advantages the police would gain by taking the responsibility for formulating guidelines are readily apparent and have been indicated above. I t would bring the important street decisions, now made only by patrolmen, up to the level of the chief administrator and his staff, who would formulate policy much in the way a board of directors serves a corporation. This would remove from individual policemen some of the burden of having to make important decisions ad hoc, in a matter of seconds. I t would create a body of standards that would help make the supervision and evaluation of the work of individual policemen consistent. I t would help courts understand the issues at stake when police procedures are challenged and lessen the likelihood of inappropriate judicial restrictions being placed on police work. Police administrators would then have more freedom to meet the changing needs of law enforcement. Other advantages would be less immediate but no less important. A commitment to policymaking by the police would compel them to inquire far more deeply than they have so far into both the social and the technical aspects of law enforcement. I t would force the police to ponder the nature of deterrence and the best ways of achieving it. I t would suggest experiments with various techniques of patrol and investigation, and indicate the kinds of equipment and management systems that might make police work more efficient, including, perhaps, a computerized data bank of policy information that would permit instant response to queries by line officers and their supervisors. Policymaking would result in a codification' of police expertise that could be used in training programs and that would be available to all policemen everywhere. I t would involve the police in the programs of social betterment to which the community as a whole is dedicated. I t would, in short, do much to professionalize police work in the most meaningful sense of the word. Finally, recognition by the police and by the community that policymaking is a legitimate and essential part of thz police function would tend to involve the rest of the community in law enforcement in a more helpful way. Mayors and ci:y councils are nominally possessed of the ultimate responsibility for police work, but it is difficult for them to exercise their powers to influence police policy when that policy is informal and inexplicit. By the same token, prosecutors and judges find it difficult to evaluate how well the police are doing their job and to help them do it better when police policy is unexpressed. Legislatures will be unable to make informed statutory policy in the law enforcement field until the police articulate their problems and their needs. The citizen grievance procedures and the neighborhood advisory committees that have been recommended in this chapter's section on community relations could be helpful to the police in the formulation and evaluation of policy. The Commission has found that a certain kind of isolation from many currents of community life is a serious police problem. The Commission can imagine no better way for the police to end that isolation, which inhibits both Jaw enforcement and service to the community, than by the police taking the responsibility for formulating; policy and discussing it with the community. POLICE PERSONNEL There is impressive evidence that in many cities there are too few policemen. The current police-population ratio of 1.7 policemen per thousand citizens obscures the many, differences from city to city and region to region. Even the big-city ratio of 2.3 per thousand is misleading, for in San Diego there are 1.07 policemen per thousand citizens and in Boston 4.04. There appears to be no correlation between the differing concentrations of police and the amount of crime committed, or the percentage of known crimes solved, in the various cities. of those people whose attitudes toward the law differ from his. Such understanding is not easy to acquire without the kind of broad general.knowledge that higher education imparts, and without such understanding a policeman's response to many of the situations he meets is likely to be impulsive or doctrinaire. Police candidates must be sought in the colleges, and especially among liberal arts and social science students. "Quality" also means personnel who represent all sections of the community that the police serve. I t scarcely needs stating that a college education does not guarantee that its recipient will be able to deal successfully with people whose ways of thought and action are unfamiliar to him. As this chapter has also shown, a lack of understanding of the problems and behavior of minority groups is common to most police departments and is a serious deterrent to effective police work in the often turbulent neighborhoods where those groups are segregated. And the relationship between the police and the community is so personal that every section of the community has a right to expect that its aspirations and problems, its hopes and fears, are fully reflected in its police. A major, and most urgent, step in the direction of improving police-community relations is recruiting more, many more, policemen from minority groups. T h e Commission recommends: There are major obstacles to the recruitment of both Each municipality, and other jurisdiction responsible for kinds of personnel. College graduates are likely to be law enforcement, should carefully assess the manpower deterred from a police career by the fact that it traditionneeds of its police agency on the basis of efficient use of all ally and almost universally starts at the bottom. A young its personne1,and should provide the resources required to man enters a police department as a uniformed patrolmeet the need for increased personnel if such a need is man and serves in that capacity for a considerable period of time-rarely less than 2 years and more often 4 or 5found to exist. before becoming eligible for promotion. The knowledge The police personnel need that the Commission has and skill that college education can provide must receive found to be almost universal is improved quality. Gen- recognition at the entry level, through pay, rating, and erally, law enforcement personnel have met their difficult an immediate opportunity to do interesting work before responsibilities with commendable zeal, determination, massive numbers of college graduates will be attracted to and devotion to duty. However, Commission surveys re- the police. On the other hand, recruitment from minority groups flect that there is substantial variance in the quality of police personnel throughout the United States. The rec- will be all but impossible in the immediate future if rigid ommendations that have been made earlier in this chapter higher education entry standards are instituted for all about community relations .and policymaking, and the police jobs. According to a 1966 census report, 78 perones made later about organization and management, are cent of all white males between the ages of 20 and 24 have predicated on the sharp improvement of the quality of completed at least 4 years of high school while only 53 perpolice personnel from top to bottom. The Commission cent of nonwhite males have. I n the 18-to-19 year age believes that substantially raising the quality of police group the gap is somewhat greater: 63 percent of white personnel would inject into police work knowledge, ex- and 37 percent of nonwhite males have completed high pertise, initiative, and integrity that would contribute school. Seventy percent of all police departments require a importantly to improved crime control. The word "quality" is used here in a comprehensive police candidate to have a high school diploma. From sense. - One thing it means is a high standard of education the point of view of recruiting college graduate and for policemen. Police work always will demand quick minority group personnel of the requisite quality, this reflexes, law enforcement know-how and devotion to duty, standard is both too low and too high. I n the Commisbut modern police work demands much more than that, sion's view, a promising way to attract better personnel, to as this chapter has shown. A policeman today is poorly utilize them more effectively in controlling crime, and to equipped for his job if he does not understand the legal gain greater understanding of community problems is to issues involved iri his everyday work, the nature of the allow police candidates to enter departments at three social problems he constantly encounters, the psychology levels of qualification, competence, responsibility, and pay. At the same time it is apparent that, nationwide, the number of police has not kept pace with the relocation of the population and the attendant increases in crime and police responsibility. Later in this chapter the Commission recommends, in order to increase the effectiveness of the police, adding community service officers and staff specialists. That means additional personnel, and when these new requirements are added to the existing vacancies in departments throughout the country, it is apparent that more police are needed and that municipalities must face up to the urgency of that need and provide the resources required to meet it if crime is to be controlled. But mere addition of manpower without accompanying efforts to make the best use of existing personnel strength might serve only to aggravate the problem of inefficiency. I n many departments police personnel are being wasted on trivial duties. I n others, increased investment in staff work or more sophisticated equipment would do more to improve police work than investment in more men. Switching from two-man to one-man patrol cars would in some instances free large numbers of policemen for added patrol or investigative duties. The Commission recommends: Basic police functions, especially in large and medium sized urban departments, should be divided among three kinds of officers, here termed the "community service officer," the "police officer," and the "police agent." T H E THREE LEVELS O F ENTRY T o enter a police department as a police agent. would require considerable educational attainment-at least 2 years of college work and preferably a baccalaureate degree in the liberal arts or social sciences. The job of agent would also be open to officers who could not make an academic showing of that kind but who have shown their capacity for imaginative and responsible police work. I n every department today there are many -patrolmen and detectives who could qualify immediately as agents. The agent would do whatever basic police jobs were the most complicated, sensitive, and demanding. He might be a juvenile officer or a community-relations officer. He might be in uniform patrolling a high-crime or restless neighborhood. He might be a career specialist in narcotics, or robbery, or homicide investigation. . H e might have staff duties. He would be the most knowledgeable and responsible member of a police team;and would guide and advise the CSO's and officers with whom he worked. He would be encouraged to develop innovative procedures and techniques. He would require minimum supervision. The police officer would perform the police duties of enforcing laws and investigating those crimes that can be solved by immediate followup investigations or are most likely to have suspects close to ttie crime scene. He would respond to selected called-for services, perform routine patrol, render emergency services, enforce traffic regulations, and investigate traffic accidents. I n addition to these responsibilities, the police officer would be an integral part of the team policing plan, working in concert with police agents and CSO's in solving crimes and meeting other police problems. If he desired to do so he would be helped by the department to qualify as a police agent. The Commission visualizes the CSO as a young man, typically between the ages of 17 and 21, with the aptitude, integrity and stability necessary to perform police work. A CSO would be, in effect, an apprentice policemanreplacing the present police cadet. He would work on the street under close supervision, and in close cooperation with the police officer and police agent. H e would not have full law enforcement powers or carry arms, neither would he perform only clerical duties, as many police cadets do today. He would be a uniformed member of the working police who performs certain service and investigative duties on the street. He would maintain closc contact with the juveniles in neighborhoods where he works. H e might be available in a neighborhood storefront office or community service center and might use a radio-dispatched scooter to move around the community. He would perform the service duties discussed earlier in this chapter that inner-city residents need so badly and that law enforcement officers have so little time to perform. H e would be an integral part of the police teams that will be described later in this chapter. A young man might be accepted as a CSO despite a minor offense record; otherwise it might be difficult to recruit members of minority groups for this position since Commission studies show that, for the reasons discussed in chapters 2 and 3, it is more likely than not that a Negro youth who grows up in a slum will have such a record. He would be expected to qualify as rapidly as possible for the positions of officer or agent. Under the sponsorship and at the expense of the department, he would continue Career Development and Educational Standards Community Service Officer Recruit . Entry . . . Officer Command, Technical Supervisors -Staff -Agent - Chief Administrator .A[.[ [, Lateral Entry Immediate Long Range High School (High School +- High School + + -A 4 Years College A 4 Years CollegeA 2 Years College EDUCATION - 4 Years College .[ . 4 Years College + . * , A . his studies to that end. When he qualified, he would be promoted as soon as an opening occurred. This new division of functions should increase the attractiveness of police work by making it possible for a college graduate to assume the responsible position of agent after a &ief internship but without long prior service as a patrol officer, and for officers and CSO's to become agents as soon as they qualify and vacancies exist. The opportunity to continue with education at the expense of and with the help of a police department would surely increase the attractiveness of police work to members of minority groups-or to any young men who are unable to further themselves because of insufficient schooling. Creating the positions of CSO and agent might do much to solve the manpower,problems of those departments that have them, and might be, as well, the fastest way of recruiting large numbers of well-qualified and experienced minority-group officers. However, it is important to add in the latter connection, that every department should strengthen its efforts to recruit minority-group police officers and agents who do not need to go through the CSO phase. A department that admits minority-group personnel only at the CSO level will merit the charge that it is practicing a subtle kind of discrimination. recruit much more actively than they now ordinarily do. Recruiting officers must set up recruiting stations, address clubs and civic groups, advertise, answer questions, make it known far and wide that police work has many attractions and dpportunities. They should help to organize and participate actively in regional or statewide recuiting programs. Brief notices in civil-service journals about forthcoming examinations, or routine press releases will not attract college graduates, members of minority groups, or for that matter other kinds of highquality candidates in sufficient number. ATTRACTING RECRUITS As this report is being written, approximately twothirds of the police departments in medium-sized and big cities are below their authorized personnel strength. O n a national average, cities are 10 percent below strength. This is not due principally to a shortage of police candidates, but to a shortage of successful ones. Between 1956 and 1961 success rates on entry examination decreased from 30 to 22 percent on a national average. The Los Angeles Department, which has set high standards and maintains them rigorously, accepted less than 3 percent of applicants in 1965. At the same time as applicants' success rates are declining, retirement rates are threatening to rise. This is chiefly because the most rapid modern increase in the size of police departments occurred just after the end of the Second World War, and 20 years is the typical-though by no means universal-period of service that a police department requires of its officers before they become eligible for pensions. T o cite Los Angeles again, in 1967 no less than 41 percent of the force will be eligible for retirement. Taking into account the 5.4 percent rate at which officers have left the service for all reasons (retirement, resignation, disability, dismissal, death) over the last 5 years, the present authorized strength of the Nation's departments, and the fact that each year the authorized strength rises by about 3 percent, the Commission calculates that bringing all departments up to 1967 authorized strength will take 50,000 new policemen. Two kinds of places that the police for the most part have ignored are the Nation's college campuses and its innercity neighborhoods. However, recruitment in these places will not be successful unless police departments The Commission recommends: Police departments should recruit far more actively than they now do, with special attention to college campuses and innercity neighborhoods. RECRUITMENT STANDARDS The standards police departments typically require police candidates to meet fall under several headings. Every department has detailed and rigidly enforced physical standards. Many departments insist on prior residence in the community for a given length of time. Every department demands "good moral character," but many departments do no investigating beyond a personal interview and a check on whether or not the candidate has an arrest record. Some departments give psychological tests and many do not. Only about onequarter of local departments attempt to screen candidates for emotional fitness. More than 70 - percent of departments require a high school diploma,as has been noted; fewer than two dozen of the Nation's 40,000 police agencies require college credits. From the point of view of securing recruits of the proper quality, some of these standards are too rigid, some are too lax. The Commission believes strongly that it should be the long-range goal of all departments, to raise their educational standards. The Commission recommends: The ultimate aim of all police departments should be that all personnel with general enforcement powers have baccalaureate degrees. ' Beyond question it will take many years for a reform this sweeping to be fully implemented. I t never will be implemented if a strong movement toward it does not begin at once. I t should be possible, for example, for every department to insist immediately that all recruits, except community service officers, have both a high school diploma and a demonstrated ability, measured by appropriate tests, to do college work. Those departments that put into effect the division of police functions that the Commission has proposed should immediately require agent candidates to have completed 2 years of college. As the supply of qualified police candidates increases, the standards can be raised step by step until the goal of a baccalaureate deqree for all policemen is reached. No doubt many police administrators will, at first glance, consider this recommendation of the Commission so radical as to be unattainable. Let them consider the fact that the median education level for all policen~enin the United States is 12.4 years, which indicates that many policemen already have done some college work. I t is this trend that the Commission believes should bc sharply accelerated. Clearly, if college degrees for police officers are a longrange objective, they must be a short-range objective for police supervisors and administrators, and an immediate objective for chiefs. The Commission recommends: Police departments should take immediate steps to establish a minimum requirement of a baccalaureate degree for all supervisory and executive positions. The long-range objective for high-ranking officers should be advanced degrees in the law, sociology, criminology, police or public administration, business management, or some other appropriatespecialty. Of equal importance with his education is a police candidate's aptitude for the job: His intelligence, his moral character, his emotional stability, his social attitudes. The consequences of putting on the street officers who, however highly educated, are prejudiced, or slow witted, or hot tempered, or timid, or dishonest are too obvious to require detailed discussion. Thorough personal screening of police candidates is a clear necessity. The amount of thoroughness with which local departments screen candidates varies enormously. Some departments screen quite sketchily; others, including those in many of the biggest cities, make in-depth background investigations, administer intelligence tests and interview candidates exhaustively. However, it is fair to say that even the most thorough departments do not evaluate reliably the personal traits and characteristics that contribute to good police work, not because they lack the desire to do so but because a technique for doing so does not exist. Clearly. this is a field in which intensive research is needed. The Commission recommends: Until reliable tests are devised for identifying and measuring the personal characteristics that contribute to good police work, intelligence tests, thorough background investigations and personal interviews should be used by all departments as absolute minimum techniques to determine the moral character and the intellectual and emotional fitness of police candidates. No doubt many police administrators will think it odd of the Commission to recommend the raising of any standards at all at a time when so many departments are below authorized strength. The Commission has considered this question with care. I t has found, first, by observing closely those few departments that now approach the standards that are being proposed, that highquality personnel 'far outperform personnel selected according to traditional standards; there are many places where, if an either/or choice had to be made between raising recruitment standards and reaching authorized strength, the prudent choice in terms of perforrnance would be to raise the standards. I t has found, second, that most of those departments that have already instituted high standards have had no unusual trouble remaining at authorized strength because of the attractiveness of working in such departments. I t has found, third, that most departments have had no experience with mounting- vigorous recruitment programs and owe it to themselves to attempt such progra&s. Furthermore, some police recruitment standards are too rigid. The traditional standards relating to age, height, weight, visual acuity, and prior residence in the community are deterrents to the recruitment of able personnel. Most departments insist that a recruit be between 21 and 35. Both limits are arbitrary, and the lower one undoubtedly keeps out of police work many young men, who are unwilling to wait 2 or 3 years after graduating from high school to begin their careers. As police departments put into effect the recommendations for educational standards that have been described above, this will become less of a problem, of course. Meanwhile many communities, including such large cities as Chicago, Minneapolis, and Dallas, have lowered the minimum agc without ill effects. That raising the maximum age is equally appropriate is indicated by the fact that the Federal Bureau of Investigation accepts candidates up to the ageof 41. The typical physical requirements for recruits are a 150- to 250-pound weight range, a height minimum of 5 feet 8 or 9 inches and at least 20--40 vision. These limits, too, are arbitrary. A man with 20-100 vision, correctable to 20-20, can be licensed as a commercial pilot. Successful athletes come in all sizes. Particularly in cities where there is a large Puerto Rican population, the height and weight restrictions keep out of police work men who are badly needed. Prior residency requirements typically demand that a man live in a community for at least 6 months before becoming eligible for police work. These are probably the most restrictive requiretnents of all, for they prevent many police departments from searching for recruits; they prevent many young men from small rural communities from embarking on police careers; they prevent, to give a particularly vivid example of their questionable logic, young men who have put in a period of service in the military police from continuing in police work in civilian life. does believe that identical pay scales for employees with widely differing functions are unfair and unwise. The Commission recommends: Salary proposals for each department within local government should be considered on their own merits and should not be joined with the demands of other departments within a city. The Commission recommends: PROMOTION AND LATERAL ENTRY Police departments and civil service commissions should reexamine and, if necessary, modify present recruitment standards on age, height, weight, visual acuity, and prior residence. The appointing authority should place primary emphasis on the education, background, character and personality of a candidate for police service. POLICE SALARIES The new division of functions also dictates a reexamination of police salary scales, which in most cases are now too low to attract the best qualified recruits, or to keep the best qualified policemen. I n small cities the median annual pay for a patrolman is $4,600; in large cities it is $5,300. Typically, the maximum salary for nearly all positions is less than $1,000 over the starting salary. On the other hand, a special agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation begins at $8,421 a year and, if he serves long enough and well enough, can reach, without promotion to a supervisory position, $16,905. No doubt a salary scale that high is out of the question at the present time in many cities, especially small ones. However, every city should regard it as a standard against which to measure its own potential for attracting able recruits. And every city, even those unable to raise starting minimum salaries for policemen should earnestly consider raising the maximums substantially so that police careers will oRer long-term financial inducements. Some big cities should be able to match the FBI's scale for the position of agent immediately, or in the near future. An. officer's salary might be $1,000 a year less. A community service officer should receive at least $5,000 a year. ?'he-Commission recommends: Police salaries must be raised, particularly by increasing maximums. I n order to attract college graduates to police service, starting and maximum salaries must be competitive with other professions and occupations that seek the same graduates. I n many cities, police salaries are tied to the salaries of other municipal employees, most often those of firemen. This practice often aggrieves both policemen and firemen, and sometimes provokes hot debates about which kind of public servant has the more arduous or perilous job and should therefore be the better paid. The Commission has no intention of involving itself in such a dispute, but it Able recruits may be the most pressing police personnel need, but it is not the only one. Better personnel are needed throughout most departments. Traditional procedures often inhibit the rapid promotion of able officers into supervisory or command positions. As has already been mentioned, patrolmen must serve a considerable number of years, usually at least 4 or 5, before becoming eligible for promotion. I n addition, promotions are made, more often than not, from a civil service "list" that is compiled on the exclusive basis of grades scored on technical written examinations. A list arrived at in such a fashion takes no account of the evaluation of individual officers by their superiors, of the special qualifications of certain officers for certain jobs, of the performance records of officers and the awards and commendations (or reprimands) they have received. The Commission recommends: Promotion eligibility requirements should stress ability above seniority. Promotion "lists" should be compiled on the basis not only of scores on technical examinations but on prior performance, character, educational achievement and leadership potential. Most police departments today do not permit "lateral entry" into command or staff positions by officers from other departments, or by civilians. This is partly because of civil service regulations that have rigid promotion and prior residence provisions, partly because police pension rights are not movable from department to department, partly because of a traditional police resistance to "outsiders." One consequence is that America's police personnel are virtually frozen 'into the departments in which they started. An officer whose special skills are in oversupply in his own department cannot move to a de-, partment where those skills are in demand. An officer who seeks to improve his situation by moving from a small department where opportunities for advancement are few to a large department where they are numerous cannot do it, nor can a city officer who would like to work in a small community follow his inclinations. A department that cannot fill important jobs adequately from its own ranks is precluded from seeking experienced officers elsewhere. Even more damaging to the effectiveness of police work is the failure to use civilian manpower where it is needed. Eleven percent of America's police personnel is civilian, but the great majority of civilians work as maintenance men, clerks or stenographers, or enforce parking regulations. I t is to police staff work that civilians can make the greatest contribution. Communications, records, information retrieval, research, planning, and laboratory analysis are vital parts of police work that, as often as not, could be performed better by civilians with specialized training than by sworn law enforcement officers. And at higher administrative levels, there is a great need for the development of police careerists with professional qualifications in the law, in psychology, in sociology, in systems analysis, and in business management. T h e Commission recommends: Personnel to perform all specialized police functions not involving a need for general enforcement powers should be selected for their talents and abilities without regard to prior police service. Professional policemen should have the same opportunities as other professionals to seek employment where they are most needed. The inhibitions that civil 'service regulations, retirement plans and hiring policies place on lateral entry should be removed. To. encourage lateral movement of police personnel, a nationwide retirement system should be devised that permits the transferring of retirement credits. RECRUIT TRAINING AND EVALUATION Spurred by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which dramatized the need, set standards, devised techniques and provided personnel for police training, the police have made great strides in the past 30 years in widespread institution of formal recruit training programs. In 70 percent of the cities over 500,000 population, new recruits receive at least 8 weeks' training. However, many courses are unsophisticated and incomplete. Instruction is often limited to "how to do" and there is far too little discussion of fundamental principles. The legal limitations on street policing and the proper use of discretion are rarely stressed. Recruits receive too little background in the nature of the community and the role of the police; in two large departments that offer over 10 weeks of training, less than 2 days are devoted to police-minority group relations. Civilian instructors are seldom employed to teach nontechnical or specialized subject-the criminal law, sociology, the history of the civil rights movement. Only a small percentage of departments combine classroom ,work with formal field training that would acquaint recruits with everyday street problems. New educative techniques are seldom used in police academies. The Commission recommends: All training programs should provide instruction on subjects that prepare recruits to exercise discretion prope'rly, and to understand the community, the role of the police, and what the criminal justice system can and cannot do. Professional educators and civilian experts should be used to teach specialized courses-law and psychology, for example. Recognized teaching techniques such as problem-solving seminars should be incorporated into training programs. Recruit training programs at least exist in every big city; small rural departments often provide recruits with no training at all. By and large this is a question of money. Training programs are expensive, and they cannot be provided on a local basis for two or three officers at a time. There is a great need for regional police academies, financed with State or Federal funds, to train recruits from small departments. Until such academies are organized, big-city recruit programs might well make room for a certain number of trainees from smaller departnients. The Commission recommends: Formal police training programs for recruits in all departments, large and small, should consist of an absolute minimum of 400 hours of classroom work spread over a 4- to 6-month period so that it can be combined with carefully selected and supervised field training. Although most departments have probationary periods for police recruits, over two-thirds limit the time to 6 months or less, and few departments effectively use the probationary process. As the performance of each officer becomes more crucial to maintenance of social order, probation period observation and rating increases in importance. The limited ability of initial screening procedures to test personality and temperament makes close and systematized observation of new patrolmen imperative. Sometimes probation evaluation is negated by the chief administrator's lack of authority to dismiss those who perform marginally and unsatisfactorily, and civil service requirements are sometimes unduly restrictive. The Commission recommends: Entering officers should serve probation periods of, preferably, 18 months and certainly no less than 1 year. During this period the recruit should be systematically observed and rated. Chief administrators should have the sole authority of dismissal during the probation period and should willingly exercise it against unsatisfactory officers. INSERVICE TRAINING A N D EDUCATION Training needs continue throughout a policeman's career. Laws and procedures change. Policies are redefined. Techniques are improved. These developments must be brought to policemen at all levels of responsibility. Most existing programs rely on bulletins or short sessions of instruction a t rollcall. Such techniques are effective only as supplements to annual periods of intensive training during which officers are relieved from their ordinary duties for several days of study. Very few departments have such programs. Very few, furthermore, actively encourage their personnel to continue their studies outside the department by making educational achievement a pathway to rapid promotion, by granting leaves of absence, by helping to pay tuition bills. Very few departments make training in legal, administrative, or business skills a prerequisite for advancement into supervisory positions. The Commission recommends: Every general enforcement officer should have a t least 1 week of intensive inservice' training a year. Every officer should be given incentives to continue his general education or acquire special skills outside his department. POLICE ORGANIZATION, MANAGEMENT AND FIELD OPERATIONS The problems to be discussed under this heading are necessarily the problems of city police departments. In a department of less than, say, 50 men, the problems of staff work, chains of command, deployment of forces, and so forth, are seldom complicated. In New York's 28,000-man department they are much more complicated than the organization and management problems of a big corporation. The Commission discussed organization and management with 4 separate advisory panels and over 250 representatives of police forces and professional organizations; these discussions were supplemented by a review of police literature, textbooks, and consultant reports, covering the organization and management of 75 police departments. An outside study performed for the Commission involved even more extensive contacts. Each study and every expert agreed that, with some notable exceptions, city police forces are not well organized and managed. The same two failures were cited universally as the crucial ones: Thc failure to develop career administrators, and the failure to use the techniques and acquire the resources that experts on the subject prescribe. No one with whom the Commission consulted made a dramatic new proposal or recommendation, but the fact that most departments have not adopted recognized principles of organization and management is, in and of itself, significant. Since proper organization and management is a prerequisite for implementation of most of the other recommendations in this chapter, the Commission believes that adoption in practice of the recognized principles of good organization and management is a matter of great urgency. In addition, research into and experimentation with this aspect of police work are not only, under the circumstances, clearly called for, but likely to produce important results. The Commission recommends: Each State, through its commission on police standards (discussed later in the chapter), should provide financial and technical assistance to departments to conduct surveys and make recommendations for improvement and modernization of their organization, management, and operations. For police organization, as for large-scale organization of any kind, the heart of the matter is central control. This simple basic principle has extremely complex and practical implications. Organizationally, it implies that a chief administrator has available to him the advice of staff experts in a variety of subjects, that a sufficient number of middle managers are provided for to insure that authority can be delegated without being dissipated, and that the lines of communication between the chief administrator and the street are kept unobstructed. Administratively it implies policymaking and planmaking, and the kind of supervision that guarantees that policies and plans are understood and carried out by every member of the department. Operationally it implies that such activities as communications and deployment of forces are carried out not on a precinct-by-precinct but on a Captain briefs communications personnel citywide basis, and that countless kinds of records a department, or a regional or State agency must keep (alphabetical name index files, intelligence files, modus operandi files, wanted criminals files, stolen property files and many more) are easily accessible to all members of the department who need them. Overall it implies the maintenance of departmental integrity by providing that governmental control over the department is exercised only by top-level political executives through top-level enforcement officials, and not by neighborhood politicians through precinct officials. DEPARTMENTAL STAFF In recent years there has been a recognition in city departments, particularly those in the biggest cities, that police work on the street, to be effective, must be supported by strong staff services. . Increasing crime and disorder have led to increasing awareness by the police of the importance of crime analysis, research and planning. In order to attract the able recruits they need and to train them properly, many departments have begun strengthening the personnel sections of their staffs. Staff inspection and internal investigation have also received more and more attention as the importance of insuring good performance and rooting out misconduct has become more and more apparent. However, only a few departments as yet have made community relations a staff activity, and even fewer as yet have recognized the necessity for legal advisers as departmental staff members. And as a general proposition, it is fair to say that police staff work almost everywhere, and especially in mediumsized cities, is given far less attention than it needs and deserves. A police force cannot be effective if it is administered on a day-to-day or crisis-to-crisis basis. I t needs plans: contingency plans about, for example, how to handle a visit by the President or how to capture an armed desperado holed up in an apartment; operational plans about how to deploy men in various neighborhoods at various times of day or how to deal with the problem of apartment burglaries; long-range plans about improving the quality of personnel, installing new equipment or con- trolling widespread vice-activities; budgetary plans, community-relations plans, technological plans, plans of many other kinds. I t needs not only to develop new plans but to review continually the operation of plans already in effect and to amend them or discard them when necessary. T o do this kind of planning to best advantage, a department must first engage in research and analysis. Crime trends, long-range and short-range, must be studied, as well as the social conditions associated with them. Experimental projects must be devised to test novel police techniques on a limited scale and under controlled conditions. Such departments as Chicago, St. Louis, and Los Angeles already have good sized, expertly staffed research, analysis and planning units, but even in those places, it can be said, the enormous possibilities of this kind of police staff work are still largely unexplored. Of 276 municipal departments that responded to a 1965 survey of the police by the National League of Cities, only 14 reported that they employed legal advisers, and 6 of those reported that the employment was on a part-time basis. Yet the need for continuing legal advice within a department has long been recognized by authorities on the police, and in any case should now be evident to everyone in view of the great interest in police practices the courts are evincing. The duties of a police legal adviser should be, of course, far more extensive than just advising the police, generally or specifically, about permissible field procedures. He could impart to training programs and to duty manuals more legal sophistication than they ordinarily possess today. He could 'be a useful liaison between police officials and prosecutors. He could do important work in legislative drafting and lobbying, in community relations and in the department's relationship with other municipal agencies. He could be an extremely helpful participant in departmental inquiries into misconduct by officers and in such proceedings as might be taken against misbehaving officers. The Commission recommends: Every medium- and large-sized department should employ a skilled lawyer full time as its legal adviser. Smaller departments should arrange for legal advice on a part-time basis. Little need be said here about staff personnel units; in view of the recommendations about greatly expanded recruitment and training programs that have already been made in this chapter, the importance of such units should be evident. Community relations units have already been discussed. As for the staff functions of inspection and internal investigation, they raise the enormously important question of how police misconduct can most effectively be controlled, and will therefore be discussr:d in some detail below. The Commission recommends: Police departments must take every possible step to implement the guiding organizational principle of central control. Specialist staff units for such matters as planning, research, legal advice, and police personnel should include persons trained in a variety of disciplines and should be utilized to develop and improve the policies, operations, and administration of each police function. There is one final, crucial point about-staff to be made. The kind of policymaking that this chapter described earlier is clearly impossible without expert police staff work. Making policy depends on research and analysis and on legal knowledge. Carrying out policy depends on planning, training and efficient supervision. The Commission recommends: Every department in a big or medium-sized city should organize key ranking staff and line personnel into an administrative board similiar in function to a corporation's board of directors, whose duty would be to assist the chief and his staff units in developing, enunciating and enforcing departmental policies and guidelines for the day-to-day activities of line personnel. CONTROLLING POLICE MISCONDUCT There is no profession whose members are more frequently tempted to misbehave, or provided with more opportunities to succumb to temptation, than law enforcement. The opportunities arise, on the whole, from the simple physical fact that policemen generally work alone or in pairs, out of sight of their colleagues and superiors. The temptations are more various and complicated. A chief one is that many people want to do things the law forbids, or do not want to do things the law demands, and are willing to pay money to, or do favors for, policemen for not enforcing laws. Another is that policemen often are subjected to kinds of verbal abuse, or even to physical indignities, that provoke a desire to respond in kind. A complicating factor is that because policemen are not only public servants, but sworn upholders of the law, they are expected to conduct themselves with more honor and more restraint than most other citizens. Businessmen commonly accept Christmas presents, or theater tickets, or expensive lunches, from the comparative strangers they do business with; policemen must not. An ordinary citizen walking down the street is not held accountable if he replies insultingly to insults addressed to him; a policeman is. There is, of course, no possible way of calculating, or even of guessing, how much police misconduct there is in America. Policemen are no more likely than citizens of any other kind to misbehave in front of audiences. The Commission believes that the corruption at all levels and the widespread use of physical coercion that prevailed in many police departments during the era of Prohibition is largely a thing of the past. I t is quite sure that almost all departments are headed by honest and honorable officials, and that the large majority of working policemen at all levels of authority conduct themselves honestly . and honorably. However, the Commission does have evidence from its own studies and from police officials themselves, that in some cities a significant percentage of policemen assigned to high-crime areas do treat citizens with disrespect and, sometimes, abuse them physically. I t further has knowledge that in these same areas some policemen are accepting bribes from motorists and storekeepers, stealing from burglarized premises or from drunks and receiving kickbacks from tow-truck operators. And it is a matter of public record that in some cities, at this or that time, certain policemen and police officials-and other public officials as well-have protected bookmakers, pfostitutes, and narcotics pushers, have operated burglary rmgs, have favored politicians or other people with "pull," and have acted in concert with leaders of organized crime. I n one important respect, the issue is not how many dishonest or brutal officers there are, but whether there are any at all. A small number of such officers can destroy confidence in the police, confidence that takes many years to rebuild even when the misbehavior has been pron~ptly weeded out. Moreover, even a small amount of misconduct can undermine the morale and discipline of a department. Cliques can grow up that thrive on secrecy and resist reform. Well-behaved officers become corrupted by the mores of their environment, especially by the unspoken rule that often prevails in such situations: an officer must not "inform" on his colleagues. And of course, law enforcement suffers. A police department with a reputation for unfairness cannot promote justice. A police department with a reputation for dishonesty cannot combat crime effectively. The blame for corniption is often shared by the community as a whole. Poor pay can tempt an officer to accept small favors that eventually bind him to corrupt practices. Widespread racial prejudice, publicly expressed, can make it difficult for an officer to control his own conduct. In some communities there is petty political interference with such things as shift assignment and promotions. A lack of policy about the enforcement of antivice laws, for example, and poor supervision give him too much room for ill-conceived and extemporaneous exercise of discretion. He has daily contact with gamblers and other representatives of organized crime, whom the community prefers to believe are not wrongdoers. Under orders to clean up his beat and without specific guidance as to how to do so under existing legal constraints, he often justifies his derelictions of duty by telling himself that they are the system's fault, not his. He may see gross corruption or political fixing of cases in the prosecutor's office or in the courts. Many times the dishonest officer is merely reflecting the ambivalent standards of his community. An ordinary man, he is expected to resist these extraordinary pressures. Nonetheless, police experts agree that every police department has a direct and nontransferable responsibility for enforcing proper conduct by its members. There are several ways of doing this; some already have been discussed. If the chief administrator's commitment to fulfilling these internal enforcement responsibilities is made clear by actions as well as words, police misbehavior is deterred. The development and enunciation of detailed police policies would set standards for both performance and supervision. Better screening and training of police recruits would help insure that only men of high character are given a policeman's great responsibilities. The removal of political pressures from subordinate police officials would make discriminatory law enforcement more difficult. The assignment of the best, rather than the worst, officers to ghetto neighborhoods is a clear necessity. Some police departments have organized strong internal investigation units to enforce honest behavior by policemen. They have been sparingly used by most police departments to insure respectful behavior toward citizens by policemen, except when charges of flagrant brutality are made. From the point of view of police-community relations, it is extremely important that policemen be held to account for rudeness and disrespect as well. If internal investigation units are not well enough manned to add this essential duty to the ones they already have, they should be given more men. Furthermore, it should be definite departmental policy to assign minority-group officers to internal investigations, especially since it appears that it is in the ghettos that policemen most frequently misbehave. Most of the existing internal investigation units operate by the case method-tracking down and bringing to book individual officers who misbehave. However, they should be essentially a deterrent or preventive operation. This means identifying the problems that cause police misconduct and the neighborhoods or situations in which such misconduct is most likely to occur; devising procedures that will help solve the problems; patrolling and scrutinizing the neighborhoods, and keeping track of the situations. Ways must be found to rid police mores of the pervasive feeling that an allegation of misconduct against one officer is an attack upon the entire police force and that to report a corrupt fellow officer is a detriment, rather than a benefit, to the department. Finally, an internal investigation unit should be responsible to a department's chief and to him alone. By these means it should be possible to bring police misconduct to an irreducible minimum. The Commission recommends: Every department, regardless of size, should have a comprehensive program for maintaining police integrity and every medium- and large-sized department should have a well-manned internal investigation unit responsible only to the chief administrator. The unit should have ,both an investigative and preventive role in controlling dishonest, unethical, and offensive actions by police officers. COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION RETRIEVAL Because the members of a police force are so widely dispersed when they are at work the efficiency of police communications systems is crucial. - Rapid response to emergency calls, which this chapter has shown to be an important factor in crime solution, depends on good communications. So does effective, continuing supervision of policemen on the streets. The ability of an individual officer to make decisions accurately is enormously increased if he can consult in a matter of seconds with his superiors, or can receive prompt information from the department's records division about such matters as whether a particular man or car is wanted, whether a piece of property is listed as stolen, whether a modus operandi is typical of a person he suspects of having committed a crime. All these activities depend not only on communications but on the ability of the department to retrieve information from its records rapidly. Communications and information retrieval are enormously complicated technological problems, which are discussed in considerable detail in chapter 11 of this report. How complicated they are is illustrated by some of the facts about the model central communications system installed by the Chicago Police Department in 1961. I t controls more than 1,400 vehicles covering 224 square miles and serving more than 3,500,000 people; it utilizes 27 radio frequencies and requires more than 300 people to operate; it cost $2 million. In the opinion of the Chicago police it was an investment that was well worth making. A second urgent communications need is cigarette-pack-sized, transmitting-and-receiving radio equipment that foot patrolmen and investigators can carry easily, and that motorized patrolmen can make use of when they leave their cars. For radio communications of these kinds to be effective, more radio frequencies will have to be made available to the police in most cities. This problem, too, is discussed in chapter 11. PATROL ALLOCATION A N D TECHNIQUES Early in the work of the Commission, its Chairman, then Attorney General of the United States, asked 2,100 law enforcement agencies and 125 colleges offering police science courses to report any new police techniques for preventing or solving crimes that had come to their attention. Many of the 414 replies from police agencies and 33 replies from colleges described field procedures that were being tried for the first time by some agency or in some area. None of them described field procedures that could be said to be completely original. Preventive patrol-the continued scrutiny of the community by visible and mobile policemen-is universally thought of as the best method of controlling crime that is available to the police. However, the most effective way of deploying and employing a department's patrol folce is a subject about which deplorably little is known. Evaluation of differing methods of patrol depends on hying out those methods over long periods of time and c;tlculating the changes in crime rates and solution rates that the changes in patrol techniques have produced This sort of research has scarcely begun in America, partly because few police departments have the funds or the personnel to devise, develop, and test innovative procedures. The reluctance to abandon traditional methods of operation in favor of untested, and therefore potentially unsuccessful, ones has also delayed research into new methods. If the Commission has an overall recommendation in the field of police operations, it is that research, in the form of operational experiments that are scientifically observed and evaluated, be conducted by departments in conjunction with universities, research centers, and other private organizations. Meanwhile it is useful to mention some of the ~romisingdevelopments in field operations that were reported to the Commission. Scientific efforts to maximize the crime-control use of existing penoMel have commenced in tip. Crime trends are observed month to by of day and by location within the community, and beat boundaries altered accordingly. Through the use of computers and crime analysis units, a few large departrnents have radically altered traditional assignments and changed patrol allocation as often as hour to hour. Other cities have experienced success with special procedures adapted to unusual crime situations. In some of the larger departments, concentrations of street crime have been met by "tactical forces"--mobile patrol forces working out of headquarters-which are deployed in different areas of the city at different times. Another tactic being used is the creation of a fourth shift which serves during most of the regular evening and the beginning of the earl~'moming shifts. These Promen On street at the times when grams get and in the places where unusually serious outbreaks of crime have taken place. The lack of knowledge about the effectiveness of different types of patrol is betrayed by the absence of consistent patrol practices. All but four of 37 cities of between 300,000 and 1 million population have walking beats for patrolmen, but the number varies from 2 in Birmingham and Phoenix to 434 in Baltimore. In congested business districts and in those high-crime neighborhoods where the streets are almost always crowded there are a number of advantages to foot patrol, on both law enforcement and community relations grounds, despite its expense. Otherwise, in view of the limited area that foot patrolmen can cover, the expense involved does not seem to justify foot patrol. The extreme mobility and coverage provided by motor patrol compels its use, despite losses in neighborhood contact. Resumption of such contact would occur through he proposed community sewice officers in the precincts. controversy as to whether In motor cars should have one or two men is gradually being resolved in favor of one-man cars. From 1946 to 1964, the percentage of large cities utilizing only two-man cars dropped from 62 to 20 percent. The percentage of all cities using one-man cars exclusively rose from 18 to 41 employ percent. Almost one-half of the smaller one-man cars only. Since salaries consume about 90 percent of police budgets, one-man cars cut per-car expenditures almost in half, which means that a police department can put almost twice as many one-man cars on the streets as two-man cars. Several cities have successfully used scooters and bicycles for patrol. They are peculiarly adapted to urban street conditions and do pi-ovide intimate contact with the neighborhood. There are a number of other law enforcement techniques that have been tried out in various places and might prove useful in others. The use of dogs is one. Only 1 canine corps unit existed in 1957; now about 200 cities have an aggregate of 500 man-dog teams. These are particularly effective for antiburglav patrol in industrial and commercial areas and for building searches. Research is proceeding on the use of dogs for drug detection. However, the use of dogs for routine patrol, especially in minority-group neighborhoods, tends to antagonize the community and may d~ more harm than good. Several departments report success with special surveillance operations. For example, one sheriff employed a 10-man surveillance squad for 4 months in a concentrated attack on known professional criminals. During this period, 127 major arrests cleared 236 serious offenses and resulted in the recovery of property valued at $300,000. surveillance from rooftops in hig.,-crime areas has also been successful. So has the use of "decoy planted by the department and set to emit a radio signal when stolen. Such autos are equipped with ignition cutoff systems, which stop the engine after the thief has driven a distance. Photographic installations in banks, stores, homes, S C ~ O Oand ~ S check-cashing , areas have also provided convincing evidence against the perpetrators of crime. Prearranged blockade plans and observation points rationally devised by geographic area have been effectively established in many communities. Special techniques involving helicopter patrol, antivandalism and burglar alarms, simultaneous broadcast networks and closed circuit television are also being explored. TEAM POLICING In almost all large police departments there is a considerable amount of organizational fragmentation. Traditionally and almost universally, patrol and investigative forces have separate lines of command and tend to be isolated from one another; often they keep separate sets of records; frequently they work different shifts or are based in different places SO that there is a minimum of contact between patrolmen and detectives. In tion, investigators are more often than not divided at both headquarters and precinct levels into squads-vice, robbery, burglary, fraud, homicide, and so forth-that may themselves keep separate records, use separate in- formants and remain more or less isolated from each other in other ways. At both the staff and the field levels, this overseparation of functions, or overspecialization, can have undesirable results. When intelligence is not centralized and coordinated, staff planning for the purpose of either apprehending specific criminals, or solving crime problems such as, for example, an outbreak of burglaries in some neighborhood, is almost impossible. When lines of command are kept rigidly separate, it is difficult to bring the full resources of a department to bear on crime solution. The agent-officer-community service officer recommendation made earlier in this chapter has not only the improvement of the quality of police personnel as its objective, but also a change in the way the police work in the field. The concept, which might be called "team policing," is that all police work, both patrol and criminal investigation, in a given number of city blocks should be under unified command. A "field supervisor" would have under his command a team of agents, officers, and community service officers. The team would meet at the beginning of a tour of duty and receive a briefing on the current situation in the neighborhood-what crimes were unsolved, what suspects were wanted for questioning, what kinds of stolen goods to look out for, what situations were potentially troublesome, and so forth. On this basis the members would be assigned to specific areas or duties. If conditions warranted it, agents might be assigned to patrol and wear uniforms or plainclothes officers might be assigned to investigation. Community service officers might be delegated to help either. In specific investigations or incidents, agents would be given authority over the actions of CSOs and officers. If the conditions in the area changed during the tour, if a major crime was committed or a major disorder erupted, the assignments could be promptly changed by the field supervisor. Obviously, this proposal does not envision the abandonment of special duties or special squads. An agent serving as a narcotics, or juvenile, or community-relations specialist, for example, would almost always cover a territory policed by several teams, and would be moved into other work only in emergencies. There would still be a need for squads of officers with special knowledge of certain kinds of crime. The Commission recommends: Police departments should commence experimentation with a team policing concept that envisions those with patrol and investigative duties combining under unified command with flexible assignments to deal with the crime problems in a defined sector. The Commission believes that team policing would result in both increased crime solution, and the most advantageous use of the time and talents of all policemen. I t wishes to stress, furthermore, that experiments with team policing are not dependent on the agent-officer-CSO division of functions. They could easily be conducted with existing personnel. CRIME SCENE SEARCH AND LABORATORY WORK The Commission has found that the police are not making the most of 'their opportunities to obtain and analyze physical evidence. They are handicapped, by technical lacks. There is a very great lack in police departments of all sizes of skilled evidence technicians, who can be called upon to search crime scenes not merely for fingerprints, but for potentially telltale evidence like footprints, hairs, fibers, or traces of blood or mud. In one 2,000-man force, for example, there are only 2 technicians on each shift. More often than not, perhaps, such evidence would not lead directly to the identification of a criminal about whommothing else is known, but it might help greatly to establish a case for or against a suspect. The two chief reasons for the lack of skilled technicians are that few persons with the requisite science education have been recruited into police operations, and that few training programs for evidence technicians have so far been developed. The undeveloped state of training in this field also accounts for the fact that many patrolmen and detect.ives have no more than a rudimentary idea of how to search the scene of a crime. The absence of adequate laboratory facilities to analyze physical evidence is most acutely felt by smaller departments; most big-city departments have, or have access to, good laboratories. The establishment of State or regional training programs and crime laboratories is discussed later in this chapter. In any case, the Commission strongly believes that it should be an important goal of the police to develop the capacity to make a thorough search of the scene of every serious crime and to analyze evidence so discovered. RIOT CONTROL One of the most hazardous and frustrating tasks in policing today is the control of riots. Members of the Commission staff studied the police handling of riots in some detail; they consulted with local police and State National Guard officials, and convened a 2-day conference that discussed this problem. They turned over the knowledge they obtained and the conclusions they reached to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which, pursuant to presidential order, is responsible for the training of local police in this field. The Commission found that most large city departments have developed plans and expertise in this aspect of police work; but that smaller departments yet have much to learn. Certain principles are especially important. Demonstrations should not be confused with riots. Police must not react to disorder in the course of demonstrations too quickly or with too much force. Further- other reasonable means of apprehension have failed to prevent the escape of a felony suspect whom the officer believes presents a serious danger to others. COORDINATION AND POOLING O F POLICE SERVICES more, they would be greatly helped in their task of preserving order and protecting constitutional rights if the leaders of protesting or demonstrating groups discussed, in advance with the police, the appropriate times and places for demonstrations and methods of demonstrating. On the other hand, strong law enforcement responses in a true riot situation must occur rapidly, on the basis of advance planning and operational coordination. Advance planning is a necessity and must be conducted jointly between the police and local, State, and Federal governments. Too few departments have held the drills and rehearsals that disclose in advance deficiencies in planning, communications, coordination and chain of command. Procedures for calling in the National Guard and allocating command responsibility must be worked out prior to riotous situations. The tactics chosen at the beginning of disorder:may well be the crucial factor in controlling a riot. The kinds and extent of police force employed, and equipment involved, must be thought out well in advance, taught to personnel through training and constantly reassessed. Procedures for the acquisition and channeling of intelligence must be established so that information is centralized and disseminated to those who need it. Like any kind of crime, riots are best controlled by prevention. This of course involves maintaining proper police conduct, but the most important element in prevention is a city government's awareness of and response to the frustrations of the community. FIREARMS U S E POLICY In most cities police officers receive too little guidance as to when firearms may be drawn and used. Recruit and inservice training should keep officers continually alert to the legal and moral aspects of the use of firearms. The Commission recommends: A comprehensive regulation should be formulated by every chief administrator to reflect the basic policy that firearms may be used only when the officer believes his life or the life of another is in imminent danger, or when The machinery of law enforcement in this country is fragmented, complicated and frequently overlapping. America is essentially a nation of small police forces, each operating independently within the limits of its jurisdiction. The boundaries that define and limit police operations do not hinder the movement of criminals, of course. They can and do take advantage of ancient political and geographic boundaries, which often give them sanctuary from effective police activity. Nevertheless, coordination of activity among police agencies, even when the areas they work in are contiguous or overlapping, tends to be sporadic and informal, to the extent that it exists at all. This serious obstacle to law enforcement is most apparent in the rapidly developing urban areas of the country, where the vast majority of the Nation's population is located and where most crimes occur. In 1960, almost 1 17 million people, about 70 percent of our population, resided in America's 18,000 cities. Of these, almost 113 million persons, 63 percent of our population, resided in the 212 areas designated by the Bureau of the Census as Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas. According to FFBIreports, approximately 83 percent of the Part I crimes committed in the United States in 1965 were committed in these SMSA's. These 212 sprawling, metropolitan areas comprise 313 counties and 4,144 cities, each of which has its own police force. The majority of these departments are small and have only limited facilities and services. Thus, the responsibility for dealing with most of the serious crime in this country is diffused among a multitude of independent agencies that have little contact with neighboring forces. The Commission believes that the principal method of improving enforcement outside of the large cities is the coordination or pooling of police services. Coordination involves an agreement between two or more jurisdictions to perform certain services jointly; usually one of the jurisdictions will provide one or more services for the others. Pooling occurs when local government jurisdictions consolidate by merging one jurisdiction, or a function thereof, with another jurisdiction, or function thereof. Coordination is the more feasible form of law enforcement cooperation because there are fewer political or legal obstacles to achieving it. In studying how coordination or pooling might improve the quality of law enforcement, the Commission was guided by two assumptions. First, some pooling could take place without jeopardizing the independence of local government. Second, it is desirable to preserve as much local governmental control as is consistent with increasing the quality and quantity of police service. The Commission further believes that the cost of any program resulting from the coordination or pooling of police services should be allocated on an equitable basis and that it is important to the success of any joint program that it involve the political leadership, as well as the law enforcement officials, of the communities involved. between a central city and its suburbs, for example, could improve public information programs that involve the commuting public. AUXILIARY SERVICES The auxiliary services provide technical, special, or supportive services to a law enforcement agency. These inStaff services of law enforcement agencies are those clude records, communications, detention, 1abora.tory nonline functions and activities that help develop depart- services, equipment, and buildings. In general they are mental personnel, assist the departments to perform their the police functions best suited to pooling or coordina.tion basic police responsibilities effectively, and provide mean- throughout an area. Moreover, along with training, they ingful, internal controls. Included in staff services are are the services most often performed jointly, since the corecruitment, selection and training of personnel, planning, operation relates essentially to technical matters. Another organized crime intelligence, purchasing, public mforma- argument for joint performance of such services is that tion, internal investigation, and staff inspection. All but they are costly and require resources beyond the ability of the last two functions can be performed more efficiently most jurisdictions. and with improved quality through joint action. Criminal records and Records and Communications. Personnel and Planning. Many police agencies lack communications systems together provide the mechanisms the necessary resources for recruiting and selecting quali- by which the police should be able, swiftly and efficiently, fied personnel and for providing the training needed at all to learn about crimes, to store and retrieve pertinent inlevels of service. The Commission believes that police ac- formation, and to deploy personnel effectively. The estivities related to personnel should be organized on the tablishment of an areawide records center is fundamental basis of areas large enough to support good programs. to successful police operations, particularly in metroPolice agencies will benefit from joint recruitment, selec- politan areas comprising several jurisdictions, each with tion, and training programs. The State should participate its own force. The integration at an areawide records in the programs through setting standards, assisting de- center of basic information collected by many law enpartments in coordinating recruitment programs, and forcement agencies would enable inquiring police departments to check only one source rather than several. This making training facilities available. Although the fulfillment of police responsibilities de- would eliminate duplication of effort and physical facilipends upon the effective use of manpower, relatively few ties, reduce the possibility of error, and reduce signifidepartments possess the resources and capabilities for pro- cantly the time needed to conduct an inquiry or search. viding the sound, continuous planning essential for assign- In addition, detailed crime analysis and planning studies ing personnel and evaluating police effectiveness. A now needed to assist departments in deploying their statewide body for police administration service, such as forces more effectively would become feasible on an exists in New York State, or as is proposed in the dis- areawide basis. An areawide communications center can improve the cussion of standards councils below, could serve as a speed with which citizen requests for service are anclearinghouse of information relative to administrative swered. Duplication of expensive communications faciliand, operational problems, needs and suggested solutions. ties can be greatly reduced and existing facilities utilized States should provide modus operandi files and related more effectively. By integrating and centralizing comservices, which have been found useful in Michigan and munications facilities where this is practical, many probCalifornia, thereby providing police agencies with access lems arising out of the limited number of radio frequento areawide crime and modus operandi analyses. cies available for police operations would be mitigated if STAFF SERVICES Organized Crime Intelligence, Purchasing and Public Organized crime intelligence should be Information. shared among local, State, and Federal agencies to the extent possible. This is discussed more fully in chapter 7. Police purchasing should be a function of a centralized purchasing department of a whole jurisdiction. Volume buying would lead to lower prices, and purchasing expertise would produce better equipment and better testing and inspection, as has been demonstrated in Los Angeles County, Chicago, and in Dade County, Fla. While mainly a staff aid to the individual police administrator, public information services could be usefully coordinated in many metropolitan areas. A joint program not eliminated. In this connection, the States should serve as a coordinating agency and assist law enforcement agencies in realizing the benefits that would result from pooling and consolidating records and communications systems. The Commission recommends: States should assume responsibility for assuring that areawide records and communications needs are provided. Chapter 6 of this report discusses in some Detention. detail the problem of local jails, which in many communities are administered by police agencies. Because a jail is generally situated in the midst of a community, it could be the scene of significant programs designed to reintegrate offenders into the community. However, the police are trained in law enforcement rather than in rehabilitation, and such programs rarely are in effect. Turning over jails to qualified correctional agencies appears to be the proper solution for this problem. Laboratory Services. Only large departments have adequate laboratory .facilities. The shortage of tech- Fragmentation of Urban Police d Strength and Distribution of Police Agencies in Detroit Metropolitan Region: Number of Men Departments Code . . nicians and equipment usually means that city laboratories are unable to help neighboring jurisdictions. An outstanding exception to this, and an indication of what can be accomplished locally, is the Chicago Police Department laboratory, which renders expert free service to 140 neighboring jurisdictions in addition to free training about crime scene search. -The FBI provides excellent free laboratory service to local jurisdictions, and its local training courses on laboratory techniques. and collection and preservation of evidence are widely attended, especially by rural officers. However, the service provided by the national FBI laboratory and by its laboratory training programs cannot alone fulfill national needs. The Commission recommends: In every metropolitan area the central city or the State should provide laboratory facilities for the routine needs of all the communities in the area. State or multistate laboratories and the FBI laboratory should continue to provide the necessary research to make available to all laboratories more sophisticated means of analysis. FIELD OPERATIONS Field operations include, among other things : Criminal investigation, work with juveniles, vice control, and the use of special task forces. In Suffolk County, N.Y., and Dade County, Fla., county investigators can be called into incorporated municipalities to assist in solution of crimes. The Kansas City metropolitan squad, organized to handle major cases, involves cooperation between 29 different agencies at the county, city, and State level. The Metropol operation in Atlanta, Ga., created a fugitive-apprehension squad that serves 38 different departments in 6 counties. A major-case squad is also operating in the Greater St. Louis area. The Commission recommends: Specialized personnel from State or metropolitan departments should assist smaller departments in each metropolitan area on major investigations and in specialized law enforcement functions. beyond the capacity of the smaller jurisdiction. . Areawide associations of juvenile officers should discuss common problems and develop optinium field procedures. In vice operations, small departments should be able to call in State or county officers. Large city ,departments should brief the surrounding community police agencies about areawide vice and crime conditions except when there is reason to believe corruption exists in a local. department. Action that might be taken in such cases is discussed in chapter 7. Mutual-aid .agreements should be made among jurisdictions so that one department can borrow sufficient personnel from other departments for special needs, such as policing public events, riots, and civil disasters and providing undercover personnel for vice investigations. Enabling legislation should give the borrowed officers the power of arrest and afford them the privileges and immunities possessed by officers in the borrowing jurisdiction. Special tactical operations in multijurisdictional crime situations could also be established. CONSOLIDATION OR POLICING AGREEMENTS The ultimate form of jurisdictional consolidation is metropolitan government, a complete political merger of a city and its suburbs. This has happened in only one place in the country-Nashville-Davidson County, Tenn. Obviously pooled law enforcement is only one, and not the chief, purpose of a political reform that basic in nature. The Commission can only note, in this connection, that police performance and public support of the police in Davidson County have improved sharply since the merger. Annexation by a city of surrounding territory, for equally broad reasons, can also improve law enforceinent in the annexed areas. Leaving aside such sweeping reforms, there are ways in which law enforcement activities can be pooled without necessarily affecting other governmental functions. TWO of the most promising are contract law enforcement and county subordinate service districts. This is an arrangement Contract Law Enforcement. that authorizes one governmental jurisdiction to furnish some or all of its police services to another jurisdiction for a fee, thus broadening the geographical area for hanTrained investigators from large departments could be dling common functions. California, where 500 such inprovided to small departments for followup investigations, tergovernmental agreements exists, is the only State that and officers in the small departments could be trained now employs these contracts on a widespread basis. In by them in methods of handling preliminary investiga- Los Angeles County, for example, the sheriff provides tions. Regional squads, manned by qualified officers from complete police service to 29 of the 77 municipalities. each or any of a region's jurisdictions, should be formed Contract law enforcement is one of the least complito solve major crimes, investigate a series of crimes com- cated ways to achieve pooling of law enforcement servmitted by the same suspect in different communities ices. Although the usual method is county-to-city within a region, apprehend fugitives, and create blockade. service, provisions exist in the Nation for city-to-county plans. service and State-to-cityservice. In juvenile work, specialists from large departments should train officers in small departments in handling Subordinate Service Districts. . This pooling arrangejuveniles and should provide operational aid in matters ment is unique, in that county police operate in incorpo' rated as well as in unincorporated areas. Towns, villages, and boroughs vote to cede law enforcement functions to the county, and their citizens pay a special tax. Although other elements of local government retain their independence, subordinate police service districts institute a contiguous policing jurisdiction that guarantees a consistently higher level of police service. The best examples of this are in Nassau and Suffolk Counties, Long Island, N.Y. The Commission recommends: Each metropolitan area and each county should take action directed toward the pooling, or consolidation, of police services through the particular technique that will provide the most satisfactory law enforcement service and protection a t lowest possible cost. OBSTACLES TO COORDINATION AND POOLING proving law enforcement. Without removing control from local agencies, such a commission can be of great assistance in establishing adequate personnel selection standards, establishing and. strengthening training procedures, certifying qualified police officers, coordinating recruitment and improving the organization and operations of local departments through surveys. They could also conduct or stimulate research, provide financial aid to participating governmental units and make inspections to determine whether standards are being adhered to. A number of States now have commissions or councils, but most of them do not have the power either to establish mandatory standards or to give local departments money to help them comply. This lack of power weakens them seriously. The Commission recommends: Police standards commissions should be established in every State, and empowered to set mandatory requirements and to give financial aid to governmental units for the implementatioli of standards. T o obtain either pooling or coordination of law enforcement, most States must amend their constitutions and Chapter 13 of this report proposes the establishment of statutes. Without special legislation permitting cooperation, 28 States must comply with home rule provisions State and local planning bodies to upgrade criminal justhat block the exercise of power beyond the limits of a tice. Police standards commissions, appointed by govparticular jurisdiction. Sheriffs, for example, are usually ernors and consisting of leading law enforcement officonstitutional officers whose common-law powers can- cials and perhaps a few laymen from various parts of each not be removed or restricted without amending State con- State, could serve in conjunction with such groups. The stitutions. Most law enforcement officers are restricted task of the commissions should not be conceived in narby provisions that prohibit dual office-holding and bar row terms. The setting of minimum standards must be officers in one jurisdiction from serving in another without done with sufficient imagination and flexibility to avoid appropriate enabling legislation. Even county govern- the rigidity that now characterizes recruitment criteria in ments normally have only the powers specifically awarded most departments. They must lead the effort to help reform civil service requirements when they are restrictive, to them by a State constitution. More than one-half of the States do have legislation and to develop and implement better methods for screenpermitting intergovernmental agreements, but these are ing the personality and attitudes of applicants and assesslimited mostly to particular situations and do not cover ing their performance on duty. I n training, the commission could marshal the talents law enforcement pooling. The model act of the Council of State Governments provides for joint or cooperative ac- of police science curriculum experts to improve basic tivities, as to any existing power of local government, but training and continuing training programs. They could this act has been adopted in substance by only six States. stimulate the development of\a wider selection of course What makes the statutory and constitutional obstacles to materials, and they might sponsor programs to train incoordination and consolidation so difficult to overcome is structors in important subjects such as community relathe reluctance of citizens to remove them by vote. This tions and control of riots, or in better methods of teaching. is often due to local pride, fear of higher taxes, or the un- Programs that meet standards should be certified, and atwillingness of citizens to take on problems that their com- tendence at certified programs required. State commissions could be an effective voice in promunity does not have but that neighboring communities do. Most city-county pooling proposals have been de- moting greater coordination among law enforcement feated at the polls. Citizens must be made aware that in agencies, among agencies within the administration of many cases the partial consolidation of police service can justice, with community groups, and with other units of result in vastly improved law enforcement for essentially government. Perhaps most important, State commissions could the same cost. initiate the research that must continually test, challenge, and evaluate professional techniques and procedures in order to keep abreast of social and technical change. And IMPLEMENTATION THROUGH STATE though the task is difficult, they could help develop within COMMISSIONS O N POLICE STANDARDS the ranks of law enforcement the vision, inventiveness, and Properly constituted and.empowered, a State commis- leadership that is necessary to meet the complex challenges sion on police standards can' be an effective vehicle for im- facing the police of our cities. Chapter 5 The Courts THE CRIMINAL COURT is the central, crucial institution in the criminal justice system. I t is the part of the system that is the most venerable, the most formally organized, and the most elaborately circumscribed by law and tradition. I t is the institution around which the rest of the system has developed and to which the rest of the system is in large measure responsible. I t regulates ,the flow of the criminal process under governance of the law. The activities of the police are limited or shaped by the rules and procedures of the court. The work of the correctional system is determined by the court's sentence. Society asks much of the criminal court. The court is expected to meet society's demand that serious offenders be convicted and punished, and at the same time it is expected to insure that the innocent and the unfortunate are not oppressed. I t is expected to control the application of force against the individual by the State, and it is expected to find which of two conflicting versions of events is the truth. And so the court is not merely an operating agency, but one that has a vital educational and symbolic significance. It is expected to articulate the community's most deeply held, most cherished views about the relationship of the individual and society. The formality of the trial and the honor accorded the robed judge bespeak the symbolic importance of the court and its work. Here, at the beginning of the Commission's examination of the court and its work, it is important to discuss some fundamental aspects of the criminal process that determine what the court can and cannot do and, in many important respects, what the entire system of criminal justice can and cannot do. THE CONSTITUTIONAL FOUNDATIONS OF THE PROCESS The criminal process is determined by the U.S. and State constitutions, by statute, by practice, and by court decision-all of which are built upon the model of the English common law. These basic sources of law give structure to the process and limit its methods. Some constitutional limitations on the criminal court are based on principles common to most civilized criminal systems. One is that criminal penalties may be imposed only in response to a specific act that violates a preexisting law. The criminal court cannot act against perSons out of apprehension that they may commit crimes, but only against persons who have already done so. In other words, the court is primarily an institution for dealing with specific criminal acts that already have taken place; only insofar as its handling of criminals can be cautionary or rehabilitative can it deal with future criminality. Furthermore, the basic procedures of the criminal court must conform to concepts of "due process" that have grown from English common law seeds. A defendant must be formally notified of the charge against him and must have an opportunity to confront witnesses, to present evidence in his own defense, and to have this proof weighed by an impartial jury under the supervision of an impartial judge. I n addition, due process has come to incorporate the right of a defendant to be represented by an attorney. Unquestionably adherence to due process complicates, and in many instances handicaps, the work of the courts. They could be more efficient-in the sense that the likelihood and speed of conviction would be greater-if the constitutional requirements of due process were not so demanding. But the law rightly values due process over efficient process. And by permitting the accused to challenge its fairness and legality at every stage of his prosecution, the system provides the occasion for the law to develop in accordance with changes in society and society's ideals. The system also imposes limitations on how the prosecution may prove its case against one accused of crime. I t must establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt without compelling the accused to produce evidence or give testimony. The defendant can refuse to explain his actions and can refuse to respond to the testimony against him; he cannot be penalized for doing so. No statement or confession he makes after his arrest can be used against him, unless it has been made voluntarily, with knowledge that he could have remained silent if he had chosen to do so, and in circumstances that made it possible for him to exercise that choice freely. He cannot be required by court order or subpoena to produce private papers or other personal property that might incriminate him. In the Federal system, as well as in many States, the existing rule, now the subject of reconsideration by the Supreme Court, is that search warrants may be used ' only to seize contraband or the fruits or instrumentalities of crime. . I n the words of a Supreme Court decision: [Tlhey may not be used as a means of gaining access to a man's house or ofice and papers solely for the purpose of making search to secure evidence to be used against him in a criminal or penal proceeding * * *. Gouled v. United States, 255 US. 298, 309 (1921). If evidence is seized illegally, it cannot be used in court. These limitations on proof of guilt are not universal; many countries operate effective and humane criminal systems without puttirig so great a burden on the prosecution. America's adherence to these principles not only demands complex and time-consuming court procedures but also in some cases forecloses the proof of facts altogether. Guilty criminals may be set free because the court's exclusionary rules prevent the introduction of a confession or of seized evidence. Crimes may never even be detected because restrictions on the methods of investigation insulate criminal conduct from the attention of the police. Nevertheless these limitations on prosecution are the product of two centuries of constitutional development in this country. They are integral parts of a system for balancing the interests of the individual and the state that has served the Nation well. SUBSTANTIVE CRIMINAL LAW The substantive criminal law-the statutes and ordinances that the criminal justice system is called upon to enforce-forbids acts of many different kinds and degrees of injuriousness. A major part of it is a set of universally accepted prohibitions against such dangerous and frightening acts as homicide, rape, assault, and robbery. The place of these offenses in the criminal code is clear, and society rightly expects the criminal process to protect against them. However, defining, grading, and fixing levels of punishment for these serious offenses, as well as for other conduct made punishable by the criminal code, is persistently difficult. Many common offenses have ancient antecedents, yet age has not contributed to the c!arity of their definitions. I n other instances new situations strain familiar definitions. Criteria for distinguishing greater and lesser grades and degrees of crime also are in need of reexamination. They frequently determine the severity of the punishment, an issue that can be more significant in a particular case than the question of whether the defendant's conduct was criminal. About 30 States and the Federal Government are taking a fresh look at their substantive criminal codes and are considering revising them. The American Law Institute has given impetus to this effort through its Modcl Penal Code, produced after a decade of sustained labor. The model code offers a thoughtful and comprehensive reexamination of the substantive criminal law, and it has proven to be a sound guide to criminal code reform. I t is not only vital that a criminal code define and grade offenses in a rational manner, but that the courts enforce it in rational ways. Before the criminal courts come many offenders who are marginal in the sense that, although they are guilty of serious offenses as defined by the penal code, they may not be habitual and dangerous criminals. I t is not in the interest of the community to treat marginal offenders as hardened criminals, nor does the law require that the courts do so. Framing statutes that identify and prescribe for every nuance of human behavior is impossible; a criminal code has no way of describing the difference between a petty thief who is on his way to becoming an armed robber and a petty thief who succumbs once to a momentary impulse. Making such distinctions is vital to effective law enforcement. Therefore the law gives wide latitude to police and prosecutors in making arrests and in bringing charges, judges in imposing penalties, and correctional authorities in determining how offenders shall be treated in prison and when they shall be released on parole. The law, in short, makes prosecutors, judges, and correctional authorities personally responsible for dealing individually with individual offenders, for prescribing rigorous treatment for dangerous ones, and for giving an opportunity to mend their ways to those who appear likely to do so. O n the quality of the court and its officers depend both the individual's future and the general safety. I n terms of volume most of the cases in the criminal courts consist of what are essentially violations of moral norms or instances of annoying behavior, rather than of dangerous crime. Almost half of all arrests are on charges of drunkenness, disorderly conduct, vagrancy, gambling, and minor sexual violations. Such behavior is generally considered too serious to be ignored, but its inclusion in the crimina! j~lsticesystem raises questions deserving examination. For one thing the investigation and prosecution of such cases ties up police and clogs courts a t the expense of their capacity to deal with more threatening crimes. Moreover, to the extent that these offenses involve willing victims, their detection often requires a kind of enforcement activity that is degrading for the police and raises trouble.;' ome legal issues for the courts. I n some cities the enforcement of these laws has been unhappily associated with police, prosecutor, and court venality and corruption, which in turn have led to a general decline in respect for the law. Arrest, conviction, and jail or probation rarely reform persons who engage in these kinds of behavior, nor do they appear to deter potential violators. And continued reliance on criminal treatment for such offenders may blunt the community's efforts to find more appropriate programs to deal with the alcoholic, the homeless man, the con~pulsivegambler, or the sexual deviant. At the heart of some of the predicaments in which the criminal law finds itself has been too ready acceptance of the notion that the way to deal with any kind of reprehensible conduct is to make it criminal. There has been widespread scholarly debate in recent years on the extent - to which conduct that does not produce demonstrable a prosecutor when he decides upon a charge, to a trial harm to others, but is generally considered abhorrent or judge when he passes sentence is not always easy to obtain. immoral, should be made criminal. Some argue that Gathering such data requires trained personnel using lowering the criminal bars against such behavior might time-consuming procedures. In city and suburban courts be understood as a license to engage in it. Others niain- today these personnel and procedures are not adequate. tain that the limited tool of the criminal law will work The problem of courts and prosecutors in densely popubetter against the most dangerous and threatening kinds lated cities goes further than the difficulty of obtaining of crime if it is confined to the kinds of crime it can deal information about an individual defendant. The popuwith most effectively. Beyond recognizing that crimi- lations of many cities are made up of groups that have nality and immorality are not identical, the Commission little understanding of each other's ways. The law and has not found itself in a position to resolve this issue. court procedures are not understood by, and seem threatHowever, it does urge the public and legislatures, when ening to, many defendants, and many defendants are code reform is being considered, to weigh carefully the n o t understood by, and seem threatening to, the court kinds of behavior that should be defined as criminal. . and its officers. Even such simple matters as dress, speech, and manners can be misinterpreted. A prosecuCRIMINAL PROCEDURES tor or judge with a middle-class background and attitude, confronted with a poor, uneducated defendant, may often Even within their limitations the courts do not work have no way of judging how the defendant fits into his perfectly, and never have. Hamlet considered "the law's own society or culture. He can easily mistake a certain delay" to be as deplorable a feature of the human scene manner of dress or of speech, alien or repugnant to him, as "the pangs of mispriz'd love," and the works of Charles but ordinary enough in the defendant's world, as an inDickens are crammed with descriptions of the law's dex of moral worthlessness. He can mistake ignorance or abuses, from the bulmbling beadle in "Oliver Twist" to the fear of the law as indifference to it. He can mistake the unwieldy English Chancery in "Bleak House." For as defendant's resentment against the social evils he lives long as judges have had the power to determine sentences, with as evidence of criminality. O r conversely, he can there have been individual judges who have misused that be led to believe by neat dress, a polite and cheerful manpower by sentencing too leniently or too severely. For as ner, and a show of humility that a dangerous criminal is long as money bail has been used to insure that defend- merely an oppressed and misunderstood man. ants appear for trial, it has discriminated against poor There is a great need in the city courts for dedicated defendants. For as long as defense counsel have had the and sophisticated defense counsel who can contribute to right to question and test the criminal process, some the court's and the prosecution's understanding of the defense counsel have resorted to obfuscation and chican- defendant and the defendant's understanding of the sysery. Courts can be only as effective and just as the judges tem. There is a great need for probation officers with and prosecutors, counsel and jurors who man them. Pro- thorough training and reasonable caseloads who can pretecting the courts against misuse, abuse, or simple oper- pare searching presentence reports and effectively superational inefficiency has always been a hard and urgent vise those offenders who are sentenced to probation. And problem. there is a great need for judges and prosecutors to become I t is an especially hard and urgent problem today, for more knowledgeable about life in the communities from in some respects American courts have not kept abreast which many defendants come. These needs have not of American social and economic changes. The Nation's been adequately met in most city courts. court system was designed originally for small, rural comThe final and most serious problem of urban and suburmunities. The basic unit of court organization in most ban courts is the enormous volume of the crime and States remains the county, and about two-thirds of the . delinquency cases that come before them. The tradicounties in this country still are predominantly rural in tional methods of court administration have not been nature. But most Americans live in an urban environ- equal to managing huge caseloads. Law enforcement ment, in large communities with highly mobile popula- effectiveness is lost as courts are unable to deal properly tions that are being subjected to particular stress. I t is the with the defendants brought into them. Sometimes cases are-and must be-heard and disposed of in a matter of urban courts that particularly need reform. minutes; in the common categories of drunkenness and I n a rural community the parties involved in a criminal vagrancy, they may be heard and disposed of in seconds. case, the offender, the victim, the attorneys, the judge, The reverse side of this situation is that defendants who and the jury, often know each other. What the trial demur and demand a more deliberate examination of does is to develop specific facts about the offense. In a their cases often have weeks to wait-in jail'if they cannot city or large suburban community the parties in a case post bail-before the court can find time for them. are likely to be strangers. One result is that prosecutors Partly in order to deal with volume, many courts have and judges seldom know anything at all about a defend- routinely adopted informal, invisible, administrative proant's background, character, or way of life either at cedures for handling offenders. Prosecutors and magisfirst hand or by hearsay. Moreover, information of trates dismiss cases; as many as half of those who are crucial importance to a magistrate when he fixes bail, to arrested are dismissed early in the process. Prosecutors negotiate charges with defense counsel in order to secure guilty pleas and thus avoid costly, time-consuming trials; in many courts 90 percent of all convictions result from the guilty pleas of defendants rather than from trial. Much negotiation occurs without any judicial consideration of the facts concerning an offender or his offense. These circumstances create important problems that the courts generally have not recognized or dealt with effectively. THE LOWER COURTS ranged out-of-court compromise too often is substituted for adjudication. Inadequate attention tends to be given to the individual defendant, whether in protecting his rights, sifting the facts at trial, deciding the social risk he presents, or determining how to deal with him after conviction. The frequent result is futility and failure. As Dean Edward Barrett recently observed : Wherever the visitor looks at the system, he finds great numbers of defendants being processed by harassed and ouerworked officials. Police have more cases than they can investigate. Prosecutors walk into courtrooms to try simple cases as they take their initial looks at the files. Defense lawyers appear having had no more than time for hasty conversations with their clients. Judges face long calendars with the certain knowledge that their calendars tomorrow and the next day will be, if anything, longer, and so there is no choice but to dispose of the cases. In many big cities the congestion that produces both undue delay and unseemly haste is vividly exemplified in the lower courts-the courts that dispose of cases that are typically called "misdemeanors" or "petty offenses," and that process the first stages of felony cases. The importance of these courts in the prevention or deterrence of crime is incalculably great, for these are the courts that Suddenly it becomes clear that for most defendants in process the ovenvheIming majority of offenders. Al- the criminal pmcess, there is scant regard for them as though the offenses that are the business of these lower individuals. They are numbers on dockets, faceless ones courts may be "petty" in respect to the amount of damage to be processed and sent on their way. T h e gap between they do and the fear they inspire, their implication can be the theory and the reality is enormous. great. Hardened habitual criminals do not suddenly and unaccountably materialize. Most of them committed, Very little such obseruation of the administration of and were brought to book for, small offenses before they criminal justice in operation is required to reach the began to commit big ones. This does not suggest, of conclusion that it suffers from basic ills. course, that everyone who commits a small offense is likely There are judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and to commit a big one. The criminal justice system has a heavy responsibility, other officers in the lower courts who are as capal~lein particularly in cities where so many men are so nearly every respect as their counterparts in the more prestigious anonymous and where the density of population and the courts. The lower courts do not attract such pt:rsons aggmvation of social problems produce so much crime with regularity, however. Judging in the lower courts of all kinds, to seek to distinguish between those offend- is often an arduous, frustrating, and poorly paid job that ers who are dangerous or potentially dangerous and those wears down the judge. I t is no wonder that in most who are not. I t has an additional responsibility to pre- localities judges in courts of general jurisdiction are more vent minor offenders from developing into dangerous prominent members of the community and better qualicriminals. I t is a responsibility that the system is in some fied than their lower court counterparts. I n some cities lower court judges are not even required to be lawyers. ways badly equipped to fulfill. In a number of jurisdictions the State is represented The Commission has been shocked by what it has seen in some lower courts. I t has seen cramped and noisy in the lower court not by the district attorney but by a courtrooms, undignified and perfunctory procedures, and special prosecutor or by a police officer. Part-time atbadly trained personnel. I t has seen dedicated people torney? are sometimes used as prosecutors to supplement who are frustrated by huge caseloads, by the lack of op- police officers. In jurisdictions where assistant district portunity to examine cases carefully, and by the impossi- attorneys work in the lower courts, they usually are bility of devising constructive solutions to the problems younger and less experienced men than the staff of the felony court. The shift of a prosecutor from a lower of offenders. I t has seen assembly line justice. A central problem of many lower courts is the gross court to a felony trial court is generally regarded as a disparity between the number of cases and the personnel promotion. Movement back to the lower courts hy exand facilities available to deal with them. ~ o r k x a m ~ l e ,perienced men is rare. As a result there often is inadeuntil legislation last year increased the number of judges, quate early screening of cases that are inappropriate for the District of Columbia Court of General Sessions had prosecution, lack of preparation for trials or negotiated four judges to process the preliminary stages of more than pleas, and little prosecutor control over the proceedings. 1,500 felony cases, 7,500 serious niisdemeanor cases, and These inadequacies add to the judge's burdens and in38,000 petty offenses and an equal number of traffic crease the likelihood of inadequate attention by the judge offenses per year. An inevitable consequence of volume to the processes of adjudication and the goals of that large is the almost total preoccupation in such a disposition. In many lower courts defense counsel do not regularly court with the movement of cases. The calendar is long, speed often is su6stituted.for care, and casually ar- appear, and counsel is either not provided to a defendant who has no funds; or, if counsel is appointed, he is not courts and services may provide a sound way to bring compensated. The Commission has seen, in the "bull- about long overdue improvement in the standards of the pens" where lower court defendants often await trial, lower courts. Existing differences in punishment, right defense attorneys demanding from a potential client the .to grand jury indictment and jury trial, and the like loose change in his pockets or the watch on his wrist as should be retained unchanged, but all criminal cases . a condition of representing him. Attorneys of this kind should be tried by judges of equal status under generally operate on a mass production basis, relying on pleas of comparable procedures. guilty to dispose of their caseload. They tend to be unprepared and to make little effort to protect their The Commission recommends: clients' intei-ests. . For all these shortcomings, however, these attorneys do fill a need; defendants probably are Felony and misdemeanor courts and their ancillary better off with this counsel than they would be if they agencies-prosecutors, defenders, and probation services-should be unified. were wholly unrepresented. I n most jurisdictions there is no probation service in As an immediate step to meet the needs of the lower the lower courts. Presentence investigations are rare, courts, the judicial manpower of these courts should be although the lower courts can and do impose sentences as increased and their physical facilities should be improved long as several years' imprisonment. While jail sen- so that these courts will be able to cope with the volume tences of 1, 2, or 3 months are very common, probation of cases coming before them in a dignified and deliberate appears to be used less frequently than it is for presumably way. more serious offenses in the same jurisdictions. Prosecutors, probation officers, and defense counsel Every day in large'cities hundreds of persons, arrested should be provided in courts where these officers are not for being drunk or disorderly, for vagrancy or petty found, or their numbers are insufficient. gambling, for minor assaults or prostitution, are brought before the petty offense part of the lower courts. I n some The rural counterpart of the lower criminal court is the cities these defendants are stood in single file and paraded justice of the peace, who continues to exercise at least before the judge. I n others, 40 or 50 or more people are some criminal jurisdiction in 35 States. I n a majority brought before the bench as a group. 'Almost all plead of these States his compensation is fixed by a fee assessed guilty, and sentence is imposed in such terms as "30 days against the parties. I n at least three States justices of or $30." A large part of the jail population in many the peace receive a fee only if they convict a defendant cities is made up of persons jailed in default of the payand collect from him, a practice held unconstitutional 40 ment of a fine. T h e offender subjected to this process years ago by the Supreme Court. The dangers of the emerges from it punished but unchanged. He returns fee system are illustrated by reports that police receive to the streets, and it is likely that soon the cycle will be kickbacks from justices of the peace for bringing cases to repeated in all its futility. them. A justice who regularly rules for the defendant Those few cases in which the defendant demands a is likely to find that he does not receive cases or fees. trial may be inordinately delayed by the unavailability of I n more than 30 States justices of the peace are not rejudges to try cases. One result of this can be that wit- quired to be lawyers, and the incompetence with which nesses, who are grossly undercompensated at rates as low many perform their judicial functions has' long been as 75 cents a day, become weary and disappear. The reported. courthouse in which the lower court sits is likely to be old, In recent years a number of States have moved to redirtjr, and extremely overcrowded. Witnesses, policemen, form the justices' courts. Illinois has abolished some 4,000 lawyers, and defendants mill around halls and courtfee-system courts and replaced them with circuit courts rooms. Office facilities for clerks and prosecutors are aided by 207 salaried magistrates. I n 1961 Connecticut commonly inadequate. and Maine replaced justices with professional judges. Study commissions have pointed out the scandal of the Delaware, Florida, and North Carolina have taken steps lower criminal courts for over a century. More than 30 against the fee system. New York, Mississippi, and Iowa years ago the Wickersham Commission concluded that have sought to attack the problem by requiring justices the best solution to the problem would be the abolition of to take training courses. these courts. The Commission agrees. While the gradCareful consideration should be given to total aboliing of offenses as felonies, misdemeanors, and petty oftion of these offices and the transfer of their functions to fenses is an appropriate way of setting punishments, is district or circuit judges who have full-time professional dictated by history and constitutional provisions, and is standing. I n States where it is decided to retain the , necessary for such procedural purposes as grand jury indictment and jury trial, the Commission doubts that office, all justices of the peace should be placed under separate judicial systems are needed to maintain these central State administration and supervision; they should distinctions. A system that treats defendants who are be made accountable to a State judicial officer and be recharged with minor offenses with less dignity and con- quired to maintain records of their activities. Justices sideration than it treats those who are charged with seri- should be salaried and all fines and fees should go to ous crimes is hard to justify. The unification of these the State treasury. The fee system should be replaced and metropolitan areas. If a substantial percentage of them were not dropped or carried to negotiated conclusions administratively, justice would be not merely slowed clown; it would be stopped. A second reason is that the facts in most cases are not in dispute. The suspect ,either clearly did or clearly did not do what he is accused of having done. In these cases a trial, which is a careful and expensive procedure for determining disputed facts, should not be needed. Finally, subjecting a l l offenders to the full criminal process is inappropriate. I t is inappropriate because, as already noted, the substantive criminal law is in many respects inappropriate. In defining crimes there is no way to avoid including some acts that fall near the line between legal and illegal conduct, thus including some offenders who violate the law under circumstance:s that do not seem to call for the invocation of criminal sanctions. It is inappropriate because placing a criminal stigma on an offender may in many instances make him more, rather than less likely to commit future crimes. It is inappropriate because effective correctional methods for reintegrating certain types of offenders into their communities often are either not available or are unknown. As Judge Charles Breitel has written- local government foreclosed from considering criminal justice a prime source of revenue. All justices should be required to be fully trained in the law and in their duties, and their level of competence should be maintained by continuing training. The large number of jystices in many States impedes reform. In many places positions are unfilled or the incumbent is inactive and performs little judicial business. Where they are retained, States should substantially reduce the number of justices. The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee is considering legislation to reform the office of U.S. commissioner, a position comparable to-the justices of the peace in the State court systems. Commissioners possess authority to issue arrest and search warrants, arraign defendants on complaints, fix bail, hold preliminary hearings in felony cases, and in certain Federal reservations to try petty offenses. There are approximately 700 commissioners throughout the country, barely 1 percent of whom could be considered full-time officers. About one-third are not attorneys, yet there is no existing training program. With the exception of a few commissioners who serve in national parks, commissioners are compensated on a fee basis. As in the case of State justices of the peace the choice appears to be either to abolish the office and transfer its functions to professional full-time judges, as has been done in a U.S. District Court in Michigan, or to improve the quality and increase the responsibilities of these officers, placing them on a salary basis and training them for the job. If every policeman, every prosecutor, every court, and every post-sentence agency performed his or its res~onsibility in strict accordance with rules of law, precisely and narrowly laid down, the criminal law would be ordered but intolerable. The Commission recommends: The States and Federal Government should enact legislation to abolish or overhaul the justice of the peace and U.S. commissioner systems. THE INITIAL STAGES OF A CRIMINAL CASE The criminal process disposes of most of its cases without trial. Chapter 4 discusses the frequent use by policemen of their discretion not to arrest certaiq offenders. Prosecutors exercise discretion in a similar fashion. They do not charge all arrested suspects, they frequently have wide choices of what offense they will charge, and they often move to dismiss charges they have already made. Beyond this the overwhelming majority of cases are disposed of by pleas of guilty. Often those pleas are the result of negotiations between prosecutors and defendants or their attorneys. Guilty pleas may be obtained in exchange for a reduction of charges or for agreed-upon sentencing recommendations. In many instances it is the prosecutor who, in effect, determines or heavily influences the sentence a defendant receives. Much of the criminal process is administrative rather than judicial. There are good reasons for this. The most readily apparent is the enormous number of cases that come into the process, especially in the Nation's ' Because many important decisions are, and must be, made in that part of the criminal process that is essentially adrninistrative-outside the formal court procedures-it is essential that administrative procedures be visible and structured. Today many administrative decisions are made hastily and haphazardly. Most of them are made on the basis of insufficient information about the offense, the offender, his needs, or the community and correctional treatment programs that are available to him. They often are made invisibly, unguided by explicit statutes, judicial rules, or administrative policies, and are not subjected to public, or in most cases judicial, scrutiny. When such decisions are made before the charge, defense counsel are seldom involved. When guilty pleas are negotiated, there is often a pretense in court that they have not been. There is no way of knowing how many decisions have been made accurately and how many inaccurately, how many dangerous offenders have been treated with excessive leniency, how many marginal ones with excessive harshness. Since these decisions are rarely arrived at on the basis of carefully worked-out policies or by the use of systematic procedures and are rarely reviewed more than perfunctorily after they have been made, it is surely safe to assume that many mistakes are made. This section discusses ways in which the wholly desirable objectives of early diversion of some cases from the criminal process, and disposition of many cases through Beyond this, evaluating a defendant's reliability in terms of dollars is so difficult that, perhaps inevitably, most jurisdictions have come to use what might be called a standard crime-pricing system. On the theory that the likelihood of a defendant's appearance depends on 'the size of the penalty he faces and therefore on the seriousness of a charge against him, bail rates are often preordained by stationhouse or judicial schedules: so and so many dollars for such and such a crime. The effect of PRETRIAL RELEASE standard rates and their disparity from place to place is to leave out of consideration not only the important quesOne-half or more of the defendants who are brought tion of a defendant's financial means but also the equally into a police or magistrate's court are released or con- important ones of his background, character, and ties to victed and sentenced within 24 hours of their arrest. The the community. cases of the remainder, including all those against whom Although bail is recognized in the law solely as a the accusation of a serious crime can be maintained, method of insuring the defendant's appearance at trial, await final disposition for days or weeks or sometimes judges often use it as a way of keeping in jail persons they months, depending on the prosecutor's caseload, the gmv- fear will commit crimes if released before trial. I n addiity and complexity of the case, and the condition of the tion to its being of dubious legality, this procedure is calendar in the court that will hear it. ineffective in many instances. Professional criminals or The magistrate is empowered to decide whether or not members of organized criminal syndicates have little diffisuch defendants will be released pending trial. The im- culty in posting bail, although, since crime is their way of portance of this decision to any defendant is obvious. A life, they are clearly dangerous. released defendant is one who can live with and support If a satisfactory solution could be found to the problem his family, maintain his ties to his community, and busy of the relatively small percentage of defendants who prehimself with his own defense by searching for witnesses sent a significant risk of flight or criminal conduct before and evidence and by keeping in close touch with his law- trial, the Commission wou.ld be prepared to recommend yer. An imprisoned defendant is subjected to the squalor, that money bail be totally discarded. Finding that soluidleness, and possibly criminalizing effects of jail. He tion is not easy. Empowering magistrates to jail defendmay be confined for something he did not do; some jailed ants they believe to be dangerous might well create more defendants are ultimately acquitted. He may be confined of a problem than the imposition of money bail, in the while presumed innocent only to be freed when found light of the difficulty of predicting dangerousness. Such a guilty; many jailed defendants, after they have been system also might raise issues under State and Federal convicted, are placed on probation rather than impris- constitutional grants of a right to bail, issues that have oned. The community also relies on the magistrate not been determined by the Supreme Court. for protection when he makes his decision about releasing A partial solution for the problem would be to provide a defendant. If a released defendant fails to appear for an accelerated trial process for presumably high-risk detrial, the law is flouted. If a released defendant commits fendants. In Philadelphia, for example, a special calcrimes, the community is endangered. endar for defendants charged with crimes of violence has The device that is used in most magistrates' courts to recently been set up; such defendants are to come to trial resolve these complicated issues is money bail in an amount no more than 30 days after indictment. I t is still too early fixed by the magistrate; a defendant without access to to know whether and how much this lessens the likelihood that amount of money is remanded to jail. The ordinary that released defendants will commit dangerous acts, but method defendants use to furnish bail is to pay a fee, other studies have shown that the risks are closely related commonly from 5 to 10 percent of the full amount of the to the length of time that elapses before trial. The use bail, to a bail bondsman, who posts a bond for the full of conditions and restrictions short of detention to control amount with the court. By and large, money bail is an potentially dangerous persons may provide an adequate unfair and ineffective device. Its glaring weakness is that and more clearly permissible approach and should be it discriminates against poor defendants, thus running tried. directly counter to the law's avowed purpose of treating In any case, money bail should be imposed only when all defendants equally. A study in New York, where the reasonable alternatives are not available. This prebondsman's fee is 5 percent, showed that 25 percent of supposes an information-gathering technique that can arrested persons were unable to furnish bail of $500promptly provide a magistrate with an array of facts i.e., raise $25; 45 percent failed at $1,500; 63 percent about a defendant's history, circumstances, problems, and failed at $2,500. A massive side effect of money bail way of life. The Vera Institute of Justice in New York is that it costs taxpayers millions of dollars a year. A .has been a pioneer in devising such a technique. The Incommunity spends from $3 to $9 a day to house, feed, stitute prepared a short standard form on which pertinent and guard a jailed defendant. facts about a defendant were entered. Employ& of the a broader range of alternatives in the criminal process, can be reached fairly, efficiently and openly in the pretrial stage. Three particularly important events take place during the pretrial stage: the conditions under which a defendant may be released pending trial are set by a magistrate; a specific charge against the defendant is made, usually by a prosecutor; and. a plea of guilty or not guilty is entered by the defendant. criminal court's probation department now question defendants as they await their appearance before the judge, and fill out the form. Often they check by telephone the facts they are given with the defendant's family or neighbors or employer. The entire procedure can take as little as 20 minutes, and by the time the defendant makes his court appearance, the judge knows enough about him to make an informed decision about whether bail is appropriate or whether the defendant can be released on his own recognizance, that of a member of his family, or his lawyer's. Since the Vera Institute established this approach, more than a hundred other jurisdictions have adopted the same or similar techniques. T h e Commission recommends: Bail projects should be undertaken a t the State, county, and local levels to furnish judicial officers with sufficient information to permit the pretrial release without financial condition of all but that small portion of defendants who present a high risk of flight or dangerous acts prior to trial. The Federal Bail Reform Act of 1966 may serve as a helpful guide for States considering comprehensive legislation. The act states a presumption in favor of the release of defendants upon their promise to return, or on an unsecured bond. Judges are authorized to place nonmonetary conditions upon release, such as assigning the defendant to the custody of a person or organization to supervise him, restricting his travel, association or place of abode, or placing him in partial custody so that he may work during the day and be confined at night. The act contemplates the gathering and consideration by the judge of information concerning the bail risk presented and provides rational standards against which the facts may be measured. Procedures are established for the speedy review and appeal of bail decisions. Special provisions for capital cases and bail for convicted persons pending appeal permit the judge to consider explicitly the dangerousness of the person' in deciding whether to release the offender. The criminal penalties for a defendant's failure to appear also are strengthened by the act. 7 The Commission recommends: Each State should enact comprehensive bail reform Iegislation after the pattern set by the Federal Bail Reform Act of 1966. A number of recent projects have sought to gain the speedy release of arrested persons and, in limited classes of cases, to dispense with the arrest altogether by use of a summons or citation. Early release and summons projects reduce the time between arrest and release, avoiding the situation in some cities where several days may pass after arrest before a defendant gets before a judge who sets bail. Since 1964 the New York Police Vera stag member interviews defendant. Department with the assistance of the Vera Institute 01 Justice has operated a stationhouse summons project for relatively minor criminal cases (simple assault, petty larceny, malicious mischief) which is to be expanded to major misdemeanors and some felonies. This project, which has been followed in other cities, does not eliminate arrest. Rather, the arrested person is brought to the precinct station where, after identification, booking, search, questioning, and fingerprinting, hie community ties are investigated, m'uch as they might be for purposes of bail. If the defendant is found to be a good risk, the precinct officer is authorized to release him with a citation or summons directing him to appear in court at a later date. In addition to the advantages of bail reform, this procedure saves substantial police time and has shown economies in the operation of lockup and detention facilities. Beyond stationhouse release there has been an efFort to displace arrest in appropriate cases by greater use of summons or citations by police in the street. This procedure, now frequently used for traffic or administrative violations, has been expanded to certain minor of'fenses that do not call for booking and in-custody investigation. An experimental project in Contra Costa County, Calif., suggests the potential of this procedure. Using a computer-based police identification network, an officer can find out in a minute or less whether the defendant is wanted for another crime, and he can decide on that basis whether to use summons rather than arrest for minor offenses. This procedure has permitted the broader use of the summons in cases of petty theft, breach of the peace, minor assault, and other offenses, when the defendant can properly identify himself. The Commission recommends: Each community should establish procedures to enable and encourage police departments to release, in appropriate classes of cases, as many arrested persons as possible promptly after arrest upon issuance of a citation or summons requiring subsequent appearance. THE DIVERSION OF CASES BEFORE CHARGE The limited statistics available indicate that approximately one-half of those arrested are dismissed by the police, a prosecutor, or a magistrate at an early stage of the case. Some of these persons are released because they did not commit the acts they were originally suspected of having committed, or cannot be proved to have committed them, or committed them on legally defensible grounds. The police can arrest on "probable cause," while conviction requires proof "beyond a reasonable doubt." Therefore, some justified arrests cannot lead to prosecution and conviction. However, others who are released probably did commit the offenses for which they were arrested. In some instances offenders who could and should be convicted are released simply because of an overload of work, or inadequate investigation in the prosecutor's office. In other cases the police, or more often prosecutors, have exercised the discretion that is traditionally theirs to decline to prosecute offenders whose conduct appears to deviate from patterns of law-abiding conduct, or who present clear medical, mental, or social problems that can be better dealt with outside the criminal process than within it. First offenders are often dealt with in this way. So are persons whose offenses arise from drinking or mental problems, if the Menses are minor. So are many cases of assault or theft within families or among friends, of passing checks with insufficient funds, of shoplifting when restitution is made, of statutory rape when both boy and girl are young, of automobile theft by teenagers for the purpose of joyriding. The Commission regards the exercise of discretion by prosecutors as necessary and desirable. However, it has found that more often than not prosecutors exercise their discretion under circumstances and in ways that make unwise decisions all too likely. The haste and tumult of the lower courts in large cities have been described. In addition to having generally unfavorable working conditions, prosecutors suffer from several other handicaps. One is the lack of sufficient information on which to base their decisions. A prosecutor who bases his estimate of the provability of a case on a one-page police report can easily dismiss strong cases and press cases that ulti- mately prove to have little foundation. A prosecutor with no background information about an offender can easily mistake a dangerous person with a plausible manner or story for a marginal offender. Or, in the absence of background information, he can operate on rule-ofthumb policies-for example, all family assault cases should be dismissed, or all automobile theft cases should be prosecuted. A prosecutor with little knowledge of the treatment programs and facilities in the community can either dismiss or prosecute a case that might better be referred to another agency. Another want, particularly felt by young, inexperienced assistants in large offices, is the lack of clearly stated standards to guide them in making decisions. Standards should pertain to such matters as the circumstances that properly can be considered mitigating or aggravating, or the kinds of offenses that should be most vigorously prosecuted in view of the community's law enforcement needs. In large offices where no such standards are devised and communicated, it is unlikely that assistants will charge or dismiss in the same manner. A third deterrent to the systematic making of charge decisions is the lack of established procedures for arriving at them. Procedures, in this sense, does not mean an elaborate and cumbersome apparatus for transacting business that should be done with a considerable amount of speed and informality. I t means setting forth the separate steps that a prosecutor should take before making a charge decision, and indicating when he should take them. Clearly, before a prosecutor decides whether to charge or dismiss in any case that is not elementary, he should review the case file and discover whether there is sufficient evidence to justify a charge and whether more evidence and witnesses than the police have uncovered are available. He should confer with defense counsel in doubtful cases. Prosecutors often fail to do such things not so much because they lack time as because no one requires them to. Greater involvement of court probation departments and the availability of probation officers for consultation with the prosecutor and defense counsel at this stage of the proceedings cculd provide this link. When discretion not to charge is exercised in felony cases, the prosecutor's disposition of the case and the underlying reasons should be reduced to writing and filed with the court. Prosecutors deal with many offenders who clearly need some kind of treatment or supervision, but for whom the full force of criminal sanctions is excessive; yet they usually lack alternatives other than charging or dismissing. In most localities programs and agencies that can provide such treatment and supervision are scarce or altogether lacking, and in many places where they exist, there are no regular procedures for the court, prosecutors, and defense counsel to take advantage of them. Procedures are needed to identify and divert from the criminal process mentally disordered or deficient persons. Not all members of this group are legally insane or incompetent to stand trial under traditional legal definitions. The question of how to treat such offenders cannot be satisfactorily resolved by recourse to the definitions of forensic psychiatry. While recognizing the importance of the long-standing controversies over the definitions of criminal responsibility, insanity, and competence to stand trial, the Commission does not believe it has a substantial contribution to make to their resolution. I t is more fruitful to discuss, not who can be tried and convicted as a matter of law, but how the officers of the administration of criminal justice should deal with people who present special needs and problems. In common prosecutorial practice this question is, and the Commission believes should be, decided on the basis of the kind of correctional program that appears to be most appropriate for a particular offender. The Commission believes that, if an individual is to be given special therapeutic treatment, he should be diverted as soon as possible from the criminal process. I t believes further that screening procedures capable of identifying mentally disordered or deficient offenders as early in the process as possible can be improved by training law enforcement and court officers to be more sensitive to signs of mental abnormality and by making specialized diagnostic referral services more readily available to the police and the courts. The Commission recommends: . Prosecutors should endeavor, to make discriminating charge decisions, assuring that offenders who merit criminal sanctions are not released and that other 'offenders are either released or diverted to noncriminal methods of treatment and control by: Establishment of explicit policies for the dismissal or informal disposition of the cases of certain marginal offenders. Early identification and diversion to other comrnunity resources of those offenders in need of treatment, for whom full criminal disposition does not appear required. I n some communities a beginning has been made in providing alternatives other than charge or outright dismissal. I n several cities the police or prosecutors conduct hearings at which the attempt is made to settle disputes, to arrange restitution or damages, to calm family quarrels, and to obtain promises to keep the peace in the future. In some places the judge participates in this process, and there are procedures to place defendants under informal probation supervision without conviction. The laws of at least five States and the provisions of the Model Sentencing Act specifically provide for such dispositions, and they appear to be used in other places without specific statutory authority. Alternative ways of disposing of criminal cases that involve close supervision or institutional commitment without conviction, call for protections from their abuse, protections that should be roughly comparable to those of the criminal law. Experience with civil procedures for the commitment of the mentally ill, for so-called sexual psychopaths, and for similar groups demonstrates that there are dangers of such programs developing in ways potentially more oppressive than those foreclosed by the careful traditional protections of the criminal law. 'When the alternative noncriminal disposition involves institutionalization or prolonged or intrusive supervision of the offender in the community, the disposition should be reviewed by the court. The effect of these recommendations might well be to alter the responsibilities of the prosecutor and defense counsel and require more effort on their part early in the case. But these procedures also would result in the early elimination of many cases from the process and thus relieve the system from some of its caseload burden without sacrificing the proper administration of justice. The additional investment of manpower and talent would not appear as great as that required to make existing practice work with equal effectiveness. Of come, implementation of this recommendation is heavily dependent on the availability to the prosecutor, defense counsel, and the courts of adequate factual information on offenders and of appropriate facilities and programs in the community for the diagnosis and management of offenders who are diverted. Community programs are discussed in chapters 3 and 6 of this report. T H E NEGOTIATED PLEA OF GUILTY Most defendants who are convicted-as many as 90 percent in some jurisdictions-are not tried. They plead guilty, often as the result of negotiations about the charge or the sentence. I t is almost impossible to generalize about the extent to which pleas are negotiated or about the ways in which they are negotiated, so much does practice vary from jurisdiction to jurisdictio:n. A plea negotiation can be, and often is in a minor case, a hurried conversation in a courthouse hallway. In grave cases it can be a series of elaborate conferences over the course of weeks in which facts are thoroughly discussed and alternatives carefully explored. Most often the negotiations are between a prosecutor and defense counsel, but sometimes a magistrate or a police officer or the defendant himself is involved. In some courts there are no plea negotiations at all. There almost never are negotiations in the cases of petty offenders. . And, of course, many guilty pleas are not the result of negotiations. The two generalizations that can .be made are that when plea negotiations are conducted, they usually are conducted informally and out of sight, and that the issue in a plea negotiation always is how much leniency an offender will be given in return for a plea of guilty. Through his power over the charge the prosecutor-has great influence on the sentence. Usually a prosecutor has considerable latitude as to what to charge. Some sets of facts can be characterized as either felonies or misdemeanors, or as crimes in the first, second, or third degree. Some defendants can with equal appropriateness be charged with one crime or with several related crimes. The forgery of the endorsement and the negotiation of a check may be charged as one offense; or the forging, uttering, and possession of the check may be charged:= ecutors will threaten to seek a harsh sentence if the dethree distinct crimes. Misdemeanors typically carry fendant does not plead guilty. Such practices place lighter penalties than felonies, and misdemeanants are unacceptable burdens on the defendant who legitimately typically sentenced by different judges than felons. The insists upon his right to trial. They present the greatest degree of a crime determines the maximum and some- potential abuse when the sentencing judge becomes intimes the minimum penalty that can be imposed, and volved in the process as a party to the negotiations, as in occasionally whether an offender may be granted proba- some places he does. tion or parole. If a defendant is convicted on more than Plea negotiations can be conducted fairly and openly, one count, a judge can decide to have the sentences run can be consistent with sound law enforcement policy, and concurrently or consecutively. can bring a worthwhile flexibility to the disposition of A distorting aspect of charge decisions is that the prose- offenders. But some courts are able to deal with their cutor, because of lack of information and contact with caseloads without reliance on guilty pleas, and in other defense counsel before charge, may be under pressure to courts, particularly single judge .courts, it may not be make the most serious possible charge. This leaves him feasible to introduce the safeguards that are necessary for freedom to reduce the charge later, if the facts are not as the negotiated plea system to operate fairly and effectively. . damning as they might be, and places him in an advan- The Commission's recommendations are directed pritageous position for negotiating with defense counsel on marily, therefore, to those jurisdictions where plea nego. tiations are ordinary occurrences. In many of those a plea of guilty. . Beyond the prosecutor's influence on the sentence by jurisdictions it is desirable for judges and prosecutors to his power over the charge, he is, in many courts, reexamine existing practices. Negotiations should be more careful and thorough, empowered or even required to make sentencing recommendations. Much more often than not such recom- broader, and preferably held early in the proceedings. I t mendations are given great weight by judges. Sometimes does not contribute to the soundness of the practice when prosecutors are able to see to it that specific cases come negotiations are held on the eve of trial or in the public before specific judges. Since some judges habitually atmosphere of the courtroom hallway. sentence more leniently than others, this consideration Prosecutors should be available to defense counsel from can be an important factor in plea negotiations. In some the beginning of the case for the purpose of discussing cases there is a tacit or explicit agreement by the judge to the possibility of a disposition by plea of guilty. Except the bargain, and in extreme cases the judge may partici- in the most petty cases, such discussion should be had with pate in its negotiation. counsel rather than directly with the defendant. These The negotiated guilty plea serves important functions. discussions should thoroughly assess the facts underlying As a practical matter, many courts could not sustain the the prosecution's case, consider information on the offendburden of having to try all cases coming before them. er's background and correctional needs, and explore all The quality of justice in all cases would suffer if over- available correctional alternatives as well as review the loaded courts were faced with a great increase in the charge to which the plea will be entered. To a much number of trials. Tremendous investments of time, tal- greater extent than at present the facilities of the probaent, and money, all of which are in short supply and can tion department and other referral and diagnostic services be better used elsewhere, would be necessary if all cases should be available to the parties. In some instances it were tried. It would be a serious mistake, however, to may be desirable to have a full presentence report preassume that the guilty plea is no more than a means of pared so the negotiating parties as well as the reviewing disposing of criminal cases at minimal cost. It relieves judge can assess the agreed disposition, although in many both the defendant and the prosecution of the inevitable cases less elaborate methods of factfinding should suffice. risks and uncertainties of trial. I t imports a degree of While the emphasis should be on correctional and law certainty and flexibility into a rigid, yet frequently erratic enforcement considerations, the prosecutor properly may system. The guilty plea is used to mitigate the harshness take account of the defendant's cooperation, testimony of mandatory sentencing provisions and to fix a punish- against other criminals, and similar factors. ment that more accurately reflects the specific circumThe defendant should be able to include in the discusstances of the case than otherwise would be possible under sions, and cover within the disposition, all specific crimes, inadequate penal codes. It is frequently called upon to charged or not, that could,be charged within the jurisdicserve important law enforcement needs by agreements tion of the court. This discussion should involve the full through which leniency is exchanged for information, as- and frank exchange of information, and appropriate prosistance, and testimony about other serious offenders. vision should be made to insure that a defendant's stateAt the same time the negotiated plea of guilty can be ments and information disclosed are not used against him subject to serious abuses. In hard-pressed courts, where in the event of a trial. Defense counsel. should painsjudges and prosecutors are unable to deal effectively with takingly explain to the defendant the terms of the agreeall cases presented to them, dangerous offenders may be ment and the alternatives open to him. able to manipulate the system to obtain unjustifiably An obvious problem is insuring that the defendant lenient treatment. There are also real dangers that exces- receives from the judge the sentence he has bargained sive rewards will be offered to induce pleas or that pros- for with the prosecutor. Under existing practice the fact that negotiations have occurred is commonly denied on the record, and so is the explicit or tacit expectation that the judge will impose the agreed punishment. The Commission believes that this is undesirable and that the agreed disposition should be openly acknowledged and fully presented to the judge for review before the plea is entered. A desirable change might be that before the plea is finally entered, the judge would indicate whether the disposition is acceptable to him and will be followed. Should the judge feel the need for more information or study, the plea may be entered conditionally, and if .a more severe sentence is to be imposed, the defendant should have an opportunity to withdraw his plea. Inevitably the judge plays a part in the negotiated guilty plea. His role is a delicate one, for it is important that he carefully examine the agreed disposition, and it is equally important that he not undermine his judicial role by becoming excessively involved in the negotiations themselves. The judge's function is to insure the appropriateness of the correctional disposition reached by the parties and to guard against any tendency of the prosecutor to overcharge or to be excessively lenient. The judge should satisfy himself and insure that the record indicates that there is a factual basis for the plea, that the defendant understands the charge and the consequences of his plea, and where there has been an agreement on sentence that the agreed disposition appears within the reasonable range of sentencing appropriateness. I n cases involving dangerous offenders or career criminals, the judge should be satisfied that the agreement adequately protects the public interest. The judge should weigh the agreed disposition against standards similar to those that would be applied on imposition of sentence after a trial: The defendant's need for correctional treatment; the circumstances of the case; the defendant's cooperation; and the requirements of law enforcement. The court should be apprised of all information concerning the offense, including appropriate investigative reports, grand jury minutes, and all information and diagnostic reports concerning the offender. If the agreed sentence appears within the reasonable range of what would be an appropriate sentence after trial, it should satisfy the need to deal effectively with the serious offender, and at the same time not be an improper inducement to the defendant to surrender his right to a trial. The judge's role is not that of one of the parties to the negotiation, but that of an independent examiner to verify that the defendant's plea is the result of an intelligent and knowing choice and not based on misapprehension or the product of coercion. Since this approach contemplates that the judge will assess and indicate acceptance of the agreement before the plea is entered, provision must be made for those cases in which he finds the agreement unacceptable and in which the case, therefore, is set for trial. In such instances the judge's participation as arbiter at the trial would be complicated by his participation during the plea proceedings and the knowledge he obtained then. Provision should be made that when a judge rejects an agreement, trial and all further proceedings in the case are referred, if possible, to another judge. The return of the parties to the same judge with a renegotiated plea would tend to increase the likelihood of his becoming, in practical effect, a party to the negotiations. The Commission recommends: If a negotiated agreement to plead guilty is reached, care should be taken by prosecutor and defense counsel to state explicitly all its terms. Upon the plea of guilty in open court the terms ,of the agreement should be fully stated on the record and, in serious or complicated cases, reduced to writing. A plea negotiation is fundamentally a negotiation about the correctional disposition of a case and is, therefore, a matter of moment to the community as well as to the defendant. If the offense is a serious one, a plea bargain should be founded on the kind of information, fully shared between the parties, that probation departments develop for presentence reports. In the District of Columbia the defender's office has an experimental project, in many respects resembling a probation service, for evaluating defendants and developing correctional plans for them. Such a service might well be one means of securing the full information that is needed in order to dispose of serious offenders effectively, as well as a means for developing the less complete information that would be adequate for arriving at dispositional decisions about minor offenders. At the same time subtle and difficult questions are presented in some cases by an approach calling for full sharing of information. Defense counsel may well possess information adverse to his client, and the pro,c ecutor may have erroneous information which defense counsel knows paints an unjustifiably favorable picture of his client. For example, an apparent conflict exists between the need for a frank exchange of information with the prosecutor and counsel's obligation to act only in ways favorable to his client. Obviously all exchanges of information must be explicitly authorized by the defendant, and if conflicts are likely, the problem is one to be considered by defendant and counsel before consent is given. While the consent of the client simplifies some aspects of this problem, it is clear that the expansion of discovery and the sharing of information early in the case will create new professional responsibilities for both prosecutors and defense counsel. Experience may provide guides for some of the problems presented, other norms may be provided by such efforts as those of the American Bar Association redefinition of the canons of proff:ssional ethics or the consideration of the role of counsel by the ABA Special Project on Minimum Standards for the Administration of Criminal Justice. The Commission recommends: . * Prosecutors and defense counsel should in appropriate cases share information they secure independently at all points in the process when such sharing appears likely to lead to early disposition. Defender agencies should .adopt programs through which background data, diagnostic information, and correctional planning for offenders can be developed early in.the process. COURT PROCEEDINGS This chapter's emphasis on the pretrial administrative aspects of the court process does not imply that the trial is unimportant. The cases decided at trial are only a small 'fraction of the total of cases, but they are<,mostimportant to the process because they set standards for the..conduct of all cases. The trial decides the hard legal issues, and reviews and nhes on claims of official abuse. Trial procedures have evolved over centuries and in general have proven that they can resolve disputed cases effectively. Unlike the administrative proceedings in the pretrial stage, court proceedings are continually being studied by lawyers and are now receiving intensive scrutiny from other groups. The Judicial Conference of the United States sponsors continuing studies of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, proposed rules of evidence i n criminal cases in the Federal courts, and the habeas corpus jurisdiction of those courts. The American Bar Association, through its sections on criminal law and judicial administration and its Special Project on Minimum Standards for the Administration of Criminal Justice, is conducting broadly based studies that relate to many major areas of interest in the criminal law and court administration. The American Law Institute has sponsored intensive studies that have produced the Model Penal Code and a draft of a Model Code of Pre-Arraignment Procedure. The National' Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws \hasdrafted several model State statutes dealing with problems of criminal administration. The Commission has tried to avoid duplicating the exhaustive work of these responsible professional orga'~'. zations. Later this chapter will treat some aspects of court proceedings under the headings of jurors and witnesses and court scheduling, management and 0rganiz.ition. The discussion here will be limited to a few points of particular public concern. THE NEWS MEDIA AND THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE Newspaper, television, and radio reporting are es&- tial to the administration of justice. Reporting maintains the public knowledge, review, and support so necessary for the proper functioning of the courts. Critical inquiry and reports by the media on the operation of the courts can prevent abuses and promote improvements in 'the administration of justice. On the other hand, a fair jury trial can be held only if the evidence is presented in the courtroom, not in the press, and jurors do not come to their task prejudiced by publicity. Two recent cases decided by the Supreme Court have dramatized how prejudicial publicity can endanger a fair trial. In the Sheppard case a murder trial was turned into what one court described as a "Roman circus" by an overzealous press and an oirertolerant judge. I n the Estes case the Court found that the presence of television and still cameras in the courtroom during trial destroyed the "judicial serenity a i d d a l m necessary for a fair trial. While unrestrained newsgathering 'in the courtroom can prejudice the actual conduct of a trial, a more serious threat to fairness is release to the press by police, prosecutors, or defense counsel of inaccurate or legally inadmissible information. Increasing attention has been --given to requlation by law enforcement agencies and the n t .Justice courts of such statements. The ~ e ~ a r t m e of and the New,York City Police Department, among others, have issued ;e@lations and standards identifying types of information that should not be disclosed to the press in pretrial statements .by law ,enforcement officers. Thoughtful and constructive studies by a committee of the American Bar Association Project on Minimum Standards for Criminal Justice and by the American Newspaper Publishers Association have identified the issues that must be faced in placing limitations on statements to the press. - The Commission recognizes that the parantees of both free press and fair trial must be scrupulously preserved and that indeed each sustains the other in a most fundamental sense. To avoid abuses which might affect fair trial adversely, reasonable regulations with respect to release of information should be adopted and.enforced by administrative discipline within police departments, by profes,sional discipline with respect to prosecutors and defense counsel, and in limited instances by the courts. In addition, courts should firmly control or prohibit those news gathering activities in'the courthouse that detract from the dignity of a judicial proceeding or threaten to prejudice the fairness of a. trial, while permitting legitimate, nondisruptive newsgathering. The Commission recommends: Police, prosecutors, bar associations, and courts should issue regulations and standards as to the kinds of information that properly may be released to the news media about pending criminal cases by police officers, prosecutors, and defense counsel. These regulations and standards should be designed to minimize prejudicial statements by the media before or during trial, while safeguarding legitimate reporting on matters of public interest. JUDICIALLY SUPERVISED DISCOVERY The relatively informal exchanges of information between the prosecution and the defense proposed earlier in this chapter are intended primarily for the case that will be disposed of before trial, although their usefulness for the fully litigated case is apparent. In addition to such procedures, there has been, in recent years, increasing interest in and expansion of the procedures for formal discovery of evidence before trial. Over the past generation broad discovery, by examination of witnesses and evidence, has become commonplace in civil cases, but its utilization in criminal cases has been slowed by fears that pretrial disclosure of the Government's case would lead to perjury and threats to witnesses, and that undue disclosure of confidential criminal files would impede ongoing investigations. The defendant's privilege against testifying forecloses the full mutuality of discovery by both sides that exists in civil cases and could place an unfair additional burden on the prosecution. Several States, particularly California and Minnesota, have been experimenting with expanded discovery in criminal cases. Within the year the Federal courts have adopted new rules providing freer disclosure to a defendant of his own statements; his testimony before a grand jury; medical, scientific, and expert witness reports; and tangible evidence in the possession of the Government. In California the defendant also may obtain the names and statements of witnesses upon application. In many jurisdictions, however, the right of discovery in criminal cases is extremely restricted or nonexistent. There also has been expansion within constitutional limits of the prosecution's right to discovery of the defendant's evidence. In a number of States the defendant, by statute or rule, must disclose in advance whether he will assert particular defenses, such as insanity or an alibi, what witnesses he will call, and what physical evidence he will present. The Government in Great Britain is seeking legislation requiring the defendant to give notice of alibi defenses. Under the revised Federal rules the court may make the defendant's discovery of the Government's case conditional upon his own disclosure of physical evidence and scientific reports. After a case has begun, neither the prosecutor nor The issues raised are complex and highly technical in defense counsel has legal power to compel the appearance several respects. In large part the increase in the numof witnesses for pretrial examination. In civil cases dep- ber of petitions for habeas corpus is a reflection of the ositions and other examinations of witnesses before trial expanding interpretation the courts have given to constihave been widely and successfully used, but in criminal tutional standards applied to the crimirial process. As cases their use has been limited in most jurisdictions to standards change, the number of cases in which these issues situations in .which a witness may be unavailable to testify can be raised by habeas corpus grows apace. In addiat trial and his testimony must be preserved. Prose- tion, the court rules governing such petitions have been . cutors frequently can convince witnesses to cooperate by liberalized to permit greater recourse to the writ. assertion of the prestige of their office, although in some Finality, the conclusive end of a case, is desirable, but places subpoenas and grand jury process are used for these so is providing a man in prison or under sentence of death purposes without legal authority. Expanded availability every opportunity to press his claim that he is wrongfully of depositions would provide for both sides a legitimate held. This is complicated by the nature of the Federal method to make these examinations which are so im- system, which in certain circumstances makes it possible portant to proper trial preparation. for a single Federal district judge to sit in review of State The Commission has not made a detailed study of court actions and decisions that have been considered and the complex specific issues raised in framing rules of dis- approved by the full supreme court of a State. A partial answer to the great number of habeas corpus covery in criminal cases. It commends to the States the efforts of the Judicial Conference of the United States, proceedings is the improvement of trials. This means the American Bar Association special project, and those not only insuring that constitutional rights are protected States that have moved forward in this area. I t gen- but that the protection is fully documented on the record. erally favors the expansion of pretrial discovery and Judges should take pains to insure that constitutional depositions in criminal cases to ensure the fairness and issues present in the case are confronted and decided. accuracy of trial and pretrial dispositions. The CommisA more important partial solution lies in the improvesion recognizes that in certain cases, particularly those ment of State procedures for dealing with postwnviction involving the national security, espionage, organized claims. Much of the criticism of current practice is based crime, or dangerously violent offenders who might intimi- on the sense that Federal courts are becoming involved to date witnesses, discovery must be limited. In most cases an excessive degree in State criminal proceedings. But expanded mutual discovery by the State within constitu- frequently when the Federal district court holds a hearing tional limits is desirable. on such a petition, it is because there is no available procedure through which the prisoner can obtain relief in the State courts. Far fewer than half of the States now HABEAS CORPUS AND FINALITY have satisfactory postconviction procedures by statute or There has been a rapid growth in the number of peti- 'judicial rule. Most of the remainder rely on a faulty and tions for habeas corpus and similar relief filed in the antiquated system of ill-defined common law remedies Federal courts between the 1940's, when a few hundred that fall far short of the protection available in Federal petitions were filed each year, and 1965 when 5,786 courts and of that which is constitutionally required. In reached the courts. Our svstem is uniaue in the extent a recent Supreme Court decision, Mr. Justice Brennan, to which a person convicted at trial can continue to after noting the considerable drop in Federal applications challenge his conviction in a series of appeals and collat- from State prisoners in a State that enacted a modern eral attacks in the nature of habeas corpus in the State postconviction relief act, described succinctly the attriand Federal courts. Frequently this procedure is the butes of such a law: only way he can obtain judicial consideration of substantial constitutional infirmities in the process by which T h e procedure should be swift and simple and easily he was convicted. The availabilitv of such a remedv is invoked. It should be sufficiently comprehensive to embodied in the Constitution and is basic to our system embrace all federal constitutional claims. * * * [Ilt of law. should eschew rigid and technical doctrines of forfeiture, The vast increase in the number of petitions, including waiver, or default. * * * It should provide for full fact a large proportion of frivolous petitions; public exaspera- hearings to resolve disputed factual issues, and for comtion about cases in which punishment is postponed, some- pilation of a record to enable federal courts to determine times for many years, because of successive hearings; the the suficiency of those hearings. * * * It should proresulting sense of friction between the State and Federal vide for decisions supported by opinions, or factfindings courts-all have reinforced the need for reevaluation of and conclusions of law, which disclose the grounds of the use and administration of the writ. A result has been decision and the resolution of disputed facts. Case V. new Federal legislation and extensive studies by the Judi- Nebraska, 381 U S . 336,346 (1965). cial Conference of the United States, the National ConAnother pressing need is the more frequent provision ference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, and a committee of the American Bar Association Project on of legal counsel to prisoners seeking release on habeas corpus. Legal assistance and advice for all prisoners seekMinimum Standards for Criminal Justice. ing them should be supplemented by the assignment of counsel for prisoners with substantial claims to present to the court. The assignment of counsel in appropriate cases would tend to curtail worthless petitions, since petitions an attorney refused to sign would carry less weight in court. I t would also unearth worthy claims that now are not presented or clearly articulated because of the ignorance of the inmate. Programs in Kansas, Wyoming, and Pennsylvania offer models for providing legal advice in prisons through law professors and students, as well as through practicing lawyers. The Commission recommends: States that do not have procedures that provide adequate postconviction remedies should enact legislation or establish rules that do provide a single, simple remedy for all claims of deprivation of constitutional right. These procedures should provide for the assistance of counsel. Petitions should be decided on their merits rather than upon procedural technicalities. APPEALS BY T H E PROSECUTION In every jurisdiction in this country the right of the prosecution to appeal from an adverse ruling by a court is more limited than the comparable right of the defendant. The argument against retrying a man who has convinced a court of the merit of his cause has led to double jeopardy clauses in the Federal Constitution and the constitutions of 45 States. The same argument inhibits appeals that, if successful, would result in just such a retrial. But in most States and the Federal system these considerations do not forbid all appeals by the prosecution, particularly those from pretrial rulings that are made before jeopardy attaches in the constitutional sense. Developments in the law, particularly the growth of search and seizure law and exclusionary rules governing confessions, call for a reexamination of the adequacy of the prosecution's right to appeal. Under common practice motions for the suppression of evidence are required to be made before trial when possible. These motions are likely to become more frequent as a result of recent court decisions, and in an increased number of cases the prosecution will be blocked by a pretrial order suppressing evidence or a statement. Frequently the prosecuti~ncannot successfully proceed to trial without the suppressed evidence. Yet in only a few States does the prosecution have the right to appeal from the grant of such orders, and in the Federal courts the right to appeal applies only to narcotics cases. Not only does the absence of a right of appeal preclude successful prosecution in many cases, including important cases involving organized crime, narcotics, and major thefts, but it has distinctly undesirable effects upon the development of law and practice. The law of search and seizure and confessions today is highly uncertain. This uncertainty is compounded by lower court rulings that restrict police conduct yet cannot be tested on appeal, and by inconsistent lower court decisions that can be resolved only on an appeal sought by the defendant. When the prosecution is not permitted an appeal, law enforcement officers faced with restrictive rulings they feel are erroneous have available two courses, each of which is undesirable: They can follow the lower court decision and abandon the practice, in which case an authoritative decision by an appellate court never can be obtained; or they can continue the practice, hoping that in a future case a trial court will sustain it and that a defendant by appealing will give the higher court an opportunity to resolve the point. The first choice is undesirable because it results in the abandonment of what may be legitimate police practice merely because there is no way of testing it in the appellate courts. The second choice is equally undesirable for it puts the police in the position of deciding which court decisions they will accept and which they will not. A more general right of the prosecution to appeal from adverse pretrial rulings is desirable. Controls may be needed to insure that appeals are taken only from rulings d significant importance and that the accused's right to a speedy trial is preserved by requirements of diligent processing of such appeals. The Commission recommends. Congress and the States should enact statutes giving-the prosecution the right to appeal from the grant of all pretrial motions to suppress evidence or confessions. IMMUNITY A grand jury subpoena can compel the attendance of a witness and the production of books and records, but the grand jury has no power to compel a witness to testify or to inspect private books and records if their owner demurs. However, it is constitutionally permissible under proper conditions to displace a witness's privilege against selfincrimination with a grant of'immunity from criminal prosecution. On the Federal level immunity is available only in prosecutions under specific statutes, such as those dealing with narcotics, antitrust, and Co'mmunications Act violations. Some States follow a similar pattern, while others have enacted general immunity statutes permitting the prosecution to grant immunity in any criminal case. Immunity provisions are particularly necessary to secure testimony in cases of official corruption, and the special need for the power to grant immunity in organized crime cases is discussed in chapter 7. One serious danger, in the light of court decisior~swith respect to the application of immunity given by one jurisdiction to wrosecutions in other iurisdictions, is that thc grant of im&unity to a witness in one proceedirlg interfere with investigations elsewhere. Since facilitier for communication between elements of the Federal Government are better developed than those at State and local levels, the problem is greater in State courts and grand jury investigations. The creation of interagency communication procedures where none now exist and the improvement of existing procedures are most important if grants of immunity are to be intelligently made. The Attorney General or other chief law enforcement officer must be in a position to ascertain whether other investigations are pending if he is to have the perspective necessary for him to choose which investigation is most important to the overall administration of justice. Filing with the court a notice of the grant of immunity would reduce the possibility of abuse of authority by prosecutors as well as the danger of hidden immunization for corrupt purposes. T h e Commission recommends: A general witness immunity statute should be enacted a t Federal and State levels, p:oviding immunity sufficiently broad to assure compuls~onof testimony. Immunity should be granted only with the prior approval of the jurisdiction's chief prosecuting officer. Efforts to coordinate Federal, State, and local immunity grants should be made to prevent interference with concurrent investigations. perjury and other crimes. Sound prosecutive discretion, proof beyond a reasonable doubt to a judge and jury, and the other traditional safeguards applicable to every criminal case provide adequate protection against the unwarranted charge and conviction of perjury. The Commission recommends: Congress and the States should abolish the rigid twowitness and direct evidence rules in perjury prosecutions although maintaining the requirement of proving an intentional false statement. SENTENCING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES There is no decision in the criminal process that is as complicated and difficult as the one made by the sentencing judge. A sentence prescribes punishment, but it also should be the foundation of an attempt to rehabilitate the offender, to insure that he does not endanger the communitv. , and to deter others from similar crimes in the future. Often these objectives are mutually inconsistent, and the sentencing judge must choose one at the expense of the others. A man who has committed murder in a moment of extreme emotion may reauire no correctional program and may present no significant threat to the general safety, but few judges would be likely to respond to an offense so heinous by suspending the offender's sentence or granting him The difficulty of making such important choices is compounded by the fact that a sentence is in large part a prediction. I t tries to predict how an offender will behave Under certain circur&tances and how other ~otential offenders will behave. But judges do not have much predictive data to guide them. Very little is yet known about how different kinds of individuals are likely to react to correctional programs or about the deterrent effects of the criminal process. In some courts judges are not even given information that could be gathered about an offender's background and character. Wise and fair sentencing requires intuition, insight, and imagination; a t present it is less a science than an art. I n the final analysis good sentencing depends on good judges. At the same time greater efforts must be made to improve our understanding of how different types of offenders respond to differing kinds of correctional treatment. The court information system proposcd in chapter 11 of this report would provide for the systematic gathering and analysis of sentencing and correctional ,data for large numbers of offenders that are necessary to improve the predictive value of the sentencing decision. This information system might provide a basis for identifying factors that are and are not particularly relevant to sentencing. Judges have only limited opportunity to observe other judges at work. More complete data on sentencing practices would enable judges to compare the sentences they impose with the way other judges have treated similar offenses or offenders and with the results of their own previous sentencing predictions. z # PERJURY The criminal law must offer more effective deterrents against false statements. The integrity of the trial depends on the power to compel truthful testimony and to punish falsehood. Immunity can be an effective prosecutive weapon only if the immunized witness'then testifies truthfully. Perjury statutes provide criminal penalties for false testimony under oath, but the infrequency of their use and the difficulty of securing convictions in perjury cases has limited the effectiveness of this criminal sanction. Perjury has always been widespread; according to Pollock and Maitland's standard history of English law, "our ancestors perjured themselves with impunity." The requirements for proof in perjury cases are complicated by special common law rules of evidence, particularly the two-witness rule and its corollary, the direct evidence rule. In essence the former requires that the falsity of the testimony of the defendant charged with perjury be established by more than the uncorroborated oath of one witness, and the latter that circumstantial evidence, no matter how persuasive, will not alone support a conviction for perjury. There are, in addition to the direct evidence rule, decisions which hold that contradictory statements under oath may not be the subject matter of a perjury prosecution without additional proof of the falsity of one of the statements. Dissatisfaction has led to changes by statute in some jurisdictions; however, the common law rule prevails in Federal proceedings and in a number of States. These restrictive evidentiary rules are an unwarranted obstacle to securing legitimate periurv, convictions. There is no apparent reason for the distinction between A SENTENCING STATUTES The sometimes rigid, but more often extremely flexible framework within which a sentencing judge operates is the sentencing code, the statutory provisions that prescribe the penalties he can impose for each particular crime. In most places sentencing codes have been enacted piecemeal over many years, and the grading of offenses in terms of seriousness is replete with anomalies and inconsistencies. The Oregon Penal Code contains 466 penalties that can be imposed for one or more of 1,413 offenses. A recent study of the Colorado statutes disclosed that a person convicted of first-degree murder must serve 10 years before becoming eligible for parole, while a person convicted of a lesser degree of the same offense must serve 15 or more years; stealing a dog is punishable by 10 years' imprisonment, while killing a dog carries a maximum of 6 months. Under Federal law, armed bank robbery is punishable by fine, probatioh, or any prison term up to 25 years, but in cases involving armed robbery of a post office, the judge is limited to granting probation or imposing a 25-year prison sentence. The most obvious effect of these anomalies and inconsistencies is that sometimes judges are compelled to choose between equally unwise alternatives. In the example of armed robbery of a post office, most judges would choose probation rather than 25 years in prison for all offenders but the most desperate ones, though undoubtedly the interests both of the community and many offenders would be served if shorter prison terms were permissible. A less obvious effect is that prosecutors, surveying an inconsistent penal code, sometimes choose a charge that carries the penalty they think should be imposed rather than the charge that most accurately fits the facts of the offense. For example, the Michigan Penal Code made burglary at night so much graver an offense than burglary by day that, in the words of one big-city prosecutor, "You'd think all our burglaries occurred at high noon." Another defect in some sentencing codes is that certain offenses carry mandatory minimum sentences of great severity and forbid the granting of probation or parole. These offenses vary from State to State, although armed robbery and the sale of narcotics are two that often are treated in this way. I t sometimes happens, when a marginal offender has committed such an offense, that a judge who feels the mandatory penalty is completely inappropriate dismisses the case or acquits the offender. A more common defect than mandatory minimums is extremely high maximums. For many offenses in most States judges are allowed to choose penalties that range from probation to prison terms of 20 to 25 years. Few other countries allow judges that much leeway, and prison sentences in America are, as a general rule, longer than those elsewhere. High maximum sentences also put a great strain on the correctional system. Parole boards frequently have broad discretion as to how much of his sentence a prisoner serves. When there is a gap of many years between the earliest possible date for granting of parole and the maximum sentence, the dangers of unfairness to individual prisoners are evident. Finally, few sentencing codes set forth criteria for distinguishing between the occasional and the aggravated or repeated offender. A clear definition of the circumstances under which, for example, it is appropriate to impose capital punishment or an extended prison term or to grant probation would help guide sentencing judges. About half the States are now undertaking projects to revise their penal laws and sentencing codes. Upon recommendation of President Johnson in his 1966 crime message, Congress has authorized the establishment of a special commission to study and revise the provisions of the United States Code defining and fixing the punishment for Federal crimes. The American Law Institute in its Model Penal Code takes an imaginative and constructive approach to simplifying and standardizing the grading of offenses for sentencing purposes. It reduces all crimes to three grades of felony and two grades of misdemeanor. Each grade carries a maximum penalty, most of which are shorter than those now prevalent in the States. The maximum can be extended by the judge if the offense is an especially atrocious one or the offender is an especially dangerous one by clearly defined standards. The discretion to grant probation is allowed to the judge except in capital cases. The judge may set a minimum term of imprisonment that for all but the most serious felonies cannot exceed 3 years, and that for any felony must be for at least 1 year. Beyond these limits correctional authorities have discretion to grant parole. Under the code judges are granted flexibility to impose a sentence that fits the circumstances of a specific case, and parole boards are allowed to review reasonably soon after the correctional process has begun, the judge's prediction about how the offender will react to treatment. The Model Penal Code also contains sentencing criteria, as does the Model Sentencing Act drafted by the Council of Judges of the National Council on Crime and Delinquency. For example, the Model Penal Code's criteria for probation, which are drawn upon heavily in the recently revised New York State penal law, declare that an offender's probable dangerousness, his need for treatment, and the seriousness of his offense are grounds for withholding probation. The code then lists 1 1 grounds for the granting of probation, including the relative mildness of the offense, the provocation offered the offender, the involvement of the victim in the offense, the character of the offender, and the hardship imprisonment would impose on the offender or his dependents. Both the model code and the model act seek to establish criteria identifying the persistent, habitual, or hardened criminal. Framing statutory sentencing standards is a complicated and laborious undertaking on which there still is much work to be done. Standards for many sentencing decisions cannot yet be articulated. However, it is an undertaking of great importance, and continued experimentation is likely to produce valuable results. f C ( ' fl /- ' il . ' : The Commission recommends: Whatever views one may have on the efficacy of the death penalty as a deterrent, it clearly has an undesirable States should reexamine the sentencing provisions of impact on the administration of criminal justice. Capital their penal codes with a view to simplifying the grading cases take longer to litigate at the trial level; the selection of offenses, and to removing mandatory minimum prison of a jury often requires several days, and each objection terms, long maximum prison terms, and ineligibility for or point of law requires inordinate deliberation because probation and parole. I n cases of persistent habitual of the irreversible consequences of error. I n addition, offenders or dangerous criminals, judges should have ex- the inherent sensationalism of a trial for life distorts the press authority to impose extended prison terms. Sen- factfinding process and increases the danger that public tencing codes should include criteria designed to help sentiment will be aroused for the defendant, regardless judges exercise their discretion in accordance with clearly of his guilt of the crime charged. This distortion is not . stated standards. restricted to the trial level. As Mr. Justice Jackson noted: "When the penalty is death * * *-[appellate] CAPITAL PUNISHMENT judges are tempted to strain the evidence and even in As the abolition or the retention of the death penalty close cases, the law, in order to give a doubtfully conis being widely debated in the States, it is approp&ate to demned man another chance." Furthermore, the imposition of a death sentence is but point out several aspects of its administration that bear the first stage of a protracted process of appeals, collateral on the issue. The most salient characteristic of capita1,punishment is attacks, and petitions for executive clemency. At the that it is infrequently applied. During 1966 only 1 person end of 1965 there were 331 prisoners awaiting execution, was executed in the United States: the trend over the last in the United States, and since then this number un36 years shows a continual decline in the number of exe- doubtedly has increased. These prisoners then were cutions, from a high of 200 in 1935 to last year's low of under sentence for an average of 30.8 months, and the one. Furthermore, all available data indicate that judges, average time between imposition and execution was aljuries, and governors are becoming increasingly reluctant most 4 years. The spectacle of men living on death row to impose, or authorize the carrying out of a death sen- for years while their lawyers pursue appellate and coltence. Only 67 persons were sentenced to death by the lateral remedies tarnishes our image of humane and courts in 1965, a decline of 31 from the previous year, expeditious justice. But no one seriously proposes to and 62 prisoners were reprieved from their death sen- limit the right of a condemned man to have errors at tences. In a few States in which the penalty exists on the his trial corrected or to obtain the mercy of the executive. statute books, there has not been ail execution in decades. Finally there is evidence that the imposition of the The decline in the application of the death penalty death sentence and the exercise of dispensing power by parallels a substantial decline in public support for capital the courts and the executive follow discriminatory patpunishment. The most recent Gallup Poll, conducted in terns. The death sentence is disproportionately imposed 1966, revealed that less than half of those interviewed and carried out on the poor, the Negro, and the members favored retaining the death penalty. In the last 3 years, of unpopular groups. 5 States either totally abolished capital punishment or Some members of the Commission favor the abolition of severely limited its use, thus bringing to 13 the number of States ,which have effectively repealed capital punish- capital punishment, while other members favor its retenment. Great Britain experimentally suspended the death tion. Some would support its abolition if more adequate penalty for 5 years in 1965. The trend toward abolition. safeguards against the release of dangerous offenders were has not been uniform, however. Capital punishment was devised. All members of the Commission'agree that the abolished in Delaware in 1958 but restored in 1961. And present situation in the administration of the death penin 1966 a constitutional amendment abolishing capital alty in many States is intolerable for the reasons stated punishment was rejected by the voters in Colorado. In above. 1965 the Canadian Parliament rejected a move to abolish the death sentence. The Commission recommends: It is impossible to say with certainty whether capital punishment significantly reduces the incidence of heinous The question whether capital punishment is an approcrimes. The most complete study on the subject, based priate sanction is a policy decision to be made by each on a comparison of homicide rates in capital and noncapital jurisdictions, concluded that there is no discernible State. Where it is retained, the types of offenses for correlation between the availability of the death penalty which it is available should be strictly limited, and the and the homicide rate. This study also revealed that law should be enforced in an evenhanded and nondisthere was no significant difference between the two kinds criminatory manner, with procedures for review of death of States in the safety of policemen. Another study of sentences that are fair and expeditious. When a State 27 States indicated that the availabilitv of the death finds that it cannot administer the penalty in such a mansentence had no effect on the rate of assaults and murders ner, or that the death penalty is being imposed but not . of prison guards. carried into effect, the penalty should be abandoned. , SENTENCING PROCEDURES Although the criminal trial on the issue of guilt is a strictly formal procedure, the determination of what is to be done with a convicted offender is often a rather informal one. A judge, when he sentences, needs facts about the offender and his offense. Both will be absent in those many instances when conviction has resulted from a plea of guilty and the court lacks, or has inadequate facilities for preparing, presentence reports. The judge then must rely on the necessarily incomplete and biased oral statements of the prosecutor, defense counsel, and defendant. Such statements may be supplemented by a "rapsheet," a 1-page record of the offender's prior criminal involvements. In most felony courts presentence reports are prepared, but they are of uneven quality and usefulness. One almost universal problem is that the probation officers who prepare them have more work than they can effectively do. They often have as many as 100 offenders on probation to supervise, besides preparing reports. Another problem is that the pay, recruitment, and training standards for probation officers are often low, and the officers are not equipped to evaluate the information they receive in the course of their investigations. Probation Officer interviews inmate lor presentence report. Most misdemeanor courts do not require presentence reports. In the case of the majority of misderneanants full field investigations by trained probation officers may not be called for. However, some relevant information should be provided to the sentencing judge, perhaps no more than is obtained by the use of the kind of short form that was described in this chapter's discussion of bail. Many misdemeanor courts have no probation services at all. In such courts a sentence of probation is in effect an unconditional release, except that the offender can be later jailed for his offense if a violation of his probation comes to the attention of the court as the result of his being arrested on another charge. This has led to the paradoxical situation that a smaller proportion of misdemeanor offenders receive probation than do felony offenders, who have committed more serious crimes. The Commission recommends: All courts, felony and misdemeanor, should have probation services. Standards for the recruitment and t a i n ing of probation officers should be set by the States, and the funds necessary to implement this recommendation should be provided by the States to those local courts that cannot finance probation services for themselves. All courts should require presentence reports for all offenders, whether those reports result from full field investigations by probation officers or, in the case of minor offenders, from the use of short forms. Fairness to the defendant requires that he be given a reasonable opportunity to present information to the court and to contest the accuracy of important factual statements in the presentence report or other material. presented to the court. Gossip often finds its way into presentence reports, and without disclosure there is often no way of counteracting its effects. The issue whether the presentence report itself should be disclosed to the defendant and his cou.nse1has been the subject of considerable debate, and disclosure at the present time is generally a matter of judicial discretion, although in five States disclosure is required by statute. In many cases information clearly could be disclosed without substantial likelihood of harm; yet there can be circumstances in which the particularly confidential nature of the source of the information may preclude its disclosure, or in which disclosure of a statement would be harmful to rehabilitation. Presentence reports sometimes rely upon the records of social, welfare, and juvenile agencies that are required to keep their records confidential; such agencies might stop providing information if disclosure were compelled. In other cases the person who provided certain information might be easily identified by the offender and, if the information is unfavorable, that person might be endangered. However, the experience of the courts where disclosure is a matter of routine indicates that such problems can be solved by the proper exercise of judicial discretion. T h e Commission recommends: I n the absence of compelling reasons for nondisclosure of special information, the defendant and his counsel should be permitted to examine the entire presentence report. Sentencing judges make important correctional decisions, but few have received training in correctional theories and practices. One technique for acquainting judges with correctional theory and with the programs and facilities that are available to treat various kinds of offenders is the judicial sentencing institute. Judicial sentencing institutes are meetings of trial judges at which they have an opportunity to discuss, freqwntly with participation by correctional authorities, legal scholars, and persons from other relevant disciplines, the problems and standards for imposing sentence. A Federal program was founded with congressional authority in 1959 at a time when concern with disparity of sentencing was intensified by changes in sentencing codes that gave greater discretionary alternatives to judges. Over the past 7 years 16 institutes have been conducted, and the judges of all Federal circuits have had an opportunity to participate in at least one. The programs have varied and have dealt with such subjects as disparity, the identification of dangerous offenders, and the use of presentence reports. Often visits to correctional institutions are included during which judges become more familiar with the programs and facilities offered. Some State institutes have followed the Federal pattern. In California institutes have studied both standards for commitment to correctional institutions and the policies of the adult correctional authority in regard to term setting and parole eligibility. I n other States, such as New York, the subject of sentencing is one of the items considered at a broader annual judicial meeting. T h e Commission recommends: Every State should organize and finance regular judicial institutes or conferences a t which judges meet with other judges and with correctional authorities to discuss sentencing standards and learn about available correctional programs and facilities. I n 10 States sentences are fixed by juries rather than by judges. Data indicate that this is a poor practice. Jurors do not and cannot have the expertise to assess rationally the correctional needs of offenders; and juries, because of their size and their position of being half in and half out bf the court system, are inappropriate recipients of sentencing information. The extent of the failings of jury sentencing were vividly revealed in a recent survey by the Atlanta Crime Commission, which showed that in that city for some offenses first offenders received more severe sentences on the average than hardened recidivists. T h e Commission recommends: Jury sentencing in noncapital cases should be abolished. SENTENCING DISPARITY That different judges sentence differently is, and always has been, a major and justified complaint against the courts. Mr. Justice Jackson, when he was Attorney General of the United States, stated: I t is obviously' repugnant to one's sense of justice that the judgmdnt meted out to an oflender should depend in large part on a purely fortuitous circumstance; namely, the personality of the particular judge before whom the case ,happens to come for disposition. Several of the recommendations in this section of the chapter would tend to reduce disparity. The enactment of statutory criteria for sentencing, together with programs to educate judges in sentencing and correctional methods, would enable them to sentence on the basis of more uniform standards. Two devices, sentencing councils and appellate review of sentences, are particularly designed to reduce disparity. The sentencing council consists of several judges of a multijudge court who meet periodically to discuss sentences to be imposed in pending cases. Sentencing councils are in use on a regular basis in at least three U S . district courts. Foremost among their advantages is the opportunity they give for discussion of sentencing attitudes. From such a discussion a consensus on sentencing standards may emerge. The council provides occasion also for full consideration of available sentencing alternatives. The ultimate responsibility for determining sentence rests with the judge to whom the case is assigned, although the discussion and need to state reasons for a sentence tend to restrain the imposition of unreasonably severe or lenient sentences. The sentencing council in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan has produced changes from the sentencing judge's initial recommendation in slightly over 40 percent of the cases considered, and the number of cases in which sentences were made more severe was approximately equal to the number in which they were reduced. Appellate review of sentences affords the occasion for a systematic and continuous examination of sentencing policy by an appellate court. Authority for appellate review of legally imposed sentences has been expressly granted by the legislatures of 12 States and by Congress for the military courts. In addition, the appellate courts of a few States have construed their laws to grant such authority. However, in at least 31 States and the Federal system sentencing power is vested solely with the trial judge. Appellate review would encourage the development of uniform and considered sentencing policies within a jurisdiction. I t leads both the trial court and the appellate court to give sustained and explicit consideration to the to weigh the relative abilities of the candidates. Interest in and experience with politics are qualities that may contribute to a judge's effectiveness in settling disputes and dealing with people who appear before the court. But judicial appointments should be made on grounds other than partisanship, and sitting judges should be free from political obligations. Indeed there is reason to believe that the elective method discourages the candidacy of good potential judges and sometimes subjects those who do run to undue political pressures in the performance of their office. The Commission recommends: I n general, the Commission favors the appointive method for the selection of judges over the elective Procedures for avoiding and correcting excessive, inade- method, although it recognizes that in some special situaquate, or disparate sentences should be devised and tions the elective method presents advantages, especially instituted. in diverse urban communities where the election of judges may insure that all groups in the community are represented in the judiciary. The Commission believe:; that OFFICERS OF JUSTICE far more important than the choice between elective and JUDGES appointive systems, however, is the existence in the selection system of an effective procedure for the screening of The quality of the judiciary in large measure determines potential candidates for the judiciary on the basis of' their the quality of justice. I t is the judge who tries disputed personal and professional qualifications for office. The cases and who supervises and reviews negotiated disposigroup that performs this screening function should be tions. Through sentencing the judge determines the established by law, should be directly responsible to the treatment given to an offender. Through the exercise of appointing authority, and should be carefully selected to his administrative power over his court he determines its insure that its membership is representative and is not efficiency, fairness, and effectiveness. No procedural or drawn from an unduly narrow segment of the bar or the administrative reforms will help the courts, and no recommunity. organizational plan will avail unless judges have the high-. The Commission believes that the best selection system est qualifications, are fully trained and competent, and for judges is a merit selection plan generally of the type have high standards of performance. used successfully in Missouri for some 25 years, and long Selection of Judges. Methods for the selection of supported in principle by the American Bar Association judges vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and some and the American Judicature Society. The Missouri States use different methods of selection for upper court type plan is now in use with a number of variations in judges than for lower court judges. In 11 States judges some 10 States. Its basic approach is also embodied in are appointed either by the Governor or the legislature; in the procedures used by the mayor of the city of New some of these States they are first appointed and then must York to appoint criminal court judges. The Missouri run for election on their records; in 15 States they are plan is characterized by four elements: elected without party labels, and in 19 States they are 1. The nomination of a panel of judicial candielected on a partisan basis. In a number of States there dates by a nonpartisan commission composed of conis a professional or nonpartisan screening process that descientious, qualified laymen and lawyers. velops an identified group of professionally qualified per2. The requirement that the executive appoint sons from which all nominations or appointments are judges only from the panel submitted by the commade, or that reviews proposed nominations or appointmission. 3. The review of the appointment by the voters ments for professional competence. Sometimes this process is required by State constitution or statute; sometimes after a short probationary term of service in which it is informal. Sometimes it is employed for all judges, the only question is whether the judge's record warsometimes only for certain kinds of judges. I t is emrants his retention in office. ployed least often in the States in which judges are elected 4. Periodic review of the appointment at the end in partisan contests. of each term of office by the voters in which the only question is whether the judge's record warrants his The elective process, particularly if judges are elected continued retention in office. as candidates of political parties, has not proven a n effective system for choosing persons to fill an office as reAnother way to remove judges from undue political moved from daily political pressures as the judiciary influence and to increase their independence is to provide should be. Selection of candidates tends to be dictated to lengthy tenure. Yet in a number of States the judges of an excessive degree by party considerations and other fac- major criminal trial courts must seek reelection as fretors unrelated to the candidates' qualifications for office, quently as every 4 years. Federal judges hold office for and the electoral process gives the voters little opportunity life during good behavior, and in many States they sit to a justification for particular sentences. I t provides a workable means of correcting unjust and ill-considered sentences, particularly those in which the punishment irnposed is grossly inappropriate. While there is room for difference of opinion as to whether the appellate court should have authority to increase as well as decrease sentences appealed by the defendant, the Commission favors such authority. A committee of the American Bar Association special project has proposed detailed standards for appellate review procedures. fixed retirement age, or for a term of from 10 to 14 years. Under both of these approaches giving long tenure, generally high judicial standards have been maintained. I t is important that there be liberal provisions for the dignified retirement of judges a t a fixed age to ensure the continuing capacity of the judiciary. Many States and the Federal Government have authorized the continued service of vigorous retired judges, enabling the full use of their experience while making room for the appointment of younger judges. The Commission recommends: Judicial tenure in major trial courts should be for a term of 10 years or more, with appropriate provisions to facilitate retirement of judges at a predetermined age. Judicial Education. Courts, particularly the courts that try felonies, are typically both civil and criminal, and the judges in them preside over both civil and criminal cases. Naturally many judges are civil, not criminal, lawyers. A recent survey showed that only about one-half of newly selected judges have any prior courtroom experience and that few of them have any background in criminal cases. Such judges need guidance in the conduct of trials; yet they seldom have opportunities to watch experienced judges at work and to learn from their performance. Such judges also need guidance in the substantive criminal law, in corrections and sentencing, and in administration and management. In some States judicial conferences, seminars, and institutes have been used successfully to train sitting judges. National programs, such as those sponsored by the National College of State Trial Judges established by the American Bar Association, and the Institute for Judicial Administration have been made available for newly appointed judges. The Commission urges expansion of programs for the training of judges, investment of more effort in curriculum development, and experimentation with procedures making participation in continuing programs mandatory. Seminar of National College of State Trial Judges Judicial careers tend to be long. Available data indicate that they average over 25 years. For a career of such length a period of apprenticeship or preservice training appears appropriate. The Judicial Conference of the United States directs its training programs particularly at newly appointed judges, as does the National College of State Trial Judges. After election or appointment judges might well be required to spend their first months in fulltime formal training programs and in sitting with experienced judges. Control and Supervision. Long tenure for judges makes the maintenance of high standards of judicial performance crucial. I t requires that there be administrative methods of dealing speedily and appropriately with judicial incompetence or misbehavior. In most States the only available methods are impeachment or recall, which are both cumbersome and far too severe to be invoked in most cases. A particular problem is excusing physically or mentally incapacitated judges from their duties without publicly humiliating them. Recently California and Texas, among other States, have set up within the judicial department commissions charged with examining judicial conduct and taking necessary action. These commissions rely heavily upon informal conferences and discussions calculated to appeal to an individual judge's sense of status and his self-motivation. In California over a 4-year period this commission has removed 26 judges and has been instrumental in the retirement or resignation of a number more, yet only one recommendation for removal was contested in the State supreme court. The Subcommittee on Improvements in Judicial Machinery of the Senate Judiciary Committee has held hearings on proposals to create similar machinery in the Federal system, as well as to improve procedures for the compulsory retirement of physically or mentally disabled judges. In New York a Court on the Judiciary has been established to hear complaints of judicial misconduct. The Commission recommends: States should establish commissions on judicial conduct taking the approach used in California and Texas. States should review their statutes governing the retirement of physically or mentally incapacitated judges to insure that the judiciary can require the retirement with dignity of judges unable to bear the burdens of office. PROSECUTORS The prosecutor's discretion to decide what charge to bring against, and what disposition to recommend for, an offender is indicative of his crucial position in the law enforcement system. The prosecutor is particularly able to influence police operations. He affects the development of legal rules by his arguments in court. He can help bring about needed reform by pressing for changes in bail practices, for example, or in procedures for the appointment of counsel. Except for the judge he is the most influential court official. Prosecutor sums up. Yet many prosecutors 'in this country are part-time officers. They generally are elected or selected on a partisan political basis and serbe for relatively short terms. In many places the office traditionally has been a steppingstone to higher political office or the bench. Prosecutors in most places are so poorly paid that they must, and are expected to, engage in private law practice. This creates inevitable conflicts between the demands of the office and of private practice. It can lead to undesirable potential conflicts of interest in dealings with other attorneys, judges, and members of the community. As the participation of defense counsel in criminal cases grows, the need to improve the quality of the prosecution becomes increasingly urgent. The Commission recommends: Localities should revise salary structures so that district attorneys and assistants devote full time to their office without outside practice. The effort should be to raise the quality of the office so that highly talented lawyers will seek it. In smaller jurisdictions, where the caseload does not just:fy a full-time criminal prosecutor, consideration should be given to use of prosecutors representing larger districts, in place of county or town attorneys. Assistants should be hired on a nonpartisan basis. There are real advantages in the politically oriented selection and noncareer tenure of prosecutors. They ensure that the office will be responsive to the dominant law enforcement views of the community. The elective process provides the prosecutor with an independent political base. But these same factors can interfere with the full development of the prosecutor as more than a vigorous courtroom advocate for the State. Political considerations make, some prosecutors overly sensitive to what is safe, expedient, and in conformity with law enforcement views that are popular, rather than carefully thought out. sociationrecently have started programs to train prosecutors. Both preservice and continuing education are needed; and it will require a concerted effort by the States and localities to ensure the broadest possible participation in them. The Commission recommends: The Federal Government, States, and district attorneys' offices, with assistance from law schools and professional organizations, should develop curricula and programs for the preservice and inservice training of prosecutors and should require the broadest possible participation in such programs by prosecutors. STATE COORDINATION The office of prosecutor traditionally has been a. local position. Prosecutors are elected on county, city, or district lines and in most places are effectively independent of all State and local officials. Closer communication among prosecutors' offices and greater involvement by the State government in their operations would help to raise the general level of operation toward that of the most efficient and successful offices. It would lead to more uniform policies within the State concerning both law enforcement and procedure. Personnel tra.ining, standards on the selection, tenure, compensation, and outside practice of assistants could be the subjects of statewide policies, and State assistance could more easily be made available to implement these policies. Small local offices are unable to maintain on a. continuing basis specialized manpower and technical facilities or special investigatory personnel. A State-level office could make available a pool of manpower to provide trial counsel to local offices during unusual or peak periods of activity or for unusually difficult cases. Greater Statelevel coordination would foster the exchange of intelligence information and provide a clearinghouse for files, records, statistics, and other data. Such an office could also become a statewide center for research in problems of criminal law administration, either through its own staff or through links with State universities or law schools. A State office could develop a State plan for improved law enforcement and be a channel for Federal assistance to State criminal justice. The concept of creating greater State government responsibility for local law enforcement, particularly prosecutors, is not a new one. The Wickersham Commission called for increased authority in the State attorney general, and in the 35 years since that recommendation some steps in this direction have been taken in a few States, notably California and Alaska. In 1952 the American Bar Association and. the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws proposed a Model State Department of Justice Act designed to clarify and strengthen the role of the State attorney general, to encourage cooperation among law enforcement officers and to provide general supervision over prosecution within the State. The prevailing pattern, however, is that while most State attorneys general do possess some formal authority to coordinate local law enforcement activity, in most States this authority is not exercised, and even in those States where some coordination is attempted much more should be done. Progress toward a more coherent law enforcement organization is beset by difficulties, but the need to move in this direction is compelling. County prosecutorial lines that made little sense in the 1930's often make no sense today. The growth of our enormous urban complexes transcending even county lines, the rapid mobility of the modern day criminal and the increased incidence of organized criminal activity make the need for coordination of prosecutorial efforts greater today than it was 30 years ago. decisions represent the consensus of those who must carry them out at the operating level. Most important, use of the council in setting statewide standards would insure their relevance to local operating conditions. The policies set by the State officer are likely to have greater pertinence and impact on local practice if developed with the participation of a group of seasoned practitioners. I t might be the function of the attorney general's office to bring continuity of effort that a sporadically meeting council cannot and to provide a research staff to suggest areas in which statewide standards, programs and policies are needed. DEFENSE COUNSEL A man standing alone cannot defend himself adequately against a criminal charge. As observed many years ago by Mr. Justice Sutherland: T h e right to be heard would be, in many cases, of little auail if it did not comprehend the right to be heard b y counsel. Even the intelligent and educated layman has small and sometimes no skill in the science of law. If charged with crime, he is incapable, generally, of determining for himself whether the indictment is good 07 bad. He is unfamiliar with the rules of evidence. Left without the aid of counsel he may be put on trial without a proper charge, and convicted upon incompetent euidence, or euidence irreleuant to the issue or otherwise inadmissible. He lacks both the skill and knowledge adequately to prepare his defense, even though he haue a perfect one. He requires the guiding hand of counsel at euery step in the proceedings against him. Without it, though he be not guilty, he faces the danger of conviction because he does not know how to establish his innocence. Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45,69 (1932). T h e Commission recommends: States should strengthen the coordination of local prosecution by enhancing the authority of the State attorney general or some other appropriate statewide officer and by establishing a State council of prosecutors comprising all local prosecutors under the leadership of the attorney general. The attorney general is the appropriate officer to assume responsibility in organizing the council, which could simply be a group which meets periodically to exchange views, although it would be preferable if .it could grow to have a real policymaking function. Creation of such a council would insure participation of local prosecutors in the State programs. Since the district attorneys are independently elected officials it would be desirable if the decisions affecting the exercise of their office were the result of collegial discussions of local prosecutors in which all participate. The council could also have the advantage of allaying the fears of local prosecutors that their authority is being subverted by a central, powerful State officer.. Cooperation and implementation become less formidable problems when This long-recognized principle is being increasingly incorporated into everyday practice. Under recent landmark decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, particularly Gideon v. Wainright, all felony defendants now must be afforded counsel at trial and on appeal. Most communities have begun to provide this assistance. Under the recent decision in Miranda v. Arizona, counsel must be made available to arrested persons held in custody if the results of police questioning are to be admissible in court. Several States, including some of the most populous, have enacted statutes providing for counsel to be appointed and compensated in misdemeanor, habeas corpus, and juvenile cases. Existing programs to provide counsel through defender offices, coordinated assignment plans and neighborhood legal services are showing how the need for counsel can best be met and doubtless will lead to more and expanded programs throughout the country. Defendants are becoming more aware of the importance of counsel and quicker to demand that they be given this assistance when they are unable to secure it for themselves. The recommendations earlier in this chapter regarding precharge conference, plea negotiation and early factfinding will, if implemented, increase the number of lawyers needed. Nor does the need for a lawyer terminate after sentence, for the appellate process and the collateral proceedings that may follow it are uniquely the province of the law-trained man, able to deal with technical legal issues with an advocate's special skill. The provision of counsel entails costs beyond the expense of paying for their services. Counsel can be expected to require that the court deal deliberatively with his client; in many respects lawyers complicate the process. A court that has been adjudging men guilty and fixing their punishments in a matter of a few minutes is unlikely to be able to continue to do so when the accused persons before it are represented by lawyers. Defense counsel will demand compliance with the rules of evidence and make motions for discovery and suppression of evidence. Sometimes they will seek delay for tactical advantages, cast doubt on a truthful witness, or challenge legitimate proof. However, the Commission believes that the burdens counsel may impose upon the system are burdens that too long have been avoided and must be borne if there is to be an effective adversary system. The role of the defense counsel, serving as a prod, vigorously challenging existing practice, is an important benefit to the operation of the administration of jqstice. While in many cases the presence of a lawyer will be a factor contributing to delay, in some cases defense counsel will press the courts to early consideration of matters that eventually have to be considered, and in some instances early consideration may result in foreshortened proceedings. The costs of counsel can be minimized by firmer controls on delay and by simplified procedures; they probably cannot be eliminated. However, they are clearly worth paying. The Commission recommends: Legal assistance should be provided in parole and probation revocation proceedings, in juvenile delinquency proceedings if there is a possibility of coercive disposition and in all legal processes that threaten the respondent with a substantial loss of liberty. Methods of Providing Counsel. Two basic methods are used to provide defense counsel to the indigent in this country. In systems for assigned counsel an individual attorney is selected by the court to represent a particular defendant. Under a defender system all defendants requiring counsel are represented either by a public official, usually known as the Public Defender, or by a private agency such as a legal aid society. The majority of jurisdictions use an assigned counsel approach, although many urban courts with heavy caseloads have instituted defender systems. A number of considerations may favor The Commission recommends: one or the other of these systems, and in many places there is a successful combination of the two. The objective to be met as quickly as possible is to proThere are clear disadvantages to reliance on the most vide counsel to everv criminal defendant who faces a common assignment system: the appointment of counsel significant penalty, if he cannot afford to provide counby the judge from among lawyers he happens to know or sel himself. This should apply to cases classified as miswho happen to be in the courtroom. This leads to an demeanors as well as to those classified as felonies. unfair allocation of cases and sometimes, when assigned Counsel should be provided early in the proceedings and counsel receive compensation from the state, it is seriously certainly no later than the first judicial appearance. abused. Assignment does not have to take this form, The services of counsel should be available after convichowever. Under coordinated assigned counsel systems tion through appeal, and in collateral attack proceedcounsel are selected by an agency using a systematic apings when the issues are not frivolous. The immediate mfnimum, until.it becomes possible to provide the fore- proach to insure the even and broad use of all available going, is that all criminal defendants who are in danger competent counsel. The Houston Legal Foundation of substantial loss of liberty shall be provided with sponsors a coordinated assigned counsel system that calls upon all attorneys in the county. They are assigned by counsel. means of a complex computer system to the jobs for The criminal trial process is not the only one in which which they are best suited: trial counsel, assisting counsel, a person may be deprived of his liberty. The revocation or appellate counsel. The assignment of counsel can be of probation and parole presents an equal threat, and coordinated with a program to train lawyers, to increase though the legal issues in such proceedings are seldom their skills, and to provide them with specialized investicomplicated, the factual issues may be. The special pro- gative or referral assistance. Where there is a high volume of cases, a defender's office ceedings in the juvenile court are discussed in chapter 3 of this report. A child facing confinement in a penal in- may produce significant savings in cost and efficiency, stitution, or other coercive treatment, is even less able to while in rural areas an assigned counsel, part-time defender, or regional defender may be more appropriate. represent himself than an adult. Use of defenders encourages specialized knowledge, while assigned counsel systems can help to broaden the participation and interest of the bar in criminal law and the operation of the courts. The National Defender Project of the National Legal Aid and Defender Association has gained substantial experience in helping communities weigh the local factors that may favor one approach or the other. The Commission recognizes the usefulness of either approach. ices resembling those available to a modern and wellequipped probation office. Referral services for medical, educational, or vocational assistance increase the potential for diagnosis and planning for the needs of the accused. Social investigation, diagnosis, and planning call for the efforts of persons from many disciplines, of which the law is but one. There is a need to expand available legal manpower, and at the same time to bring other talents into the effort . Legal Manpower. Clearly the most vexing question in connection with.increased provision of defense counsel is: Where will all the lawyers come from? I t would be All jurisdictions that have not already done so should foolish to pretend that they will come, in sufficient nummove from random assignment of defense counsel by judges t o a coordinated assigned counsel system or a bers, from anywhere for many years. The shortage of criminal lawyers, which is already severe, is likely to bedefender system. come more acute in the immediate future. Some of the The costs of providing these services are already high reasons for this shortage.can be found in the very nature and will become much higher. I n all but a few States of criminal law practice, with its generally meagre ecosome provision exists for compensating assigned defense nomic rewards and limited security. Most criminal decounsel, but in most places heavy reliance is still placed. fendants can pay only a small fee, if any, and only the oron the donated services of lawyers. Lawyers have tra- ganized or professional criminal can provide the steady ditionally performed these services as an obligation of business of a prosperous civil clientele. Counsel for the their profession. The Commission hopes they will con- defense must expect to lose more cases than he wins, not tinue to, but it does not believe that donated services alone for any reason related to his legal capabilities but because, can provide a sound basis for a counsel system. Present as a matter of statistics, most defendants whose cases are State and local government appropriations for counsel not dropped early in the process are in fact found guilty. Men with enough dedication and self-assurance to accept now are less than $20 million annually, more than half of which is provided by three States. A moderate estimate repeated defeats without coming to doubt the value of of what counsel services may soon cost nationwide might their efforts are no easier to find in the bar than anywhere else. well run in excess of $100 million a year. T h e Commission recommends: T h e Commission recommends: Each State should finance assigned counsel and defender systems on a regular and statewide basis. An Expanded Role for Counsel. I t seems likely that as counsel becomes more involved in criminal cases on a regular basis, he will be called upon to do more things. I t has been noted that the criminal charge frequently is but one of the difficulties that confront persons charged under the criminal law. Lawyers participating in programs to counsel prisoners have discovered that many of those consulting them are more interested in and more in need of help with their civil law difficulties than they are with their criminal cases. Frequently they confront a whole complex of problems involving employment, housing, consumer credit, and family status. Projects in the District of Columbia have demonstrated the useful role defense counsel can play, when supported with adequate facilities, in the development of a program for the reintegration of the offender into a law-abiding community. When planned by the defense, such a program can begin before conviction and be part of the defendant's own response to the case, rather than a regimen imposed on him as a form of punishment. Many of these functions could be performed by people who are not lawyers. Defense counsel needs ready access to a number of auxiliary serv- Public Defender interviews client. All but the most eminent criminal lawyers are bound to spend much of their working lives in overcrowded, physically unpleasant courts, dealing with people who have committed questionable acts, and attempting to put the best possible construction on those acts. I t is not the sort of working environment that most people choose. Finally, the professional status of the criminal lawyer tends to be low. To some extent the criminal lawyer is identified unjustifiably in the public eye with the client he represents. Indeed some criminal lawyers are in fact house counsel for criminal groups engaged in gambling, prostitution, and narcotics. The reprehensible conduct of the few sometimes leads the public to see honest, competent practitioners as "mouthpieces" also. Furthermore, in nearly every large city a private defense bar of low legal and dubious ethical quality can be found. Few in number, these lawyers typically carry large caseloads and in many cities dominate the practice in routine cases. They frequent courthouse corridors, bondsmen's offices, and police stations for clients, and rely not on legal knowledge but on their capacity to manipulate the system. Their low repute often accurately reflects the quality of the services they render. This public image of the criminal lawyer is a serious obstacle to the attraction of able young lawyers, and reputable and seasoned practitioners as well, to the criminal law. Under these circumstances it is tempting to put aside the problem of recruiting more and better criminal lawyers as an insoluble one. That, in effect, is what society has done for many years. Now it is no longer possible to do so. The movement to provide every defendant with counsel is powerful and irreversible. Furthermore, the very strength and inexorability of this movement contribute importantly to solving the manpower problem. As more defender systems are set up, more interesting jobs will be open to young men who would like to practice the criminal law as either a prelude to a career in other legal specialties or as a career in itself. Such jobs will not carry with them the "mouthpiece" stigma. As more coordinated assigned counsel systems are set up, more lawyers from other specialties will gain experience in the criminal law. The Office of Economic Opportunity's program of neighborhood legal assistance has been valuable. A defender system like Minnesota's, which pays county defenders on a part-time basis to defend indigent clients, and allows them to represent paying clients as well, promises to be an effective way of attracting able lawyers to the criminal law. The law schools, too, in recent years have strengthened their criminal law faculties and curricula, and have introduced undergraduate and graduate programs for involving students in criminal practice. About one-half of the law schools have developed clinical programs in which law students work for legal aid and defender agencies under the supervision of faculty and agency lawyers. In some of these programs the student's experience is drawn upon in the classroom study of criminal procedure. In at least nine States, third-year law students are permitted by law to represent indigent defendants charged with misdemeanors at trial. This provides an opportunity for law schools in those States. to give their students invaluable training under proper supervision while at the same time improving the quality of representation previously available in those courts and relieving the manpower shortage. Similar programs for the use of law students in the prosecution of cases in the lower courts of Massachusetts are now being instituted by Harvard and Boston University law schools. A summer internship program in Wisconsin provides a small number of law students with intensive working experience in penitentiaries, with parole and probation supervisors, and with metropolitan police departments. The legal problems they encounter are evaluated during a third-year criminal law seminar. Three graduate internship programs, leading to master's degrees, are used to train lawyers. Two of them concentrate on defenders and trial attorneys and the third on training police legal advisers. They are aimed at producing a group of specialists. The Commission heartily commends such programs and urges that law schools that have not yet adopted them do so. Criminal law training for all members of the bar is particularly important because of the large number of lawyers who are called from their noncriminal practices to serve as appointed c'ounsel. A national manual for defense attorneys, which is to be annotated for use in each State, is being prepared by the Joint Committee on Continuing Legal Education, the American College of 'Trial Lawyers, and the National Legal Aid and Defender Association. In some States brief training programs in criminal practice have been developed by local or State bar associations; this example might well be followed elsewhere. Another activity the organized bar could undertake with profit is to develop and promulgate standards of competence in the criminal law and of the ethics of criminal practice. The Commission urges that programs such as these, which have already been devised and are beginning to be put into effect, be greatly accelerated. While the many existing programs represent important progress, the Commission does not believe either that they are sufficient or that they even approach all that can and must be done to provide the enormously expanded pool of criminal lawyers required to meet the country's needs. T o begin with, the financial incentives must be made much greater. Defenders are usually paid less than prosecutors, and many prosecutors are badly paid. In one of the most prestigious district attorney's offices in the country, New York County's, it takes an assistant 5 years to reach the salary he could reach after a year or so with a successful law firm. This kind of financial sacrifice is too much to ask of a talented young man with a family to support and no private means. Prosecutors' salaries should be raised, and defenders' salaries should be a!; high as prosecutors'. A law school class The Commission believes that law firms and leaders of the bar have a crucial role to play in meeting the need for criminal lawyers. At present, many able and energetic law school graduates who would otherwise be interested are deterred from going into criminal work because they are concerned that, unless they get on the "ladder" in a successful civil practice firm early, they will not be hired by such firms or their progress in the firms will be impeded. Both because the bar as a whole has a professional obligation to strengthen criminal practice and because young men with breadth of experience can contribute greatly to the work of any firm, the Commission believes law firms should not discourage prospective associates from a 2- to 5-year stint of defense or prosecution work and should be willing to grant leaves of absence to those of its young lawyers who would like to spend a period in criminal practice and then return. In addition, of course, it is essential that law firms make lawyers available to handle assigned cases, or to assist a defender's office. I t seems appropriate that criminal defense work should attract a high proportion of young lawyers. Even with substantially greater governmental support, compensation in this area is unlikely to be competitive with other kinds of practice, although the experience in understanding the problems of our society, in negotiation, and in trying cases makes it attractive and valuable for young lawyers. The Commission does not believe that only lawyers with many years of criminal practice can handle important cases. The infusion of young lawyers, likely to make greater demands on the system, has already been shown to have had a healthy effect on the system's operations. And having in the successful law firms "alumni" of criminal practice will help to give the leaders of the bar a greater sense of stake in the continuing improvement of criminal administration. T o make the best use of those lawyers who are available for defense work, it is obviously desirable to seek to use persons who are not members of the bar for many of the tasks involved in defense work. This would include factual. investigation and exploring such alternative forms of treatment as may be available in lieu of the defendant's running the full course of the criminal system. Residents of the poor neighborhoods, knowledgeable about the problems that are part of the background of particular criminal cases, and about the people connected with those cases, are a promising source of manpower for such jobs. A number of the Neighborhood Legal Services offices financed by the Office of Economic Opportunity are experimenting with the use of such personnel. The Commission does not believe that these suggestions nearly exhaust the possibilities. I t does believe that there is sufficient imagination and freedom of action in the American bar to devise ways, orthodox or unorthodox, for meeting the critical need for manpower in this field. Indeed, the country's estimate of the capability and responsibility of the bar may well be influenced by how well it performs this task. , COURT SCHEDULING, MANAGEMENT AND ORGANIZATION From the beginning of the criminal process to its end, from police work to correctional work, there is a tension between efficiency-protecting the community from crime-and fairness-protecting the rights of individuals. If these opposing pulls are not kept in balance, the process tends to become either excessively arbitrary, perfunctory, and hasty or excessively deliberate, cumbersome, and dilatory. Every year both pressures are becoming stronger, and the effect of this on the courts is especially conspicuous. The volume of criminal cases is growing, and so cases have to be pushed through crowded courts. Decisions requiring intervention of defense counsel at early stages of the process are becoming more rigorous, and so the deliberation with which cases must be considered is becoming greater. The Commission is well aware that the preponderant, though not the entire, stress of the recommendations it has made for greater participation by counsel, for more careful procedures, and for fuller information relating to precharge decisions and plea negotiations is in a direction that will slow the process down. A chief purpose of this section is to discuss ways in which the counfervailing pull can be strengthened, in which the process can be kept moving in the face of rising volume. That all too often now it does not move is clear. There are courts in which the normal lapse of time between a preliminary hearing and action by a grand jury is 3 months, and in which persons charged with serious crimes normally await trial for over a year. Such courts make a mockery of bail decisions. It is clearly unfair to a defendant to jail him for months without trial; it is clearly unfair to the community for a defendant charged with a serious crime to be at large for months without trial. Important cases are lost in such courts by attrition. Delay for the sake of delay is often in the interest of a defendant who is guilty and free on bail. If his counsel is allowed to procrastinate by making untenable motions and demanding repeated continuances, the process can be worn down to a point at which witnesses become forgetful or elusive, and the prosecutor may become so anxious to dispose of the case that he dismisses the charge or reduces it excessively in return for a plea of guilty. Such delay undermines the law's deterrent eRect by demonstrating that justice is not swift and certain but slow and faltering. In general, the courts in which these conditions exi:;t are the overcrowded urban courts. Traditionally, the management of a court's calendar-the schedule of what cases are to be heard on a given day-is in the hands of the judge. In a court with a small caseload a judge has little difficulty in keeping track of every case and every Model Timetable for Felony Cases Arrest Arrest to First Judicial Appearance. Many States and the Federal courts require appearance "without unnecessary delay." Depending on the circumstances, a few hours-or less-may be regarded as "unnecessary delay." Compliance with this standard may require extension of court operating hours and the continual availability o f a magistrate. First Judicial Appearance to Arraignment. Standards here are complicated because: ( a ) a shorter period is appropriate for de- fendants in jail than for those released; ( b ) preliminary hearings are waived in many cases and the formality and usefulness of the hearing varies; ( c ) formal charge in some cases is by grand jury indictment, while in others by prosecutor's informationusually the right to indictment can be waived by the defendant; and ( d ) in many jurisdictions proceedings through prelinzinary hearing in felony cases are in one court while grand jury charge and subsequent proceedings are in another. While in all cases Sometimes motions to suppress require that the legality of an arrest be examined at length; an elaborate search for evidence is justified; lawyers have conflicting engagements; witnesses fail to appear; a trial must be put off because another trial has been unexpectedly prolonged and there is no judge or courtroom. Making allowance for needed flexibility, however, it is possible to establish standards that emphasize the court's ability to deal efficiently with its business, that distinguish between needless and necessary delay, and that provide a reference for court management. In the report of the Commission's administration of justice task force, a model timetable is set forth in detail. I t is shown in graphic form below and it is not intended, of course, to eliminate any traditional procedures from the process. It is not intended to suggest that every case is the same as every other case or to remove from judges, prosecutors, or defense counsel 'any of the discretion it is necessary for them to have. The Commission believes it is a fair and reasonable set of guidelines against which courts can measure their present performance. I t proposes maximum intervals between specific steps in the process, for example, that the preliminary hearing follow the initial appearance by not more than 3 days for jailed A MODEL TIMETABLE defendants and 7 days for released defendants. I t proA rigid advance schedule for the processing of a case poses that the period from arrest to trial of felony cases be is patently unfeasible. There are too many variables. not more than 4 months and that the period from trial to defendant. He can remember what motions he has heard and how he ruled on them, how many continuances he has granted and for what reasons, which defendants are in jail and which are not. He can resist the pressure to delay that is brought to bear on him by defense counsel for tactical reasons, or by a prosecutor who has been slow to assemble his case. With no more than a sketchy set of records he can manage his calendar fairly and efficiently. In a badly congested court a judge, however elaborate and faithfully kept his records are and however fair and efficient he is, often cannot manage his calendar. And dividing courts into "parts"-an arraignment part, a motions part, a number of trial parts-may increase the efficiency of individual judges by confining them to one judicial function at a time, but does not necessarily move cases through the process more promptly. Involving several judges in a case can make the case harder to keep track of. - In order for crowded courts to manage their calendars well, they must conform to agreed-upon standards of performance, use up-to-date administrative and technological techniques, and be subject to central supervision. Preparation for Trlal 8 w 6 a b maximum Dm mba . T 'ra iu i Sentencing Appellate Review )*.rtng 7 days 21 days 10 days these steps should take no more than 17 days, in most cases it.- should be possible to accomplish them in substa.ntially less time. Arraignment to Trial. Many o f the increasing number of motions require the judge to hear and decide factual issues. Dkcovery orders may require time for the assembling and screening of documents. T h e recommended standard would allow slightly more than 5 weeks for these steps and would allow a total of 9 weeks between arraignment and trial. Where complicated mo- 14-21 days 5 months maximum tions are not involved, the period before trial should be shortened. Trial to Sentence. During this period a $resentence investigation should be completed. Sentence to Appellate Review. This standard is based on the time periods of the proposed Uniform Rules of Federal Appellate Procedure. Many jurisdictions would have to change existing practices concerning printing and preparation of records to meet this standard. appellate decision be within 5 months-that, in short, the entire process take no more than 9 months. In chapter 11 of this report an experimental computer simulation of the workload of an existing court is described. This effort indicates the feasibility of the time standards described in the model timetable and shows the usefulness of this approach as part of an analysis of court operations. Court administrators should collect regularly reported information on the time the courts are taking to dispose of cases and should measure this experience against the standards. Delay may be met by a variety of measures including assignment of additional judges; calling extra or' longer sessions of courts; special priorities for criminal cases; the public reporting of courts experiencing special delay; and, particularly when excessive delay is experienced between arraignment and trial, by the establishment of special parts and calendars in which particularly vigorous efforts may be made to deal with stalled cases. Establishment of the timetable by a court or court system. can be by local rule, by calendar order, or, where rulemaking power is totally lacking, by legislation. The Commission recommends: Courts and court systems should establish standards for the completion of the various stages of criminal cases. These standards should be designed to be within the capabilities of deliberate court consideration of cases, yet also should ensure that the disposition of cases shall be expeditious. Where existing court facilities are inadequate to enable cases to be disposed of in a reasonably short time, the need for greater resources and reform of procedures is demonstrated. TECHNICAL MANAGEMENT A requisite for the implementation of a timetable is that courts know at all times what the cases before them are and at what stages they are. In an age when new management techniques and business machines have revolutionized many business and government operations, the courts' business procedures have remained in most places very much like those of a former age. The use of multiple long-hand entries, cumbersome dockets, and inefficient filing and indexing systems with limited retrieval capacity persists in many courts because the volume of cases has not been so great as to cause the system to break down. Increasing urbanization has placed great new pressures upon these courts, however, and has highlighted the inadequacy and obsolescence of the business methods used. In some of the largest cities the volume of criminal court business has reached a point at which the use of computers and automatic business machines is being instituted to maintain an orderly flow of clerical business. While there does not yet appear to be a pressing need for the use of such elaborate equipment in medium sized cities, many of their courts do need to reorganize and modernize their manual clerical methods through better forms, filing systems, and indexing and schedul- ing methods. Modern technical management holds promise for enabling these courts to perform their job more quickly and cheaply by improving the retrieval of information, the scheduling of cases, and the maintenance of records. The Commission urges courts and court administrators to seek the advice and assistance of experts in business management and business machine systems in an effort to develop plans and forms for more efficient tmurt business systems. CENTRAL SUPERVISION AND PROFESSIONAL ADMINISTRATION For cases to move expeditiously through a court with many judges and thousands of cases, it is necessary that all the cases and all the judges be centrally supervised. Central supervision of cases makes it possible to keep track of the status of every case, to shift cases from one judge to another according to their various caseloads, to set up special calendars for cases that inherently demand prompt action or that have fallen behind the normal schedule. Central supervision of judges nlakes it possible to assign judges appropriately, to set up work and vacation schedules that all judges are expected to conform to, and to press dilatory judges to act more speedily. Of course, the supervision of calendars and judges is a judicial function. I t could be performed by a court's chief justice, or by a small administrative committee of judges, or by an administrative judge appointed for this purpose. Whatever form central supervision takes, large and complicated courts need the services of professional administrators to assist the judges charged with aclministration. Some thirty States have provided for an administrative office to aid the judiciary by collecting judicial statistics, managing fiscal affairs, supervising court personnel, and performing duties in connection with the assignment of judges and scheduling of cases. In many of these States, however, the functions of this office are limited, and its potential has not yet been realized. By bringing men into courts with training and a primary interest in management, techniques of court management will be improved. Court administration is a developing field in which a clear understanding of techniques is evolving. There is a need for more experimentatiorl and increased use of promising methods for ordering the business of the courts. The Commission recommends: States should provide for clear administrative responsibility within courts and should ensure that professional court administrators are available to assist the judges in their management functions. JURORS AND WITNESSES A problem closely related to the administration of the courts is the treatment of citizens whose primary contact with the criminal courts is as jurors or witnesses. For many law-abiding citizens this experience with the courts forms the basis for their impression of the fairness, sensitivity, and efficiency of the system. The successful prosecution of criminals depends upon citizens reporting crimes to the police and being willing to appear as witnesses at trial. Whether the jury system works depends on the willingness of citizens to serve. Yet in many places negative attitudes toward the administration of justice are reinforced by citizens' experiences as witnesses or jurors. Physical facilities for waiting witnesses and jurors as a rule are inadequate or nonexistent, with the result that these persons must spend long periods standing in hallways or sitting in the back of courtrooms. Little consideration is generally given to the convenience of witnesses, who are required to appear on a number of occasions only to learn, after a long wait in court, that the case is adjourned or disposed of and that their appearance was not necessary. Witness and juror fees are extremely modest. In one urban court witnesses receive 75 cents a day and in the Federal system jurors receive $4 a day. This economic sacrifice by wage earners and small businessmen cannot be justified as a duty of citizenship or on any other ground. Particular problems are posed by policemen who frequently are called upon as witnesses. Often they must appear on their own time, and in their case delay has a direct effect upon law enforcement in the field. COURT REORGANIZATION While in some States successful court reform has created courts able to meet new demands, in many States the entire court structure continues to reflect an earlier age. There is a multiplicity of trial courts without coherent and centralized administrative management. Jurisdictional lines are unnecessarily complex and confusing. Each court and each judge within the court constitute a distinct administrative unit, moving at its own pace and in its own way. In a number of States courts not responsible to a statewide system nor subject to its management continue to be viewed as a source of local revenue, and criminal justice is seen as a profitmaking activity. Modern management and efficiency can be promoted by putting all courts and judges within a State under a single, central administration with provision for the shifting and allocation of judicial and administrative manpower to meet changing requirements. For this to be effective the judiciary must be given rulemaking power over the methods used to handle its business. I t is important that men continuously and intimately involved with court procedures be responsible for court rules. Legislatures cannot deal with the technical problems of court management and procedure effectively. In most States the rulemaking power is lodged in the Supreme Court, a judicial conference, or some other body of judges. The Commirsion recommknds: The Commission recommends: The Federal and State Governments should improve physical facilities and compensation for witnesses and jurors, expand the use of scheduling and witness call systems to reduce unnecessary appearances and waiting, and, except in cases where there is to be an immediate hearing on the arrest or charge, substitute sworn statements for the appearance of the arresting police officer a t the initial court appearance. States should reexamine their court structure and organization and create a single, unified system of courts subject to central administrative management within the judiciary. The Commission urges States that have not yet reformed their court systems to draw upon the experience of those States and organizations that have made advances in this area. Central administration within the judiciary should have the power to make rules and shift manpower to'meet changing requirements. Corrections c cCORRECTIONS,'~ AMERICA'S prisons, jails, juvenile train- ing schools, and probation and parole machinery, is the part of the criminal justice system that the public sees least of and knows least about. I t seldom gets into the news unless there is a jail break, a prison riot, or a sensational scandal involving corruption or brutality in an institution or b,y an official. The institutions in which about a third of the corrections population lives are situated for the most part in remote rural areas, or. in the basements of,police stations or courthouses. The other two-thirds of the corrections population are on probation and parole, and so are widely, and on the whole invisibly, dispersed in the community. Corrections is not only hard to see; traditionally, society has been reluctant to look at it. Many of the people, juvenile and adult, with whom corrections deals are the most troublesome and troubling members of society: T h e misfits and the failures, the unrespectable and the irresponsible. Society has been well content to keep them out of sight. Its invisibility belies the system's size, complexity, and crucial importance to the control of crime. Corrections consists of scores of different kinds of institutions and programs of the utmost diversity in approach, facilities, and quality. O n any given day it is responsible for approximately 1.3 million offenders. I n the course of a year it handles nearly 2.5 million admissions, and spends over a billion dollars doing so. .If it could restore all or even most of these people to the community as responsible citizens, America's crime rate would drop significantly. For as it is today, a substantial percentage of offenders become recidivists; they go on to commit more, and as chapter 11 shows, often more serious crimes. For a great many offenders, then, corrections does not correct. Indeed, experts are increasingly coming to feel that the conditions under which many offenders are handled, parti~ularlyin institutions, are often a positive detriment to rehabilitation. Life in maxiy institutions is at best barren and futile, at worst unspeakably brutal and degrading. T o be sure, the offenders in such institutions are incapacitated from com- Release mitting further crimes while serving their sentences, but the conditions in which they live are the poorest possible preparation for their successful reentry into society, and often merely reinforce in them a pattern of manipulation or destructiveness. These conditions are to a great extent the result of a drastic shortage of resources together with widespread ignorance as to how to use the resources available. Moreover, corrections by its very nature must always work at the "end of the line" of the criminal justice system, with those whose problems have overtaxed the resources of other systems. However, there are hopeful signs that far-reaching changes can be made in present conditions. The Commission found, in the course of its work, a number of imaginative and dedicated people at work in corrections. I t found a few systems where their impact, and enlightened judicial and legislative correctional policies, had already made a marked difference; a few experimental programs whose results in terms of reduced recidivism were dramatic. A start has been made in developing methods of classification that will permit more discriminating selection of techniques to treat particular types of offenders. But many of the new ideas, while supported by logic and some experience, are yet to be scientifically evaluated. Nevertheless, the potential for change is great. As a foundation for its work, the Commission decided that a comprehensive, nationwide survey of correctional operations should be undertaken. Relevant information existed in bits and pieces around the country, but there was no overall picture of American corrections. The structure of probation and parole programs, institutions, theories, and procedures that together make up corrections is extremely complex and diverse. A few jurisdictions have relatively small probation caseloads, an integrated system of institutions, well-trained staffs, and a variety of experimental programs. Others consist of several autonomous and antiquated county jails, a state training school for juveniles, and a huge prison farm where convicts toil under the surveillance of trusties armed with shotguns. I t was necessary for the Commission to survey all of the disparate segments of the system so that its analysis and recommendations would not simply perpetuate the existing state of fragmented and inadequate knowledge. The Commission. therefore. in collaboration with the Office of Law Enforcement Assistance, arran~ed ., for the National Council on Crime and Delinquency, an independent, nationwide group with long experience in the corrections field, to undertake the necessary survey. The detailed report of this survey is presented in the corrections task foke volume. BACKGROUND O F CORRECTIONS TODAY The survey gave the first accurate national picture of the number of offenders under correctional authority on an average day: 1.3 million (table 1) . This total is so much larger than had ever before been estimated that it has startled even those familiar with the field. I t overtaxes the facilities, programs, and personnel of the correctional system badly. Moreover, if present trends in arrests and convictions continue, the system 10 years from now will be facing even more extreme pressures. The juvenile system, because of the rapid increase in the number of young people in the population, will be the most hard pressed. Adult probation and parole treatment will also suffer, because of the trend toward probation or early parole rather than prolonged confinement. In recent years, adult institutional commitments have been leveling off. who are mentally disordered, guard against the smuggling and use of narcotics, provide instruction and supervision for the mentally retarded, and handle the dangerous and intricate problem of sexual deviance-all within a locked and artificial world. Beneath the diversities, certain characteristics predominate. A great majority of offenders are male. Most of them are young: in the age range between 16 and 30. The life histories of most of them document the ways in which the social and economic factors.discussed in chapters 2 and 3 contribute to crime and delinquency. Education is as good a barometer as any of the likelihood of success in modem urban society; as figure 1 shows, a high proportion of offenders are severely handicapped educationally. Many of them have dropped out of school. Offenders also tend to have unstable work records and, as shown by figure 2, a lack of vocational skill. A large proportion come from backgrounds of poverty, and many are members of groups that suffer economic and social disadvantage. Material failure, then, in a culture firmly oriented toward material success, is the most common denominator of offenders. Some have been automatically excluded from economic and social opportunity; some have been disqualified by lack of native abilities; some may simply not have tried hard enough. Many, too, have failed in their relationships with their families and friends. Offenders, adult or juvenile, usually have little self-esteem, and for some it is only when they are undergoing correction that they get a first glimmering of their personal worth. CORRECTIONAL ADMINISTRATION Table 1.-Average Daily Population in Corrections The differences among offenders do not account for the most salient differences among correctional facilities and procedures. These can be traced, rather, to historical development, administrative fragmentation, and divergent and unreconciled purposes and theories. 1975: ---------.----------------- ------ 482.W Misdemeanant......-------------Table 2 shows the diversity of American corrections Juvenile...--.-....---.----------------------------------------588 000 Adult felon ...-.-.---....---------------------.--...-,--.-.-....... 7 7 1 : ~ ~ ) with respect to size and cost. 1,841,000 Total estimated. 1975-...........--.---------------------..-.-...-. The Federal Government, all 50 States, the District of SOURCES: 1965 figures computed fmm the National Sune of Corrections and tabulaColumbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, most tions mvided bv the Federal Bureau of Prisons and the idministrative Office of the US. eburts; 1975 projections computed by the task force on science and technology. of the country's 3,047 counties, and all except the smallest cities engage in correctional activities-if only maintaining a primitive jail in which to lock up overCHARACTERISTICS OF OFFENDERS night those who are "drunk and disorderly." Each level Offenders themselves differ strikingly. Some seem ir- of government typically acts independently of the others. revocably committed to criminal careers; others subscribe The Federal Government has no direct control over to quite conventional values; still others, probably the State corrections. The States usually have responsibility majority, are aimless and uncommitted to goals of any for prisons and parole programs, but probation is frequentkind. Many are disturbed and frustrated youths. ly tied to court administration as a county or municipal Many others are alcoholics, narcotics addicts, victims of function. Counties do not have jurisdiction over the senility, and sex deviants. This diversity poses immense jails operated by cities and towns. problems for correctional officials, for in most places the Responsibility for the administration of corrections is many special offender groups must be managed within divided not only among levels of government, but also large, general-purpose programs. The superintendent within single jurisdictions. There has been a strong hisof an institution must meet the challenge of especially hos- toric tendency for juvenile and adult corrections to foltile and violent inmates, respond appropriately to those low separate paths. Public support for rehabilitative C0mpark0n of Educational L e v e l s - ~ e d e r a l College High School Elementary Figure 1 and State Felony Inmates Years of School Completed % 4 years or more 8.4 1.1 1 to 3 years 9.4 4.2 4 years 27.5 12.4 1 to 3 years 20.7 5 to 8 years 28 40.3 6 14.4 4 years to none General Population ' Inmate Population % 7 27.6 Source: U,S. Department of Labor, Manpower Administration, Office of Manpower Policy, Evaluation, and Research, based on data from the U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census. Comparison of Occupational Experience -Federal and State Felony Inmates ( ~ a l e s ) Figure 2 Inmate Prior General Labor Force Work Experience Professional and technical workers Managers and owners, incl. farm Clerical and sales Craftsmen, foremen Operatives Service workers, incl. household. Laborers (except mine) incl. farm laborers and foremen 1 All data are for males only: since the correctional institution population is 95 percent male, data for males were used to eliminate the effects of substantial differences between male and female occupational employment patterns. Source: U S . Department of Labor, Manpower Administration, Office of Manpower Policy, Evaluation, and Research, based on data from U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Table 2.-Some National Characteristics of Corrections, 1965 ( Average daily o p / Juvenile corrections: - - -.--- - -.- - - --. -.-.-.- - -.-.-. -Institutions----.-------------------------.--Community.-.. ...- ----- ---- ---- ------- - - - - - - - - - - - ---- .- -- ---- -- -- - - - ; ; : : :2 - -- I Misdemeanantcorrections: Institutions-.----.---------- - - - - .--- - ...----....- -.----- ..-- - - - ----- - - - --. Community -.-..-..--------.---------------.--..-1 111..11111111---7---------- Subtotal-..--.. ...------..----.--------..----.-- - - - .--.-- - --- I / $226 809 600 93613400 141,303 201,385 I-mi - - --. --- -342,688 [I Tota1;~;~ting 147 794 200 28: 682: 900 176,477,100 Average cost of offender per year 1 Number of employees In corrections $3,613 328 1 I-- - --- Total....................................................................... I. GUS, 746,500 ............... SOURCES: National Survey of Corrections and tabulations provided by the Federal Bureau of Prisons and the Administrative Office of the US. Courts. Number of employees treattng offenders . -II 1I. --I .Ir:c? liu- Iuiclu! .IIHI Hui-'Illu. .?Iillr II .llilil - . . . . I .I . -. .1Ir'II-t'm'I-n gerILfIJIm II . . I .rn-rh .-.-. 4:51 thllu- in l'lli?ll?a?h'll. Mum- IEIJHHI in Il'lr'L-L ?lm? .Ii 5" In: II. cIr and tum-1r . - . Im- murmur: I?n hJci I-II I .I.- .let] Ila l I clf1l:l' IHII II.II: . I l I I: I-ilu'lulirI'rlill: .I- I UN I-1 maul-c I'll? .n In?: llnl. In 1-1- :Ir ill-.ull 'f'IwI; um:- lu-wmi 3.5th 1'1" Lm um? I Emmi Ill .mul it 3411- .m llillJl'I- tunity to reflect in solitude over his wrong choices and to mend his ways. Not incidentally, of course, incarceration also prevented an offender from committing further harm against the community, which corporal punishment short of execution did not. Many legacies of these philosophical developments. run through corrections today. They can be seen in much prison architecture for adult felons, grim and fortresslike, with tier upon tier of individual cells arranged chiefly with a view to security. They can be seen in the daily regimen of many such institutions, 'too, though in most cases this has been mitigated by later correctional movements. The wide p l f between inmates and st& in many prisons, maintained by restrictions on "fraternization," rules bf address, and constant rollcalls and inspections, is part of this. Impersonality extends to dress, restrictions on conversation with other prisoners, and the way in which prisoners are marched in groups from cells to dining hall to shop. Cells are usually small and bare, with prisoners locked into them at night and out of them-and into shops, recreation rooms, or simply hallways--during the day. Juvenile training schools, though their architecture and their routine are far less forbidding, too often emphasize in subtle ways that restraint is their primary purpose and treatment a casual afterthought. A prisoner under this sort of regimen is expected to "do his own timeJ' aloof from staff and other inmates, and his release may often be accelerated or postponed according to his good or bad behavior in this peculiar institutional setting rather than his preparedness to enter the world outside. Many institutions, especially those for juveniles have counselors, teachers, and chaplains whose charge it is to aid in the process of rehabilitation, but their limited role and number typically make significant rehabilitative efforts impossible. Shops and farms or other work activities too often are operated primarily because of their value to the state and conducted in a fashion useless for instruction in skills and habits needed to succeed in the community. This model of corrections has further inadequacies. With offenders of all kinds confined together and handled indiscriminately without close staff contact, a special inmate culture may develop that is deleterious to everyone, and especially the juvenile, who is exposed for the first time to it. Certain inmates--often the most aggressiveassume control over the others with tacit staff consent; in some adult institutions this situation is formalized through the use of "trustiesn-sometimes armed-to carry the burden of close supervision. Rackets, violence, corruption, coerced homosexuality, and other abuses may exist without staff intervention. The physical inadequacy of the older prisons has been compounded in most cases by severe overcrowding. At best, however, their construction is unsuited to most rehabilitative It is difficult to hold group counseling sessions when there are no rooms of a size between cells and the dining hall; difficult to release prisoners during the day to settle themselves into regular jobs in the community when the nearest town is miles away; difficult more generally to promote self-discipline and responsible independence in an institution architecturally dedicated to intimate and constant authoritarian control. These conditions have given rise to a whole series of changes, beginning as long ago as the latter part of the 19th century. Authorities in most jurisdictions began to realize that mere restraint could not accomplish the purpose of corrections, and that many of the features of prison life actually intensified the problems of offenders. The resulting determination to undertake more positive efforts at reformation was accompanied by the recognition that motivation was more than a matter of rational choice between good and evil, and that psychological treatment might thus be a necessary part of corrections. I t was also recognized that the useful occupation of prisoners in shops, farms, classes, and recreation would ease institutional tensions and contribute to an atmosphere less detrimental to rehabilitation. The reform model reshaped all roles in the correctional system. No longer was the offender regarded as a morally deficient person, to be controlled by a keeper. Instead he became, for some purposes at least, a "patient." The old rule-"Let the punishment fit the crimeaJ-was replaced by a new maxim-"Let the treatment fit the needs of the individual offender." On the reform model was built a far more complex approach to corrections.than had existed before. This new approach began with and has gained most ground with juveniles, who had previously been imprisoned indiscriminately with adults, but now began to be treated separately. A wide range of services was to be provided : lation is still employed on vast farms raising cash crops under conditions scarcely distinguishable from slavery. Flogging is still practiced in at least one place as discipline even for such offenses as "overlooking okra7'carelessness in harvesting. But a more pervasive evil is idleness; this is especially destructive where there are no industries, no educational programs, no recreational facilities-only aimless loitering in corridors 'or yards. Where it has come, the process of reform has not always been smooth. Those in the field have sometimes lacked the inclination, and have almost always lacked the resources, to evaluate their new programs carefully. There has been a tendency for the correctional field to adopt new or seemingly new programs in an impulsive, sometimes faddish manner, only to replace them later with some more recent innovation. Much supposed progress really has been only circular .movement. "New" approaches turn out to be devices tried elsewhere under a different name. The advance guard of corrections in one jurisdiction may be stressing individual and family therapy; in another, vocational training and job placement; and in still another, group treatment relying upon Boys' training school the influence of fellow offenders to accomplish rehabilitation. Frustration in achieving clear results sometimes Education; vocational training; religious guidance; and leads officials to drop one approach and move on, to a eventually psychotherapy in its various forms. Prison completely new one, or to add treatment methods one schools and counselors would help some; prison industries on the other without clearly distinguishing their purposes. would accustom others to the beneficial effects of regular Correction of offenders has also labored under what employment as against the irregular gains of crime. The is coming to be seen as a fundamental deficiency in apmain focus was on the individual--on correcting him. proach. All of the past phases in the evolution of corThe new ideals led to the development of different rections accounted for criminal and delinquent behavior kinds of institutions. Medium-security prisons were primarily on the basis of some form of defect within the built that had fences rather than walls and guard towers, rooms rather than celIs, locked doors and windows rather individual offender. The idea of being possessed by devthan bars. Minimum-security facilities showed even ils was replaced with the idea of psychological disability. greater departures: Schools where offenders lived in cot- Until recently reformers have tended to ignore the evitages, forestry camps and farms where they lived in bar- dence that crime and delinquency are symptoms of the racks without locks and worked without armed surveil- disorganization of the community as well as of individual lance. Facilities were created for women, for youths, for personalities, and that community institutions-through reception and diagnosis, for prerelease and postrelease extending or denying their resources-have a critical inguidance, for medical and psychiatric treatment, for fluence in determining the success or failure of an inalcoholics, for addicts, for sexual psychopaths, and for dividual offender. others. The responsibility for community treatment and suSome of the reforms have been notable. The Federal pervision has been entrusted mainly to probation and prison system and sev.era1State systems have taken leader- parole services. As noted, these programs handle far ship in bringing about many of the changes discussed more offenders than do institutions. Probation-superlater in this chapter-from such important atmosphere vision in the community in lieu of imprisonment-was changes as dining facilities with small tables to modern first established for juveniles almost a century ago, and is prison industries and programed learning. The prog- now at least superficially available for both juveniles and ress that these reforms have made has not been uniform adult felons in a majority of States. Very little probation or free from complications, however. The old build- service is available to misdemeanants. ings were built in the stoutest fashion, and it has been difParole, the postincarceration equivalent of probation, ficult to secure their replacement. Today there are 25 dating from about the same period, is also widely used prisons in the United States over a hundred years old. for juveniles and felons, but seldom for misdemeanants. Old methods and evils have been perpetuated as well as Often probation and parole are sepamtely adminisold architecture. I n some States juveniles are still jailed tered, probation as a service to the courts and parole as with adults. I n a few, the bulk of the corrections popu- a part of State correctional agencies. Probation officers typically spend much time preparing sentencing re- nities for satisfying participation in community life, ports for judges in addition to supervising offenders. opportunities that lead toward legitimate success and Parole officers perform like functions for parole boards in away from illicit and destructive ways of life. For most providing information relative to decisions to grant or re- offenders, however, the doors to legitimate opportunity are hard to find and harder to open. voke parole. There is a growing appreciation within the field of the Supervision consists basically of a combination of surveillance and counseling, drawing partly upon the meth- irrationality that runs through much of correctional pracods identified with social casework, but distinguished by tice today: Of having such sharp lines between instituthe need to enforce authoritative limits and standards of tional and community treatment, between juvenile and behavior. Offenders are put on probation or released adult programs, between local jails and State prisons; of on parole subject to certain conditions: That they stay spending so much on custody and so little on rehabilitaout of trouble; that they maintain regular employment or tion; of focusing so heavily on security during incarcerastay in school; that they not drink or use narcotics; and tion and so little on supervision to protect the commuusually that they obtain permission for such steps as get- nity once an offender is returned to it. ting married, changing jobs or residence, or leaving the While recent public opinion polls show increasing pubjurisdiction. The probation or parole officer's first duty lic sympathy with rehabilitative goals, conflict and unceris to "keep track'' of his cases and see that they comply with these conditions. Often he has little time even for tainty about the theories behind and the goals of corrections have impaired broad support for needed experiments this function. If this were the whole of the job, it still would not be and changes. Correctional treatment designed to meet easy to accomplish in most jurisdictions. But in fact the offender's needs is often (although not always) less probation and parole supervision aims at much more. burdensome and unpleasant than traditional forms of An officer is expected to offer counseling and guidance treatment. Thus, rehabilitation efforts may to some exand to help in getting a job or in straightening out family tent conflict with the deterrent goal of the criminal system difficulties. I n practice he is almost always too pressed and, if treatment is in the community instead of in prison, to (do this well. Probation and parole supervision typi- with the goal of incapacitating the offender from commitcally consists of a 10- or 15-minute interview oqce or twice ting further crime. But the issue is not simply whether a month, during which the officer questions and ad- new correctional methods amount to "coddling." A mamonishes his charge, refers him to an employment agency jor goal of corrections is to make the community safer by or a public health clinic, and makes notations for the re- preventing the offender's return to crime upon his release. ports he must file. The great pressures on these officers make it difficult for them to exercise evenly and knowl- COMMUNITY-BASED CORRECTIONS edgeably the tremendous discretion they have in recomWith two-thirds of the total corrections caseload under mending the revocation or continuation of community treatment when offenders under their supervision get probation or parole supervision today, the central question into trouble. is no longer whether to handle offenders in the community There are, of course, many exceptions to this picture, but how to do so safely and successfully. Clearly, there is a some of them very impressive-experiments with small need to incarcerate those criminals who are dangerous caseloads of offenders classified on the basis of need and until they no longer are a threat to the community. Howgiven carefully prescribed treatment, and with agencies ever, for the large bulk of offenders, particularly the youththat use teams of caseworkers and have specialized services ful, the first or the minor offender, institutional commitsuch as psychiatric treatment, legal advice, job placement, ments can cause more problems than they solve. and remedial tutoring. Institutions tend to isolate offenders from society, both The challenge facing parole and probation officers is physically and psychologically, cutting them off from increased by the growing sense that the efforts of correc- schools, jobs, families, and other supportive influences and tional officials should be directed toward both the offend- increasing the probability that the label of criminal will be er and the community institutions-school, work, religion, indelibly impressed upon them. The goal of reintegration and recreation-with which he must effect a reconcilia- is likely to be furthered much more readily by working tion if he is to avoid further crimes. It is of little use to with offenders in the community than by incarceration. improve the reading skills and motivation of a juvenile Additionally other goals are met. One is economy. In offender if the community school system will not receive 1965 it cost, on the average, about $3,600 a year to keep him when he is placed on parole, or if it cannot provide a youngster in a training school, while it cost less than usable instruction for him. I t makes little sense for a one-tenth that amount to keep him on probation. Even correctional institution to offer vocational training if an allowing for the substantial improvements in salaries and offender cannot find related work when he returns to the personnel needed to make community programs more community. The process of repairing defects in the in- effective, they are less costly. This is especially true when dividual must be combined with the opening of opportu- construction costs, which now run up to $20,000 for cach , bed in a children's institution, are included. The differential becomes even greater if the costs of welfare for the families of the incarcerated, as well as the loss of taxable income, are included. Various studies have sought to measure the success of community treatment. One summary analysis of 15 different studies of probation outcomes indicates that from 60 to 90 percent of the probationers studied completed terms without revocation. In another study, undertaken in California, 11,638 adult probationers who were granted probation during 1956 to 1958 were followed up after 7 years. Of this group almost 72 percent completed their probation terms without revocation. These findings were not obtained under controlled conditions, nor were they supported by data that distinguished among the types of offenders who succeeded or among the types of services that were rendered. But they are the product of a variety of probation services administered at different times and places and provide some evidence that well planned and administered community programs can be successful in reducing recidivism. These findings, combined with the data from the national survey of corrections showing that probation and parole services are characteristically poorly staffed and often poorly administered, suggest that improvement in the quality of community treatment should be a major goal. also may mean that many minor and first-time offenders, who would be more suitably and economically dealt with in the community, are instead institutionalized. And lack of supervision, particularly through parole, means that the community is being exposed to unnecessary risks and that @ offenders are going without assistance in reestablishing themselves in jobs and schools. T h e Commission recommends: Parole and probation services should be available in all jurisdictions for felons, juveniles, and those adult misdemeanants who need or can profit from community treatment. If a prisoner serves his term without having been paroled, in most places he is released into the community without any guidance or supervision. But in the Federal system, and in several States, when an inmate is released before his maximum term because of good behavior, he is subject to supervision in the community for a period equivalent to his "good time credit.'' He is released to a parole officer under the same conditions as an inmate who is paroled, and he can be returned to prison to serve out his sentence if he violates those conditions. INSURING AVAILABILITY OF PROBATION AND PAROLE SUPERVISION The Commission's survey 'of corrections disclosed that there are still a significant number of jurisdictions that lack probation or parole facilities of any sort for misdemeanant offenders. Of the 250 counties studied in the national corrections survey, one-third provided no probation service at all. Institutionalization and outright release on suspended sentence without supervision are the only alternatives in such jurisdictions. Most misdemeanants are released from local institutions and jails without parole; information obtained in the survey from a sample of 212 local jails indicated that 131 of them (62 percent) had no parole procedure. In the other 81, only 8 percent of the inmates were in fact released on parole; thus 92 percent were simply discharged at the expiration of their sentences. All States appear to have community supervision facilities for juvenile offenders and adult felons, but in some jurisdictions these are no more than nominal. Many small juvenile courts, for example, rely almost entirely on release on suspended sentence in lieu of probation supervision, and their judges attempt to keep a check on those released as best they can, often with the assistance of the local police. These inadequacies can have serious consequences. Lack of community treatment facilities for misdemeanants and juveniles means the neglect of one of the most important lines of defense against serious crimes, since many persons with juvenile or misdemeanant records graduate to graver offenses. Lack of probation facilities T h e Commission recommends: Every State should provide that offenders who are not paroled receive adequate supervision after release unless it is determined to be unnecessary in a specific case. Meeting with probation oficer 0 THE NEED FOR INCREASED MANPOWER The statistics from the national survey of corrections make clear the vastness of the community treatment task and the inadequacy of the resources available to accomplish it. They do not convey the everyday problems and frustations that result from that disparity. These take many forms. For example: A probation officer meets with a 16-year-old boy who 2 months previously was placed on probation for having stolen a car. The boy begins to talk. He explains that he began to "slip into the wrong crowd" a year or so after his stepfather died. He says that it would help him to talk about it. But there is no time; the waiting room is full, and the boy is not scheduled to come back for another. 15-minute conference until next month. A parole officer feels that a 29-year-old man, on parole after serving 3 years for burglary, is heading for trouble. He frequently is absent from his job, and there is a report of his hanging around a bar with a bad reputation. The parole officer thinks that now is a critical time to straighten things out-before it is too late.. He tries unsuccessfully two or three times to reach his man by telephone, and considers going out to look for him. He decides against it. He is already far behind in dictating "revocations" on parolees who have failed and are being returned' to prison, A y o ~ g enthusiastic , probation officer goes to see his supervisor and presents a plan for "something different," a group counseling session to operate three evenings a week for juvenile probationers and their parents. The supervisor tells him to forget it. "You've got more than you can handle now getting up presentence reports for. the - j u d ~ . Besides, we don't have any extra budget for a psychiatrist to help out." In these situations the offender is denied the counseling and supervision that are the. main objects of probation and parole. Because the probation or parole officer is too overworked to provide these services, the offender is left on his own. 'If he does not succeed, he loses and the community loses. On the basis ofhformation gathered in the corrections survey, it is possible to form a general picture of the magnitude of need for additional probation and parole officers if they are simply to carry on orthodox supervision at the caseload levels widely accepted as the maximum possible. Figure 3 on the following page shows the average present caseload sizes of probation officers. The findings of the survey are alarming: 0 In the juvenile field there is an immediate need to increase the number of probation and parole officers from the present 7,706 to approximately 13,800. This manpower pool would mean caseloads of 35 offenders per officer, and would permit additional time for the hundreds of thousands of diagnostic investigations needed each year by juvenile courts. I t is estimated that a total of 23,000 officers will be required by 1975 to carry out the functions essential to community treatment of juveniles. 0 For adult felons there is an immediate need for almost three times the number of probation and parole officers currently employed. This estimate again is based on an average caseload size of 35, for while adult probation and parole caseloads have typically been somewhat larger than those of juvenile systems, this difference is more a reflection of historical factors than one justified'by a difference in need. On this basis, too, population projections point to a requirement of a total of 23,000 officers in 1975. 0 The need for officers for misdemeanants is staggering; 15,400 officers are needed ai 'against 1,944 currently employed. The number needed in 1975 is estimated at 22,000. This forecast, unlike thbse for adult felony and juvenile officers, is based upon needs for officers to supervise only the rather modest proportion of the misdemeanant group that could be aided in the community, plus others to provide minimal screening and classification iervices for,the roughly 5 million persons referred to the lower courts each .year. Many of the latter, particularly alcoholics, could be diverted from the criminal justice system if identified in time. The.Commission recommends: All jurisdictions should examine their need for probation and parole officers on the basis of an average ratio of 35 offenders per officer, and make an immediate start toward recruiting additional officers on the basis of that examination. Standards for average caseload size serve a useful purpose in estimating the magnitude of present and future needs for probation and parole officers. But in operation there is no single optimum caseload size. Indeed, in the Commission's opinion, it would be a mistake to approach the problem of upgrading community treatmen,t solely in terms of strengthening orthodox supervision to bring caseload sizes down to universal maximum standards. Such an approach would ignore the need for specialized caseloads to deal differently with particular types of offeriders, and for changes in the standard procedure that results in an offender being supervised by only one officer. Furthermore many of the answers to manpower needs must be found outside the mold of the existing system. There is, for example, great promise in employing subprofessionals and volunteers in. community corrections. Much work performed today by probation and parole Caseloads of Probation Officers Figure 3 Source: National Corrections Survey Probation Officers with 0-50 cases are responsible for: officers could be effectively handled by persons without graduate training in social work or the behavioral sciences. In fact, organizing teams of workers within which the tasks of investigating, monitoring, helping, and guiding offenders are divided in a logical manner, would permit more specialized and individualized attention. The use of subprofessionals and volunteers could significantly reduce the need for fully trained officers. Citizen volunteers have 'been used with apparent success by some probation departments. Royal Oak, Mich., for example, has utilized volunteers for 6 years and claims a high success rate for the probationers who have received supervision. The General Board of Christian Social Concerns of the Methodist Church, the North American Judges Association, and the National Council on Crime and Delinquency have launched "Project Misdemeanant," a program to encourage other communities to develop programs similar to that in Royal Oak. By 1966, 75 communities in over 30 States had expressed interest, and a number of other such programs were operating or were in the developmental stage. The State parole agency in Texas uses volunteers as assistants to parole officers. Volunteers contact parolees upon release and help arrange jobs for them or secure their readmission into school. Thereafter volunteers are available to counsel parolees in any problems they may have or simply to serve as the kind of successful friends whom many offenders have never known. The work of the volunteers is closely supervised by professional parole officers, to whom they go for guidance when there are signs of trouble. The use of paid, subprofessional aides in probation and parole is also promising. Such people, if properly trained and supervised, could, for example, collect and verify information about offenders, work that now takes up much of the time that probation and parole officers could be spending in counseling and arranging community services for offenders. Subprofessionals could provide positive benefits beyond that of meeting manpower shortages. People who have themselves experienced problems and come from backgrounds like those of offenders often can help them in ways professional caseworkers cannot. Contact with a person who has overcome handicaps and is living successfully in the community could mean a great deal more to an offender than conventional advice and guidance. Probation Officers with 51-70 cases are responsible for: 1 9.16 percent of a11 felony cases. I T o the extent possible, subprofessionals should be prepared for career advancement within the corrections field. The Commission recommends: Probation and parole services should make use of volunteers and subprofessional aides in demonstration projects and regular programs. MOBILIZING COMMUNITY RESOURCES Basic changes also must be made in what probation and parole officers do. They usually are trained in casework techniques and know how to counsel and supervise individuals, but they are seldom skilled in or oriented to the tasks required in mobilizing community institutions to help offenders., Much of the assistance that probationers and parolees need can come only from institutions in the community-help from the schools in gaining the education necessary for employment; help from employment services and vocational training facilities in getting jobs; help in finding housing, solving domestic difficulties, and taking care of medical disabilities. As chapter 3 has pointed out with respect to juveniles, many offenders are, at the time of their offenses, already rejects and failures in home, school, work, and leisuretime activities. Once they become officially labeled criminal or delinquent, and particularly once they have been institutionalized and their community and family ties have been broken, their estrangement from these primary institutions increases, and their sense of powerlessness to succeed in legitimate ways is accentuated. In many cases, society reacts to their criminality by walling 'them off from the help they most need if they are to turn away from criminality. There are many specific barriers to reentry. Perhaps the most damaging are those limiting employment opportunity. The inability of ex-offenders to obtain the bonding needed for certain kinds of employment; licensing restrictions that deny them access to certain kinds of work; and outright ineligibility for many forms of employment. The rituals surrounding the banishment of a lawbreaker Probation Officers with 71-100 cases are responsible for: Probation Officers with over 100 cases are responsible for: 14.68 percent of all rnisdemeanant cases. 20.69 percent of all felony cases. are very potent, but there are no rituals to remove from him the label of offender when he seeks to reenter the community. Even stronger than these formal restrictions are the informal pressures operating throughout the community to "lock out" the person who carries a criminal stigma. Those who profess to believe in rehabilitation often personally shun ex-offenders who seek to return to school, find work, or join recreation groups. Of course, this fear is in some cases legitimate. But when it is not, there is rarely any official assurance to minimize it. There is usually no conference with the parole or probation officer at which a job applicant's background and problems are discussed, or means worked out to enable employers to consult the officer if problems result. If corrections is to succeed in mobilizing varied community resources to deal more effectively with offenders, it must significantly change its way of operating. Probation and parole officers today direct their energies primarily toward the offender rather than the social environment with which he must come to terms. Although it is important that present skills in working with individual offenders be retained and improved, much is to be gained by developing new work styles that reach out to community resources and relate them to the needs of the caseload. The officer of the future must be a link between the offender and community institutions; a mediator when there is trouble on the job or in school; an advocate of the offender when bureaucratic policies act irrationally to screen him out; a shaper and developer of new jobs, training, recreation, and other institutional resources. The Commission recommends: Probation and parole officials should develop new methods and skills to aid in reinteg~atingoffenders through active intervention on their behalf with community institutions. 67.05 percent of all felony cases. A number of changes will be necessary if community corrections is to do this. A basic one is in the internal organization and management of many probation and parole agencies. Few departments have expanded their concept of programing beyond the basic relationship between an officer and an offender. The resources of staff and of community agencies typically are made available to an offender through the officer to whose caseload he is assigned. There must be more direct relationships between offenders and persons who can help them to find success in legitimate ways. Instead of giving a single officer total responsibility for an offender, the system needs to draw many persons into the task-teachers, vocational counselors, friends, family members, and employers. The aim must be to change the context of an offender's life as well as his personal orientation to the world around him. Most probation and parole agencies should reexamine their policies and operating procedures: how they assign cases, how they use the time of officers, and how they relate to the surrounding community. The Youth Services Bureau recommended in chapter 3 as an alternative to adjudicatory treatment of delin- quents can both serve and be served by community correctional programs. Such bureaus could' constitute a valuable point of referral for probationers and parolees. Corrections, on the other hand, could provide important assistance to the Youth Services Bureaus through diagnosis and investigation, and through provision of special treatment services not involving coercion. SERVICE PURCHASE If community institutions can be encouraged to develop policies and operating procedures to help offenders, and to allocate a larger share of resources to them, their chances for success in the community will be greatly increased. Usually, however, a prcibation or parole officer has no means to encourage community institutions to extend this sort of help. The Vocational Rehabilitation Administration of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare has pioneered in the development of a method for helping handicapped persons overcome personal problems that stand in the way of self-sufficient performance in the community. This method, called service purchase, provides counselors with funds that they can use.to obtain psychological, vocational, educational, medical, and other services for their clients when the counselors' own agencies cannot provide them. This approach would, in many places, be a valuable tool in reintegration of the offender. The ability to obtain a period of on-the-job training, for example, might well be a critical factor in moving an offender recently released from prison away from his earlier pattern of illegitimate associations and activities. The Commission recommends: Substantial service-purchase funds should be made available to probation and parole agencies for use in meeting imperative needs of individual offenders that cannot otherwise be met. SPECIAL COMMUNITY PROGRAMS One of the most disappointing experiments in corrections was conducted several years ago in California. The caseloads of some parole officers were greatly reduced to allow more intensive contact. Methods of parole supervision remained static; caseworkers simply had more time to devote to their usual duties of checking on progress in school or work, briefly interviewing parolees, and interceding occasionally in family or personal problems. The performance of parolees in avoiding - further trouble with the law did not improve. Substantial improvement did occur, however, when in a subsequent experiment parolees were divided into subgroups according to their special characteristics, and assigned to different kinds of officers who used different methods. This result has been confirmed and elaborated by an impressive line of research over the past several' years. I t was the basis for an innovative community program that has attracted national attention. In this experiment, the community treatment project of the California Youth Authority, juvenile court commitments from Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties were first screened to eliminate those offenders-about 25 percent of the boys and 5 to 10 percent of the girls-for whom institutionalization was deemed mandatory. From the remaining cases, assignments were divided randomly between the community project and the regular institutional programs. The youthful offenders assigned to the community treatment project were placed in caseloads of 10 to 12 per officer. Treatment methods were tailored to meet the individual needs of each youth. They included a wide variety of personal and group counseling, family therapy, tutoring for the marginal or expelled student, occasional short-term confinement to provide essential disciplinary controls, and an increased use of foster homes and group homes. A principal goal has been to determine the effectiveness of different kinds of treatment for different kinds of delinquents. Current results include striking differences in the responses to differentiated treatment. As the research data accumulate, important clues as to who should and should not be institutionalized are emerging, as well as insights in the specific kinds of treatment and control required for particular offenders. After approximately 5 years of experimentation, the community treatment project reports that only 28 percent of the experimental group have been subject to parole revocation, as against 52 percent of the comparable control group who were incarcerated. The results have been so encouraging that the California Youth Authority has launched modified versions of the project in high'delinquency areas in Los Angeles (including Watts), Oakland, and San Francisco. By 1966, these community programs were handling a youth population of approximately 600, larger than the capacity of an institution, thus saving some 7 to 8 millions of dollars of construction funds plus the difference in costs between institutional and community treatment. The Commission recommends: Caseloads for different types of offenders should vary in size and in type and intensity of treatment. Classification and assignment of offenders should be made according to their needs and problems. In recent years, too, a number of imaginative programs have been developed that offer a middle ground between the often nominal supervision in the community provided by probation services and confinement in an institution. Some of them involve part-time residential supervision of offenders in small centers situated in their own communities. A significant element of some programs has been a research project to evaluate the effectiveness of the programs. These projects bring together in an extremely useful way practitioners interested in trying new methods and researchers concerned with increasing knowledge. The prototype for several experimental programs was launched at Highfields, N.J., in 1950. The Highfields program limits its population to 20 boys, aged 16 and 17, who are assigned directly from the juvenile court as a condition of probation. I t operates on the premise that corrections has its major impact on an offender during the first 3 or 4 months of contact. The inmates work during the day at a nearby psychiatric institution; in the evening they participate in group counseling sessions. They are given as much responsibility for their own futures as the staff feels they can manage. Youths who do not respond favorably are transferred elsewhere, but those who do remain must confront their own and each other's problems, and participate actively in solving them. For example, the boys are not usually released until their peers feel they are ready for freedom in the community. Robert Weber, who studied some 160 programs for juveniles immediately prior to the Commission's work, reported : If you ask a youth in most conventional institutions, "How do you get out?" you invariably hear some version of "Be good. Do what you are told. Behave yourself." If one asks a youth in a group treatment program, "How do you get out?" one hears, "I have to help myself with my problems," or "when my group thinks I have been helped." This implies a basic difference in the social system of organization, including staff roles and functions. In the large institution the youth perceives getting out in terms of the problem of meeting the institutional need for conformity. In the group treatment program the youth sees getting out in terms of his solutions to his own problems, or how that ir perceived by other youths in the group. The Highfields project has been a model for similar programs elsewhere: The Turrel Residential Center and Essexfields in New Jersey; Pine Hills in Provo, Utah; and other programs in San Francisco and Los Angeles, in Kentucky and New York. The California community treatment project, which was discussed above, is partly based on the Highfields approach. The Provo, Essexfields, and San Francisco versions, unlike Highfields, permit the boys to live at home. Program activity centers on gainful employment in the community, classroom studies, and daily group meetings. The regimen is rigorous. ' During the Provo experiment, for example, all boys were employed by the city during the summer. They put in a full day's work on the city streets, the golf courses, the cemetery-wherever they were needed. .They were paid 50 cents an hour. After work they all returned to the program headquarters to meet as a group. At 7 in the evening they were free to return home. The daily group sessions were built around the techniques of "guided group interaction." All group members, not staff alone, were responsible for defining and addressing difficult questions. Such programs seek to discover how much responsibility for their own lives offenders can take and how to reward them for responsible behavior. The basic assumption is that change, if it is to occur, must be shared with others. I t is reasoned that if a youth can see others changing and receiving support for doing so, he is more likely to change himself. Because these programs are located in the community, the problems with which the participants struggle are not the artificial ones of institutional life but the real ones of living with family, friends, school, work, and leisure-time activity. The available evidence indicates that these programs are achieving higher success rates than the institutional alternatives, and at a' substantially lower cost. Another effort to find alternatives to institutions is the program of the New York State Division for Youth. This agency, which is independent of the State training schools and prisons, deals with the offenders served by both. Originally developed to subsidize delinquency prevention programs, it moved into the direct-service field about 5 yea& ago. For the more delinquent youth, sev'era1 programs that are replications of the original Highfields model have been developed. For the younger or more immature youth, who needs to be removed from inadequate home or con~munitysituations, the agency provides a series of small forestry camp operations, which combine work with schooling and group counseling. And for the youth who needs support in his efforts to obtain emancipation from a poor home environment, there are residential centers within the cities. The prcgram provides shelter, group guidance, and supportive counseling by a small staff, but it relies primarily on the educational and employment resources of the community. T h e Commission recommends: Correctional authorities should develop more extensive community programs providing special, intensive treatment as an alternative to institutionalization for both juvenile and adult offenders. CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS On an average day in 1965, as table 3 shows, there were some 426,000 persons in correctional institutions. Whatever the differences in type and quality among cor- Table 3.-Daily Average Number of ,Inmates , i n American Correctional lnstitutions In 1965 Includes 1,247 Juvenile and Youthful offenders in Federal Bureau of Prisons institutions. SOURCES: National Survey of Corrections and U S . Department of Justice. Bureau of Prisons, "Statistical Tables. Fiscal Year 1965" p. 2. 1 . rectional institutions-from huge maximum-security prisons to open forestry camps without guards or fences, from short-term detention homes for juveniles to penitentiaries where men spend most of their lives, from institutions of brutal or stultifying routine to those with a variety of rehabilitative programs-there remains an inherent sameness about places where people are kept against their will. I t arises partly from restraint per se, whether symbolized by walls and guns or by the myriad more.subtle inhibitions on personal liberty. I t arises from the isolation of the institutional community from the outside world and from the alienation and apartness of the inmate society. I t i s fed by the strangeness of living apart from families, with no choice about place of 'residence, selection of intimate associates, or type of occupation-all crucial values that are taken for granted in the world outside. These restraints have ,both advantages and disadvantages. O n the one hand they serve the function of Youth conservation camp punishment and deterrence. They also prevent the dangerous offender from committing further crimes in the community during the term of his sentence. And, by keeping him apart from the conditions of community life and subjecting him to a special environment that can be artificially controlled 24 hours a day, they sometimes afford opportunities for rehabilitative treatment that cannot be duplicated in the community. O n the other hand, an artificial environment that works against self-reliance and self-control often complicates and makes more difficult the reintegration of offenders into free society. Sometimes institutions foster conspicuously deleterious conditions-idleness, corruption, brutality, and moral deterioration. There are many ways in which the advantages of institutionalization can be exploited and the disadvantages minimized. For many offenders, institutionalization can be an extremely valuable prelude to community treatment. For a few, those who must be incapacitated for society's protection if not their own, it is the only possible alternative. A MODEL FOR INSTITUTIONS The Commission's national survey of corrections and other studies showed it how far many jurisdictions still were from optimal uses of institutions. I t was disturbed to find that much planning for institutional construction, and the attitudes of many officials concerned, indicated that these conditions were not likely to be radically changed in the future. The Commission believes that there is, therefore, value in setting forth, in the form of a "model," the changes that it sees as necessary for most correctional institutions. Men's prison There will, of course, continue to be special offender problems that must be dealt with in other kinds of institutions. But in general new institutions should be of the sort represented by the model, and old institutions should as far as possible be modified to incorporate its concepts. The model institution would be relatively small, and located as close as possible to the areas from which it draws its inmates, probably in or near a city rather than in a remote location. While it might have a few high-security units for short-term detention under unusual circumstances, difficult and dangerous inmates would be sent to other institutions for longer confinement. Architecturally, the model institution would resemble as much as possible a normal residential setting. Rooms, for example, would have doors rather than bars. Inmates would eat at small tables in an informal atmosphere. There would be classroonls, recreation facilities, dayrooms, and perhaps a shop and library. I n the main, however, education, vocational training, and other such activities would be carried on in the community, or would draw into the institution communitybased resources. In this sense the model would operate much like such programs as the Highfields and Essexfields projects. Its staff, like probation and parole officers, would be active in arranging for participation by offenders in community activities and in guiding and counseling them. Some offenders might be released after an initial period of detention for diagnosis and intensive treatment. The model institution would permit correctional officials to invoke short-term detention-overnight or for a few days-as a sanction or discipline, or to head off an offender from prospective trouble. Even if initial screening and classification indicated that long-term incarceration was called for, and an offender was, therefore, confined in another facility, the community-based institution could serve as a halfway house or prerelease center to mse his transition to community life. I t could indeed serve as the base for a network of separate group homes and residential centers to be used for some offenders as a final step before complete release. The prototype proposed here, if followed widely, would help shift the focus of correctional efforts from temporary banishment of offenders to a carefully devised combination of control and treatment. If supported by sufficiently flexible laws and policies, it would permit institutional restraint to be used only for as long as necessary, and in carefully graduated degree rather than as a relatively blind and inflexible process. A final advantage of the concept suggested here is that institutions that are small, close to metropolitan areas, and highly diversified in their programs provide excellent settings for research and experimentation and can serve as proving grounds for needed innovations. Not only are they accessible to university and other research centers, but their size and freedom from restrictions foster a climate friendly to inquiry and to the implementation of changes suggested by it. Group counseling at prerelcase guidance center The Commission recommends: Federal and State governments should finance the establishment of model, small-unit correctional institutions for flexible, community-oriented treatment. COLLABORATIVE INSTITUTIONS Even in institutions committed to longer term custody, many steps can be taken short of this model to improve capacity to contribute to the reintegration of offenders. The most fundamental of these changes may be summed up as the establishment of a collaborative regime in which st& and inmates work together toward rehabilitative goals, and unnecessary conflict between the two groups is avoided. Institutional communities in which persons are kept against their will tend to generate tension and conflict between the inmates and the staff. The task of preparing the inmate for reintegration into the community becomes lost in elaborate forms of competition, in covert and corrupting reciprocities between guards and inmate leaders, and in forced maintenance of passivity on the part of inmates. This encourages anger toward-and yet complete dependence on-institutional authority. The collaborative approach seeks to reverse this too common pattern. The custodial staff, for example, is recognized as having great potential for counseling functions, both informally with individual inmates and in organized group discussions. Administrators and business staff likewise have been brought into the role of cosnselors and assigned rehabilitative functions in some programs. This collaborative style of management is more readily achieved if the institution staff is augmented by persons from.the free community with whom inmates can identify. This involves recruiting outsiders who can help the inmate to develop motivation for needed vocational, avocational, and other self-improvement goals. Volunteers and subprofessional aides can be as useful in institutions as in community-based corrections. Another important dimension of the collaborative concept is the involvement of offenders themselves in treatment functions. Group counseling sessions, for example, provide opportunities for inmates to help each other, through hard and insistent demands for honesty in selfexamination, demands that cannot be made with equal force and insight by staff, whose members have not had personal experience in the world of criminal activity. The loosening of inmate-to-staff and of inmate-to-inmate communication tends to reduce the inmate politician's power. Moreover, the "rat" complex, which brings great social stigma and physical danger to an inmate who cooperates with staff in traditional institutions, is greatly diminished. A delicate balance is involved between giving inmates a meaningful role to play in the life of the institution, and allowing them to usurp authority that should only be carried by staff. The line is still being fashioned in most institutions today, and more experience will be required to decide where it lies in specific areas such as assignment of inmates to job, work, and living units and decisions involving discipline and security. The Commission recommends: All institutions should be run to the greatest possible extent with rehabilitation a joint responsibility of staff and inmates. Training of correctional managers and staff should reflect this mode of operation. EDUCATION AND VOCATIONAL TRAINING I t has been noted that the majority of offenders are severely handicapped by educational deficiencies from succeeding in a labor market that increasingly demands at least a high school education. The society of delinquents and criminals is especially seductive to those unable to find legitimate pathways to success and self-esteem. Failure is cumulative in the typical case. Poor performance and small reward in the early school years lead to failing and dropping out at the high school level. This, in turn, makes entry into the world of work doubtful. Lack of specific skills is aggravated by inability to cope with time schedules and the standards of diligence and conformity required in most jobs. Traditional work and vocational training programs within correctional institutions have not effectively solved such problems. A major difficulty in such programs today is the lack of incentives for achievement, which resqlts in low motivation on the part of inmate trainees. Immediate rewards for efficient learning are small. Such long-term rewards as improved employability seem distant and unreal. I n fact they often are unreal' in the most practical sense that ex-offenders cannot secure the jobs for which they were trained in prisons and juvenile institutions. Recent kxperiments in special education for students from culturally deprived neighborhoods have provided both insights and methods that can be transplanted into correctional programs. I t is noteworthy that most inmates have had experience in the schools of poor neighborhoods. They have achieved far less academically than their intelligence test scores indicate they can achieve. The way to help them to learn is to make learning a rewarding experience and thus overcome the sense of failure and humiliation they have come to feel as a result of past performances in school. One of the most promising approaches to this problem is the use of programed learning techniques. Special texts and machines present the material to be learned in small units. The student must master each part before he proceeds to the next. He goes at his own pace. I t then becomes possible to use a variety of incentives and rewards for achievement. Programed instruction is discussed further in Chapter 11. During the past few years there have been several experimental applications of programed instruction to correctional education. The most significant work has taken place in two centers. The Draper Youth Center, a reformatory-type institution in Alabama, has combined programed learning with efforts to change the social climate of the institution. Inmates who progress well in their studies are enlisted in a service corps to help other inmates. College students from nearby Auburn University have been recruited to work in this program. Although no scientific evaluation has been made, informal reports show highly accelerated educational and vocational progress, as well as an apparent reduction in recidivism, on the part of those who participated in the special program. At the National Training School for Boys, a Federal institution in Washington, D.C., a whole "programed environment" for rehabilitative learning has been created. The inmates have a wide range of choice as to how to occupy themselves, and are rewarded in "points" that are equivalent to money. They have a variety of opportunities to "spend" these points, but they may also be fined for misbehavior and so do not earn many points if they choose to be lazy or indifferent. This program makes a determined effort to simulate the problems and conditions of life in the outside world. For example, the boys must use earned points to pay rent for especially attractive sleeping quarters or to purchase more desirable meals than those routinely offered. They may also purchase a variety of small items from a commissary or a mail-order catalog. Meals and visits to relatives are paid for with points; special recreational equipment and courses can also be purchased with points. Points may be earned by work, completion of programed courses, or good behavior. Such incentive programs go far toward stimulating inmates to take responsibility for their own lives. They create opportunities for learning how to deal with the very problems they will encounter in the community. The Commission recommends: Correctional institutions should upgrade educational and vocational training programs, extending them to all inmates who can profit from them. They should experiment with special techniques such as programed instruction. The greatest need is at the elementary and secondary level.; more than half of adult inmates have not completed elementary school. However, enrichment of programs is much needed at all stages, including college-level courses. Opportunity for bringing the resources of nearby universities into correctional institutions in new and creative ways is great, and is largely unexploited. But it is noteworthy that a "prison college" was recently started in San Quentin by the University of California and the Institute for Policy Studies of the District of Columbia. There are about 6,000 academic and vocational teach- ers now employed in the Nation's correctional institutions. I t is estimated that an additional 10,700 persons are needed immediately to develop effective academic and vocational programs. I n order to close this gap, which is .expanding rapidly, substantial subsidies are needed to recruit needed specialists and to.provide them with the training required to make them effective in their complcs and challenging task. The Commission recommends: States should, with Federal support, establish immediate programs to recruit and train academic and vocational instructors to work in correctional institutions. CORRECTIONAL INDUSTRIES Vocational training can in many cases be best carried out in conjunction with operating prison industries. Work programs for prisoners were first established for "sturdy beggars" in 16th-century Europe, and were a dominant feature of American reformatories and penitentiaries from the outset. Typically, however, penal work programs have been repetitious drudgery, providing little incentive for diligent or enthusiastic performance. In some instances institutions have been and still are required to be self-supporting or even to show a profit; and work (generally agriculture) is carried on typically without regard for the offender, under conditions that have long since been displaced in the rest of society. During periods when unemployment was extensive in the outside community and private businesses could not sell their goods, political pressures mounted to prevent prisons from engaging in enterprises seen as competitive. This culminated during the Great Depression in variety of State and Federal laws designed to.restrict the use of prison labor. a Beginning in 1929, with the passage of the HawesCodper Act, the sale of prison-made goods was gradually restricted by Federal and State legislation. Today there are severe constraints upon the development of industrial work programs within correctional institutions. This fact, combined with a frequent attitude of suspicion and resistance on the part of organized labor and business interests, has made idleness a prevailing characteristic of most American prisons and jails. In the absence of good industrial programs, maintenance and work details are usually so heavily overmanned that offenders do not learn from them the habit of working independently and with dispatch. Prison-made goods tend to be inferior in design and workmanship to those available from private enterprise. Delivery has been unreliable, and, despite the availability of cheap prison labor, the products frequently cost more than similar items that are privately produced. This is the result of many factors, including the small size of prison shops, the lack of strong administrative support for industrial programs, and the dearth of imaginative and aggressive sales operations. One of the first requirements for the promotion of more realistic and competitive correctional industries is a clear recognition on the part of the public that gross idleness in penal institutions works a serious detriment to the larger society. As has been noted, work skills are badly needed by many offenders. These skills are best developed under realistic conditions of production. Useful jobs cannot be learned in an environment of indolence and;"iethargy. Moreover, it is tremendously wasteful to support thousands of persons with no return of goods or services. Of course, increasing the productivity of prison industries would be futile if action also were not taken to increase the market for prison-made goods or, a t the very least, increase the current percentage of the State-use market which is now the principal outlet for those goods. The most extensive and successful use of prison industries is found in the Federal prisons. In 1965 Federal prisoners assigned to industry shops earned an average of $40 per month, according to their skill and productivity, primarily on a piece-rate basis. The industries also paid the cost of vocational training programs in the Federal prisons. The staff includes employment placement officers who help procure postrelease jobs for prisoners. In some cases industries and vocational training are supported by private businesses and labor unions and tied to job placement upon release. The Federal system offers a model for the development of prison industries programs in the States, although most States would be unable to duplicate its features without financial assistance from the Federal Government or cooperative arrangements with each other. The Commission recommends: States should work together and with the Federal Government to institute modern correctional industries programs aimed a t rehabilitation of offenders through instilling good work habits and methods. State and Federal laws restricting the sale of prison-made products should be modified or repealed. Strong and informed administrative support in State correctional programs will be required to upgrade services and to adopt the practices of private ilidustry. Labor organizations and business firms could be of inestimable help in advising and guiding the development of new programs, and in neutralizing opposition to them. PARTIAL RELEASE AND FURLOUGH PROGRAMS Even within the limitations of most existing institutions, there are a number of means by which the transition from institution to community can be made less abrupt, and the resources of community institutions drawn upon to help in rehabilitation. Short-term furloughs from institutions have been used most extensively in Mississippi and Michigan, each of which has reported less than 1 percent failure to return. Juvenile institutions have used such procedures successfully, though parsimoniously, at familygathering times, such as Christmas, Thanksgiving, weddings, and funerals. Furloughs are useful in helping to prevent the deterioration of family ties and in allowing offenders to try newly learned skills, and test the insights they have developed in counseling experiences. The most striking increase in temporary release from institutions in recent years has been in work-release programs. Introduced in Wisconsin institutions for misdemeanants over 40 years ago, their use spread slowly until large-scale extension to adult felons began in North Carolina in 1959. Favorable experience there led to workrelease programs for felons in the early 1960's in South Carolina, Maryland, and other States in rapid succession, Leaving training school on day-time work release panded. They should be accompanied by guidance and coordinated with community treatment services. LOCAL JAILS AND MISDEMEANANT INSTITUTIONS No part of corrections is weaker than the local facilities that handle persons awaiting trial and serving short sentences. Because their inmates do not seem to present a clear danger to society, the response to their needs has usually been one of indifference. Because their crimes are considered petty and the sentences they serve are relatively short, the corrections system gives them low status. Many local jails and misdemeanant institutions are administered by the police or county sheriffs, authorities whose experience and main concern are in other fields. Most facilities lack well-developed recreational and counseling programs, sometimes even medical services. The first offender, the innocent awaiting trial, sometimes juveniles and women are imprisoned with confirmed criminals, drunks, and the mentally disturbed or retarded. A large majority of the 215 misdemeanant institutions examined' in detail in the Commission's survey of corrections have few, if any, rehabilitative programs. Less than 3 percent of the staff perform rehabilitative duties, and some of these work only part time. I t would not be uncommon to find a single psychologist-or none at allfor several thousand inmates (table 4 ) . Most teachers Table 4.-Distribution of Personnel in Jails and Local Correctional Institutions, 1965 I I I Number ( Ratio of staff to inmates and social workers are concentrated in the larger facilities, leaving the great bulk of institutions without any at all. Since many misdemeanants go on to commit subsequent offenses, and many "graduate" into felons, the general lack of rehabilitative programs is critical. I n a few misdemeanant institutions promising steps have been taken to correct the deficiency. The St. Paul, Minn., workhouse has in the last 8 years substantially improved its work and educational programs. Professional staff is augmented by volunteers. Counseling and testing services for men under 21 years of age are provided through funding by the Office of Economic Opportunity. A work and school release program has been initiated. Since the inception of the release program, a high proportion of the inmates involved appear to have adjusted successfully. Multnomah County, Oreg. (Portland), is among the jurisdictions that have established special facilities as an adjunct to their county jails. Multnomah's program serves offenders who are sentenced for more than 60 days, apply for transfer and are accepted after case history review and psychological testing. The program includes work, counseling, tutoring by collegc student volunteers, corrective surgery, and dentistry. Work release has been added recently. Since December 1, 1963, when it received its first inmates, over 500 have been released. The recidivism rate has been estimated at less than 20 percent. The population includes all categories of misdemeanants, including skid row alcoholics and felons who ordinarily would serve prison sentences. San Diego, Calif., has established five camps to which prisoners sentenced to the county jail are transferred after screening. Men are sent to particular camps according to their needs. One camp accepts only younger prisoners and has a specially trained staff selected for its ability to train and counsel younger offenders. Such projects illustrate the progress that can be made by implementing reforms directed toward rehabilitation of offenders; they indicate that many of the measures required in institutions for juveniles and adult felons are also applicable to the misdemeanant system. I t is not feasible in most States, however, to expect that advances such as these will be made as long as local jails and misdemeanant institutions are administered separately from the rest of corrections. The Commission recommends: Local jails and misdemeanant institutions should be integrated into State correctional systems. They should not be operated by law enforcement agencies. Rehabilitative programs and other reforms should be instituted. The national survey found that in 93 percent of the country's juvenile court jurisdictions, covering 44 percent of the population, there is no place for the pretrial detention of juveniles other than a county jail or police lockup. In 1965, over 100,000 juveniles were confined in adult institutions. Presumably most of them were there because no separate juvenile detention facilities existed. Nonetheless, it is clearly undesirable that juveniles be confined with adults. Even more undesirable is placing abandoned, neglected, or runaway juveniles in detention, a practice pursued in many communities that do not have shelter facilities under their welfare departments. Thc Conamission recommends: Separate detention facilities should be provided for juveniles. All jurisdictions should have shelter facilities outside the correctional system for abandoned, neglected, or runaway children. A special problem exists in the handling of persons awaiting trial or appeal. The implementation of bail reforms p.roposed in chapter 5 would go far toward alleviating thd present situation in most jurisdictions, where large numbers of persons presenting no particular danger to the community are imprisoned pending trial, often to be released on probation afterwards. There will, of course, continue to be persons who require pretrial custody. However, in large cities they might still feasibly be housed or handled separately from adjudicated offenders. The Comnzission recommends: Wherever possible, persons awaiting trial should be housed and handled separately from offenders. CORKECTIONAL DECISIONMAKING The preceding discussion has been about the range of correctional treatment. There is another issue in corrections that has not been touched on-the range of decisions made by correctional personnel and the problems created by the great discretion they exercise. Most of these questions are old ones, but they have become acute with the widening of treatment alternatives and the growing advocacy of greater flexibility in choosing among them. During the period when restraint was thc dominant response to crime, there were only two major statuses to differentiate: In prison being punished and out of prison after having served a sentence. Concern for accurate factfindhg and procedural safeguards was therefore focused on adjudication. Today, however, an offender may be sentenced for an indeterminate length of time, with his release depending on the decision of correctional authorities. He may be referred to any of a wide variety of facilities or treatments on the basis of screening by correctional authorities. And he may be subjected to special discipline or punishment on the basis of determinations from which he has no appeal. More numerous alternatives also create decision-making problems from the standpoint of effectiveness. Most correctional decisionmaking is to some degree handicapped by the following deficiencies: First, important data often are not available, data which are essential to the making of sound decisions. In determining whether or not to grant parole for example, decisions usually are based on scanty information collected a t the time the offender was committed to the institution. Information on changes that have occurred during confinement is usually either not available or inadequate. second, information that is available may be irrelevant to the outcomes which determine whether the decision was sound. I t is characteristic of any decisionmaking process that those involved often are not aware of the particular bits of information they employ in arriving at a judgment. Moreover, the information they do use may, by empirical standards, be unrelated to the judgment being made. The question of relevance cannot be answered by argument but only by careful research. By withholding certain items of information from the directors of juvenile institutions in England, for example, one study found that prognosis of inmate performance could often be improved. Apparently, certain items of information tended to mislead the officials because they attached greater weight to them than was warranted. A final and related problem is that the volume of information often overloads human capacity for analysis and utilization. The sheer number of offenders under correctional supervision is staggering and is growing rapidly each year. Adequate disposition of these offenders may require tens or hundreds of items of information on each offender at each step in the correctional cycle. The potential of computerized information systems as an aid to meeting this problem is discussed in chapter 11. DISTINGUISHING DEGREES OF DANGEROUSNESS AND DETERMINING OPTIMAL DISPOSITION FOR DIFFERENT OFFENDERS A core responsibility found in all phases of the correctional process is the requirement of gathering and alialyzing that information about the offender that will provide an adequate basis on which to predicate the series of correctional decisions. Whether the decision be to invoke the judicial process, to choose between probation or imprisonment, to select the appropriate degree of security in a correctional institution, to determine the timing for release from incarceration or the necessity for revocation of parole, the judicial and administrative decisionmakers are concerned with very similar issues. These issues include: . (1) The extent or degree of threat to the public posed by the individual. Significant clues will be provided by the nature of the present offense, and the length of any prior record ; .' (2) The extent or degree of an individual's commitment to criminal or delinquent values, and the nature of his response to any earlier correctional programs; (3) The kind of personal stability and responsibility evidenced in his employment record, residential patterns, and family support history; (4) The kind of personal deficiencies apparent, including educational and vocational training needs; (5) The personal, psychological characteristics of the offender that determine how he perceives the world and his relationship to it. A few correctional research programs are seeking to test the way in which these personal dimensions can be subjected to objective analyses and used as the basis for predicting the probable response to alternative correctional programs. Some progress is evident in both statistical and psychological research experiments. Central to such evaluation is the necessity for identifying those dangerous or habitual offenders who pose a serious threat to the community's safety. They include those offenders whose personal instability is so gross as to erupt periodically in violent and assaultive behavior, and those individuals whose long-term exposure to criminal influences has produced a thoroughgoing commitment to criminal values that is resistive of superficial efforts to effect change. For these persons the still primitive state of treatment methodologies can only offer a period of confinement followed by the kind of parole supervision that will provide the requisite control. Clearly indicated is the need for an improved capability in the information gathering and analysis process and continued experimental development to improve the predictive power of the information gathered. These needs point to increased manpower and the training requisite for the development of sophistication and skill in the investigative-diagnostic process. Paralleling these general needs is the need for professional clinical personnel to assist in the evaluation of the bizarre acting, seriously disturbed, and mentally deficient offenders, and to provide consultation and advice to the line staff who must deal on a day-to-day basis with this special group. Improved correctional decisionmaking requires not only better information and personnel but also a wider range of alternative facilities and programs. These are particularly needed when dealing with disturbed or dangerous offenders. Penal institutions tend to be a kind of catch basin for a myriad of human problems not resolved elsewhere. Correctional staff must deal not only with offenders as such, but with offenders who also are alcoholic, mentally ill or deficient, addicted to narcotics, or driven by psychological pressures to commit sexually deviant acts. The implications of these conditions for needed treatment resources are sobering indeed, if they are faced realistically. I t is true, moreover, that some categories of offenders require special treatment and control, not because they are pathological in a particular way but because they are different from the numerically dominant inmate group. For example, female offenders, especially juveniles, have mainly been provided only with inadequate imitations of the institutional programs used for males, despite factual evidence that their needs and their involvements in criminal activity are strikingly different. Older adolescents and young adults often are not served well by either the adult or juvenile system of corrections. I t would seem obvious that offenders are as different from each other as are people in the general population. Those who are highly skilled and persistent at manipulating and hoodwinking persons in. authority must be handled firmly if change is to occur. Others need reassurance about their importance as human beings more than they need firm limits on their behavior. Still others require practical assistance in getting a job or securing needed training, rather than psychological help of any kind. And there are those who need no help at all; they have experienced a legal sanction and will manage ably enough in the 'community thereafter with only perfunctory contact with authority. Special offender groups such as. alcoholics, derelicts, those with psychological problems, narcotics addicts, gifted people with high IQ's and female offenders may also require very distinct kinds of services that can be provided most effectively and efficiently through specialized' treatment. Promising experiments with this kind of classification have occurred in New York and Pennsylvania. The problems of special offender groups should be approached through efforts to classify and handle them separately wherever this will achieve either improvement in their treatment or alleviation of the conditions under which other inmates are handled. This will require in many cases-particularly for local misdemeanant systems-that jurisdictions join together, as a number are now beginning to do,' in operating joint facilities and programs for special offender groups, or alternatively that they contract with neighboring facilities .to handle such persons. The Commission recommends: Screening and diagnostic resources should be strengthened, with Federal support, a t every point of significant decision. Jurisdictions should classify and assign offenders according to their needs and problems, giving separate treatment to all special offender groups when this is desirable. They should join together to operate joint regional facilities or make use of neighboring facilities on a contract basis where necessary to achieve these ends. Under such a pattern, the Federal Government would be in a +particularly advantageous position to undertake the handling of small groups of special offenders who require highly specialized or long-term treatment. Maximum security prisoners and those serving life sentences, are among the groups that could be handled away from local communities. IMPROVING PAROLE DECISIONS A particularly critical area of correctional decisionmaking is that which surrounds the granting of parole. Chapter 5 has suggested a number of improvements in sentencing procedures. Unlike sentencing, which has traditionally been a judicial function, the parole decision is administrative. I t is made by correctional authorities or by a special parole board, usually composed of laymen. While many parole officials are extremely able and knowledgeable, some still are merely political appointees without training and many serve only. on a part-time basis. Such a situation is incompatible with the development of the kind of expertise necessary to make a decision which is as complex and important as that made by a sentencing judge. The Commission recommends: Parole boards should be appointed solely on the basis of competence and should receive training and orientation in their task. They should be required to serve full time and should be compensated accordingly. Parole boards should concentrate on developing and monitoring policy guidelines within which decisions about individual cases could be made fairly and consistently. Where the workload is heavy, boards should review the actions of professional hearing officers rather than attempting to carry on all hearings themselves. I n the main, both juvenile and adult releasing authorities must depend on their staffs for information about persons being considered for release. The quality of staff available to releasing authorities is, therefore, a crucial determinant in effective decisionmaking. Staff must be able to develop and assemble vital information and present it in such a way as to establish its relevance to the decision. Far too typically, the pattern is for an overworked caseworker to attempt to gather information on a prisoner from meager institutional records. Institution officials sometimes fornl their impressions primarily in terms of whether an individual was docile during confinement, rather than on the basis of his readiness for release into the comnlunity. Another problem arises from the fact that the information on offenders often is fitted into a highly stereotyped format. The repetitious character of parole hearings, coupled with the sameness of reporting style and jargon, make it very difficult for board members to understand the individual aspects of a given case and to assess them wisely. I t seems especially important that research and experimentation should be undertaken to develop improved information for use in making parole decisions and to discover better ways of presenting that information. There should be a flow of information on the performance in the community of offenders previously released, so that parole officials will know who succeeded and who failed to adopt law abiding ways. As the line between institutional and conlmunity treatment becomes increasingly blurred, problenls of achieving fairness in decisions relating to release will proliferate. Partial release to the conlmunity for work or study, placement in a prerelease residential unit-these are only some of many ways of gradually shifting an offender from life in an institution to life in the community. Given the many shades of gray along that transition route, and the present rapid invention of new variations on the theme, it is increasingly difficult to determine when the shift actually has been made-indeed this is the very point of such correctional strategy. But many questions arise relative to the decisions that are made as the offender moves away from the institution. These questions become even more acute if it is decided that he should move part or all of the way back. This area of decisions has for a considerable time been the province of parolc boards, but such new procedures as work furloughs and educational leaves sometimes place the decisions in the hands of institution officials. These developments have increased the need to insure that adequate procedures are present to safeguard the rights of offenders. Already such fomal decisions as parole revocation are coming to beseen as requiring legal representation of offenders-as the Commission recomnlends in chapter 5. Less formalized decisionsassignment to particular facilities and treatment programs, return of halfway-house residents to confinement before rather than after trouble-present greater difficulties. O n the one hand, such decisions can vitally affect the lives of offenders, and there is danger that they may be made on the basis of inadequate or incorrect information, or through prejudice. O n the other hand, serious problems would be presented by subjecting these and similar actions to all of the traditional legal procedures associated with judicial due process requirements. The law has yet to define limits and standards in this area. But correctional authorities should take immediate steps to insure that there are adequate safeguards by providing for hearing procedures, review of decisions by persons removed from the immediate situation, explicit policy guidelines and standards, and adequate records to support decisions. Offenders should always have administrative recourse for grievances against officials, and the adequacy of this recourse should be subject to review by some external authority. T h e Commission recommends: Correctional agencies should develop explicit standards and administrative procedures to enable those under correctional control to test the fairness of key decisions Elements of a Modern Correctional System Figure 4 Police Screening of Offenders Committing Judge (Probation) \ 1 II Community Based Programs c- Community Organizations: ~ecreational Religious Schools Vocational Therapy Programs: Group Family Individual Caseload Supervision Residential Facilities: Group Individual h Intensive Supervision In Special Caseloads State Agency Screening Resources Institutional System: Camps Open Units Security Units I , J Supervision in Regular Caseloads affecting them. These procedures should . include gathering and recording facts and providing for independent monitoring and .review of the actions of correctional staff. CREATING CHANGE The correctional programs of the United States cannot perform their assigned work by mere tinkering with faulty machinery. A substantial upgrading of services and a new orientation of the enterprise toward integration of offenders into community life is needed. T o achieve this end, there must be new divisions of labor, cooperative arrangements between governments, and a better balance between institutional and community programs. There must be a wide variety of techniques for controlling and treating offenders, and arrangements that allow these techniques to be used flexibly and interchangeably. A strategy of search and validation must be substituted for the present random methods of determining how correctional resources should be used. Figure 4 depicts the operational elements of a modern correctional system as recommended by the Commission. Such pervasive changes will require strong and decisive action. The following points out where responsibility for taking action rests and notes the cost and consequences of inaction. RESPONSIBILITY FOR ACTION : ROLE OF GOVERNMENT Certain principles should govern correctional operations : (1) Correctional operations should be located as close as possible to the homes of the offenders. (2) Reciprocal arrangements between governments should be developed to permit flexible use of resources. Regional sharing of institutional facilities and community programs should be greatly increased. (3) Large governmental' units should take responsibility for a variety of forms of indirect service to smaller and less financially able units, helping them to develop and strengthen their correctional services. The Federal Government should assume a large share of responsibility for providing impetus and direction to needed changes. I t should take increasing responsibility for helping to upgrade the correctional programs of State and local governments. Ultimately, Federal authorities might provide only those direct services which cannot be operated effectively and economically by State and local governments. The Federal Government can stimulate action by.providing financial and other assistance to State and local governments. Federal financial support can be of crucial importance in developing the capacity to secure, analyze, and disseminate information on the treatment that is most successful with different classifications of of- fenders; in assisting State and local agencies to recruit and train the many kinds of personnel needed to staff new programs; in providing funds for needed research and demonstration, and curriculum development projects. State and local activities should reflect the principles outlined above. ,Some counties and metropolitan areas are sufficiently large to develop comprehensive correctional services of their own. I n such cases, thc State role might be similar to the Federal role indicated aboveproviding stimulus for change. Primarily, however, the State governments themselves should develop and administer correctional services, involving local governments as much as possible and decentralizing operations through regional offices. No single pattern of organization will fit the varied conditions that exist; needs in the correctional field are a challenge to imaginative inter-governmental problem solving. RESPONSIBILITY FOR ACTION : NONGOVERNMENTAL ROLE A sizable number of nongovernmental organizations operate nationally to improve correctional practices. Among them are the National Council on Crime and Delinquency, the American Correctional Association, the National Association of Training Schools, the Joint Commission on Correctional Manpower and Training, and various affiliated groups. These entities, operating independently of vested interests and of the limitations imposed by public office, have an opportunity to play a most important role in bringing about needed changes in korrections. They can carry out surveys in States and localities, provide consulting services, and help with research and information exchange. Above all, they can inform the public about needs and problems and mobilize the grassroots support required for major change. Public funds should be made available to help private agencies perform these functions, but it is imperative that they maintain a perspective from outside the system in order to be incisive critics and monitors of its operations. RESPONSIBILITIES OF H I G H E R EDUCATION At present, university curricula generally ignore the field of corrections. Correctional concerns tend to be invisible to students and faculty at both the undergraduate and graduate level, despite the fact that many disciplines and professions-psychology, sociology, public administration, law, and social work, among others-have legitimate responsibilities in this area. Universities have an indispensable role to play in filling the knowledge gap that exists throughout corrections. However, two hazards should be avoided: Heavily vocational programs which purport to answer questions about how to perform correctional functions-withoutaddressing the complexities of what and why and thus further isolate corrections from the university community; and conversely the reluctance of scholars to address the specific problems faced by those charged with the perplexing task of controlling and rehabilitating offenders. Funds from Federal, State and local governments and private foundations are specifically needed for research; for fellowships and stipends to promising students and to those employed in corrections who want further university training; and for sustained support for internships and field placement programs developed with correctional agencies. The Commission recommends: Universities and colleges should, with governmental and private participation and support, develop more courses and launch more research studies and projects on the problems of contemporary corrections. CONSEQUENCES OF INACTION I t would be satisfying to have available a quantitative statement of the costs and consequences over the decades ahead of continuing the present faltering correctional system, and of the gains that could be achieved through implementation of the recommended changes. How much reduction of crime and delinquency could be achieved over 5, 10, or 20 years? When would the econ- omies implicit in more effective handling of offenders equal or surpass the increased cost of a renovated correctional system? What would be the cost to the Nation, in human lives and suffering as well as in dollars, of inaction in the face of such critical conditions? I t is impossible to answer such questions in quantitative terms. The cost of additional personnel and facilities can be estimated roughly, but there is at present no solid basis in experience for predicting the impact of a changed correctional system. However, the ineffectiveness of the present system is not really a subject of controversy. The directions of change-toward the community, toward differential handling of offenders, toward a coherent organization of services-are supported by a combination of objective evidence and informed opinion. The costs of action are substantial. But the costs of inaction are immensely greater. Inaction would mean, in effect, that the Nation would continue to avoid, rather than confront, one of its most critical social problems; that it would accept for the next generation a huge, if now immeasureable, burden of wasted and destructive lives. Decisive action, on the other hand, could make a difference that would really matter within our time. Chapter 7 Organized Crime ORGANIZED CRIME is a society that seeks to operate outside the control of the American people and their governments. It involves thousands of criminals, working within structures as complex as those of any large corporation, subject to laws more rigidly enforced than those of legitimate governments. Its actions are not impulsive but rather the result of intricate conspiracies, carried on over many years and aimed at gaining control over whole fields of activity in order to amass huge profits. The core of organized crime activity is the supplying of illegal goods and services-gambling, loan sharking, narcotics, and other forms of vice-to countless numbers of citizen customers. But organized crime is also extensively and deeply involved in legitimate business and in labor unions. Here it employs illegitimate methodsmonopolization, terrorism, extortion, tax evasion-to drive out or control lawful ownership and leadership and to exact illegal profits from the public. And to carry on its many activities secure from governmental interference, organized crime corrupts public officials. Robert F. Kennedy, when he was Attorney General, illustrated its power simply and vividly. He testified before a Senate subcommittee in 1963 that the physical protection of witnesses who had cooperated with the Federal Government in organized crime cases often required that those witnesses change their appearances, change their names, or even leave the country. When the government of a powerful country is unable to protect its friends from its enemies by means less extreme than obliterating their identities, surely it is being seriously challenged, if not threatened. What organized crime wants is money and power. What makes it different from law-abiding organizations and individuals with those same objectives is that the ethical and moral standards the criminals adhere to, the laws and regulations they obey, the procedures they use, are private and secret ones that they devise themselves, change when they see fit, and administer summarily and invisibly. Organized crime affects the lives of millions of Americans, but because it desperately preserves its invisibility many, perhaps most, Americans are not aware how they are affected, or even that they are affected at all. The price of a loaf of bread may go up one cent as the result of an organized crime conspiracy, but a housewife has no way of knowing why she is paying more. If organized criminals paid income tax on every cent of their vast earn- Fruits of one gambler's operation-42.4 million ings everybody's tax bill would go down, but no one knows how much. But to discuss the impact of organized crime in terms of whatever direct, personal, everyday effect it has on individuals is to miss most of the point. Most individuals are not affected, in this sense, very much. Much of the money organized crime accumulates comes from innumerable petty transactions: 50-cent bets, $3-a-month private garbage collection services, quarters dropped into racketeer-owned jukeboxes, or small price rises resulting from protection rackets. A one-cent-a-loaf rise in bread may annoy housewives, but it certainly does not impoverish them. Sometimes organized crime's activities do not directly affect individuals a t all. Smuggled cigarettes in a vending machine cost consumers no more than tax-paid cigarettes, but they enrich the leaders of organized crime. Sometimes these activities actually reduce prices for a short period of time, as can happen when organized crime, in an attempt to take over an industry, starts a price war against legitimate businessmen. Even when organized crime engages in a large transaction, individuals may not be directly affected. A large sum of money can be diverted from a union pension fund to finance a business venture without immediate and direct effect upon the individual members of the union. I t is organized crime's accumulation of money, not the individual transactions by which the money is accumulated, that has a great and threatening impact on America. A quarter in a jukebox means nothing and results in nothing. But millions of quarters in thousands of jukeboxes can provide both a strong motive for murder and the means to commit murder with impunity. Organized crime exists by virtue of the power it purchases with its money. The millions of dollars it can invest in narcotics or use for layoff money give it power over the lives of thousands of people and over the quality of life in whole neighborhoods. The millions of dollars it can throw into the legitimate economic system give it power to-manipulate the price of shares on the stock market, to raise or lower the price of retail merchandise, to determine whether entire industries are union or nonunion, to make it easier or harder for businessmen to continue in business. The millions of dollars it can spend on corrupting public officials may give it power to maim or murder people inside or outside the organization with impunity, to ex187 was common knowledge, he moved around New York conspicuously and unashamedly, perhaps ostracized by some people but more often accepted, greeted by journalists, recognized by children, accorded all the freedoms of a prosperous and successful man. On a society that treats such a man in such a manner, organized crime has had an impact. And yet the public remains indifferent. Few Arnericans seem to comprehend how the phenomenon of organized crime affects $eir lives. They do not see how gambling with bookmakers, or borrowing money from loan sharks, forwards the interests of great criminal cartels. Businessmen looking for labor harmony or nonunion status through irregular channels rationalize away any suspicions that organized crime is thereby spreading its influence. When an ambitious political candidate accepts substantial cash contributions from unknown sources, he suspects but dismisses the fact that organized crime will dictate some of his actions when he assumes office. President Johnson asked the Commission to determine why organized crime has been expanding despite the Nation's best efforts to prevent it. The Commission drew upon the small group of enforcement personnel and other knowledgeable persons who deal with organized crime. Federal agencies provided extensive material. But because so little study and research have been done in this field, we also secured the assistance of sociologists, systems analysts,. political scientists, economists, and lawyers. America's limited response to organized crime is illustrated by the fact that, for several of these disciplines, our call for assistance resulted in their first concentrated examination of organized crime. State tax oficial with smuggled cigarettes tort money from businessmen, to conduct businesses in such fields as liquor, meat, or drugs without regard to administrative regulations, to avoid payment of income taxes, or to secure public works contracts without competitive bidding. The purpose of organized crime is not competition with visible, legal government but nullification of it. When organized crime places an official in public office, it nullifies the political process. When it bribes a police official, it nullifies law enforcement. There is another, more subtle, way in which organized crime has an impact on American life. Consider the former way of life of Frank Costello, a man who has repeatedly been called a leader of organized crime. He lived in an expensive apartment on the corner of 72d Street and Central Park West in New York. He was often seen dining in well-known restaurants in the company of judges, public officials, and prominent businessmen. Every morning he was shaved in the barbershop of the Waldorf Astoria Hotel. On many weekends he played golf at a country club on the fashionable North Shore of Long Island. In short, though his reputation T H E TYPES O F ORGANIZED CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES CATERING TO PUBLIC DEMANDS Organized criminal groups participate in any illegal activity that offers maximum profit at minimum risk of law enforcement interference. They offer goods and services that millions of Americans desire even though declared illegal by their legislatures. Gambling. Law enforcement officials agree almost unanimously that gambling is the greatest source of revenue for organized crime. I t ranges from lotteries, such as "numbers" 'or "bolita," to off-track horse betting, bets on sporting events, large dice games and illegal casinos. In large cities where organized criminal groups exist, very iew of the gambling operators are independent of a large organization. Anyone whose independent operation becomes successful is likely to receive a visit from an organization representative who convinces the independent, through fear or promise of greater profit, to share his revenue with the organization. Most large-city gambling is established or controlled loan, and the repayment potential. The classic "6-for-5" by organized crime members through elaborate hier- loan, 20 percent a week, is common with small borarchies. Money is filtered from the small operator who rowers. Payments may be due by a certain hour on a takes the customer's bet, through persons who pick up certain day and even a few minutes' default may result money and slips, to second-echelon figures in charge of in a rise in interest rates. The lender is more interested particular districts, and then into one of several main of- in perpetuating interest payments than collecting prinfices. The profits that eventually accrue to organization cipal; and force, or threats of force of the most brutal leaders move through channels so complex that even kind, are used to effect interest collection, elimhate propersons who work in the betting operation do not know test when interest rates are raised, and prevent the beor cannot prove the identity of the leader. Increasing leaguered borrower from reporting the activity to enuse of the telephone for lottery and sports betting has forcement officials. No reliable estimates exist of the facilitated systems in which the bookmaker may not know gross revenue from organized loan sharking; but profit the identity of the second-echelon person to whom he calls margins are higher than for gambling operations, and in the day's bets. Organization not only creates greater many officials classify the business in the multi-billionefficiency and enlarges markets, it also provides a system- dollar range. atized method of corrupting the law enforcement process Narcotics. The sale of narcotics is organized like a by centralizing procedures for the payment of graft. Organization is also necessary to prevent severe losses. legitimate importing-wholesaling-retailing business. The More money may be bet on one horse or one number distribution of heroin, for example, requires movement with a small operator than he could pay off if that horse of the drug through four or five levels between the imor that number should win. The operator will have to porter and the street peddler. Many enforcement offihedge by betting some money himself on that horse or cials believe that the severity of mandatory Federal narthat number. This so-called "layoff" betting is accom- cotics penalties has caused organized criminals to restrict plished through a network of local, regional, and national their activities to importing and wholesale distribution. They stay away from smaller-scale wholesale transactions layoff men, who take bets from gambling operations. There is no accurate way of ascertaining organized or dealing at the retail level. Transactions with addicts crime's gross revenue from gambling in the United States. are handled by independent narcotics pushers using drugs Estimates of the annual intake have varied from $7 to imported by organized crime. The large amounts of cash and the international con$50 billion. Legal betting at racetracks reaches a gross annual figure of almost $5 billion, and most enforcement nections necessary for large, long-term heroin supplies officials believe that illegal wagering on horse races, lot- can be provided only by organized crime. Conservative teries, and sporting events totals at least $20 billion each estimates of the number ,of addicts in the Nation and year. Analysis of organized criminal betting operations the average daily expenditure for heroin indicate that the indicates that. the profit is as high as one-third of gross gross heroin trade is $350 million annually, of which $21 revenue-ar $6 to $7 billion each year. While the Com- million are probably profits to the importer and distribumission cannot judge the accuracy of these figures, even tor. Most of this profit goes to organized crime groups the most conservative estimates place substantial capital in in those few cities in which almost all heroin consumption occurs. the hands of organized crime leaders. Loan Sharking. In the view of most law enforcement officials loan sharking, the lending of money a t higher rates than the legally prescribed limit, is the second largest source of revenue for organized crime. Gambling profits provide the initial capital for loan-shark operations. No comprehensive analysis has ever been made of what kinds of customers loan sharks have, or of how much or how often each kind borrows. Enforcement officials and other investigators do have some information. Gamblers borrow to pay gambling losses; narcotics users borrow to purchase heroin. Some small businessmen borrow from loan sharks when legitimate credit channels are closed. The same men who take bets from employees in mass employment industries also serve at tinies as loan sharks, whose money enables the employees to pay off their debts or meet household needs. Interest rates vary from 1 to 150 percent a week, according to the relationship between the lender and borrower, the intended use of the money, the size of the Other Goods and Services. Prostitution and bootlegging play a small and declining role in organized crime's operations. Production of illegal alcohol is a risky business. The destruction of stills .and supplies by law enforcement officers during the initial stages means the loss of heavy initial investment capital. Prostitution is difficult to organize and discipline is hard to maintain. Several important convictions of organized crime figures in prostitution cases in the 1930's and 1940's made the criminal executives wary of further participation. BUSINESS AND LABOR INTERESTS Infiltration of Legitimate Business. T o have a legitimate business enables the racket executive to acquire respectability in the community and to establish a source of funds that appears legal and upon which just enough taxes can be paid to avoid income tax prosecution. Organized crime invests the profit it has made from illegal service activities in a variety of businesses throughout the country. T o succeed in such ventures, it uses accountants, attorneys, and business consultants, who in some. instances work exclusively on its affairs. Too often, because of the reciprocal benefits involved in organized crime's dealings with the business world, or because of fear, the legitimate sector of society helps the illegitimate sector. The Illinois Crime Commission, after investigating one service industry in Chicago, stated: There is a disturbing lack of interest on the Part of some legitimate business concerns regarding the identity of the persons with whom they deal. This lackadaisical attitude is conducive to the perpetration of frauds and the infiltration and subversion of legitimate businesses by the organized criminal element. Because business ownership is so easily concealed, it is difficult to determine all the types of businesses that organized crime has penetrated. Of the 75 or so racket leaders who met at Apalachin, N.Y., in 1957, at least 9 were in the coin-operated machine industry, 16 were in the garment industry, 10 owned grocery stores, 17 owned bars or restaurants, 11 were in the olive oil and cheese business, and 9 were in the construction business. Others were involved in automobile agencies, coal companies, entertainment, funeral homes, ownership of horses and race tracks, linen and laundry enterprises, trucking, waterfront activities, and bakeries. Today, the kinds of production and service industries and businesses that organized crime controls or has invested in range from accounting firny to yeast manufacturing. One criminal syndicate alone has real estate interests with an estimated value of $300 million. In a few instances, racketeers control nationwide manufacturing and service industries with known and respected brand names. Control of business concerns has usually been acquired through one of four methods: (1) investing concealed profits acquired from gambling and other illegal activities; (2) accepting business interests in payment of the owner's gambling debts; (3) foreclosing on usurious loans: and (4) using various forms of extortion. Acquisition of legitimate businesses is also accomplished in more sophisticated ways. One organized crime group offered to lend money to a business on condition that a racketeer be appointed to the company's board of directors and that a nominee for the lenders be given first option to purchase if there were any outside sale of the company's stock. Control of certain brokerage houses was secured through forecIosure of usurious loans, and the businesses then used to promote the sale of fraudulent stock, involving losses of more than $2 million t o the public. Criminal groups also satisfy defaulted loans by taking over businesses, hiring professional arsonists to burn buildings and contents, and collecting- on the fire insurante. Another tactic was illustrated in the recent bankruptcy of a meatpacking firm in which control was secured as payment for gambling debts. With the original owners remaining in .nominal management positions, extensive product orders were placed through established lines of credit, and the goods were immediately sold a t low prices before the suppliers were paid. The organized criminal group made a quick profit of three-quarters of a million dollars by pocketing the receipts from sale of the products ordered and' placing the firm in bankruptcy without paying the suppliers. Too little is known about the effects on the economy of organized crime's entry into the business world, but the examples above indicate the harm done to the public and at least suggest how criminal cartels can undermine free competition. The ordinary businessman is hard pressed to compete with a syndicate enterprise. From its gambling and other illegal revenue--on most of which no taxes are paid-the criminal group always has a ready source of cash with which to enter any business. Through union connections, the business run by organized crime either prevents unionization or secures "sweetheart" contracts from existing unions. These tactics are used effectively in combination. In one city, organized crime gained a monopoly in garbage collection by preserving the business's nonunion status and by using cash reserves to offset temporary losses incurred when the criminal group lowered prices to drive competitors out of business. Strong-arm tactics are used to enforce unfair business policy and to obtain customers. A restaurant chain controlled by organized crime used the guise of "quality control" to insure that individual restaurant franchise holders bought products only from other syndicate-owned businesses. I n one city, every business with a particular kind of waste product useful in another line of industry sold that product to a syndicate-controlled business at onethird the price offered by legitimate business. The cumulative effect of the infiltration of legitimate business in America cannot be measured. Law enforcement officials agree that entry into le&imate business is continually increasing and that it has not decreased organized crime's control over gambling, usury and other profitable, low-risk criminal enterprises. Labor Racketeering. Control of labor supply and infiltration of labor unions by organized crime prevent unionization of some industries, provide opportunities for stealing from union funds and extorting money by threats of possible labor strife, and provide funds from the enormous union pension and welfare systems for business ventures controlled by organized criminals. Union control also may enhance other illegal activities. Trucking, construction and waterfront shipping entrepreneurs, in return for assurance that business operations will not be interrupted by labor discord, countenance gambling, loan sharking and pilferage on company property. Organized criminals either direct these activities or grant "concessions" to others-in return for a percentage of the profits. Some of organized crime's effects on labor union affairs, particularly in the abuse of pension and welfare funds, were disclosed in investigations by Senator John McClel- tion of the prohibition era. All available data indicate that organized crime flourishes only where it has corrupted local officials. As the scope and variety of organized crime's activities have expanded, its need to involve public officials at every level of local government has grown. And as government regulation expands into more and more areas of private and business activity, the power to corrupt likewise affords the corrupter more control over matters affecting the everyday life of each citizen. Contrast, for example, the way governmental action in contract procurement or zoning functions today with the way it functioned only a few years ago. The potential harm of corruption is greater today if only because the scope of governmental activity is greater. I n different places a t different times, organized crime has corrupted police officials, prosecutors, legislators, judges, regulatory agency officials, mayors, councilmen, and other public officials, whose legitimate exercise of duties would LOCATION O F ORGANZED CRIME block organized crime and whose illegal exercise of duties ACTIVITIES helps it. Neutralizing local law enforcement is central to orgaOrganized criminal groups are known to operate in nized crime's operations. What can the public do if no all sections of the Nation. I n response to a Commission one investigates the investigators, and the political figures survey of 71 cities, the police departments in 80 percent are neutralized by their alliance with organized crime? of the cities with over 1 million residents, in 20 percent Anyone reporting corrupt activities may merely be telling of the cities with a population between one-half million his story to the corrupted; in a recent "investigation" of and a million, in 20 percent of the cities with between widespread corruption, the prosecutor announced that 250,000 and 500,000 population, and in over 50 percent any citizen coming forward with evidence of payments of the cities between 100,000 and 250,000, indicated to public officials to secure government action would be that organized criminal groups exist in their cities. prosecuted for participating in such unlawful conduct. In some instances Federal agency intelligence indicated I n recent years some local governments have been the presence of organized crime where local reports de- dominated by criminal groups. Today, no large city is nied it. Of the nine cities not responding to the Com- completely controlled by organized crime, but in many mission survey, six are known to Federal agencies to have there is a considerable degree of corruption. extensive organized crime prdblems. Where the existence Organized crime currently is directing its efforts to corof organized crime was acknowledged, all police depart- rupt law enforcement at the chief or at least middle-level ments indicated that the criminal group would continue supervisory officials. The corrupt political executive even though a top leader died or was incarcerated. who ties the hands of police officials who want to act Organized crime in small cities is more difficult to against organized crime is even more effective for orgaassess. Law enforcement personnel are aware of man): nized crime's purposes. To secure political power orinstances in which local racket figures controlled crime ganized crime tries by bribes or political contributions to in a smaller city and received aid from and paid tribute to corrupt the nonoffice-holding political leaders to whom organized criminal groups located in a nearby large judges, mayors, prosecuting attorneys, and correctional city. I n one Eastern town, for example, the local officials may be responsive. racket figure combined with outside organized criminal It is impossible to determine how extensive the corgroups to establish horse and numbers gambling gross- ruption of public officials by organized crime has been. ing $1.3 million annually, an organized dice game draw- We do know that there must be more vigilance against ing customers from four states and having an employee such corruption, and we know that there must be better payroll of $350,000 annually, and a still capable of pro- ways for the public to communicate information about ducing $4 million worth of alcohol each year. The town's corruption to appropriate governmental personnel. population was less than 100,000. Organized crime cannot be seen as merely a big-city problem. MEMBERSHIP AND ORGANIZATION O F CRIMINAL CARTELS CORRUPTION O F T H E ENFORCEMENT Some law enforcement officials define organized crime AND POLITICAL SYSTEMS as those groups engaged in gambling, or narcotics pushToday's corruption is less visible, more subtle and there- ing, or loan sharking, or with illegal business or labor infore more difficult to detect and assess than the corrup- terests. This is useful to the extent that it eliminates Ian's committee. I n one case, almost immediately after receiving a license as an insurance broker, the son of a major organized crime figure in New York City was chosen as the broker for a number of such funds, with significant commissions to be earned and made available for distribution to "silent partners." The youthful broker's only explanation for his success was that he had advertised in the classified telephone directory. I n New York City, early in 1966, the head of one organized crime group was revealed to be a partner in a labor relations consulting firm. One client of the firm, a nationally prominent builder, said he did not oppose unions but that better and cheaper houses could be built without them. The question of why a legitimate businessman would seek the services of an untrained consultant with a criminal record to handle his labor relations was not answered. certain other criminal groups from consideration, such as youth gangs, pickpocket rings, and professional criminal groups who may also commit many types of crimes, but whose groups are ad hoc. But when law enforcement officials focus exclusively on the crime instead of the organization, their target is likely to be the lowest-level criminals who commit the visible crimes. This has little effect on the organization. The Commission believes that before a strategy to combat organized crime's threat to America can be developed, that threat must be assessed by a close examination of organized crime's distinctive characteristics and methods of operation. NATIONAL SCOPE OF ORGANIZED - CRIME In 1951 the Kefauver committee declared that a nationwide crime syndicate known as the Mafia operated in many large cities and that the leaders of the Mafia usually controlled the most lucrative rackets in their cities. In 1957, 20 of organized crime's top leaders were convicted (later reversed on appeal) of a criminal charge arising from a meeting at Apalachin, N.Y. At the sentencing the judge stated that they had sought to corrupt .and infiltrate the political mainstreams of the country, that they had'led double lives of crime and respectability, and that their probation reports read "like a tale of horrors." Today the core of organized crime in the Un,ited States consists of 24 groups operating as criminal cartels in large cities across the Nation. Their members hi^ is exclusivelv Italian, they are in frequent communication with each other, and their smooth functioning is insured by a national body of overseers. To date, only the Federal Bureau of Investigation has been able to document fully the national scope of these groups, and FBI intelligence indicates that the organization as a whole has changed its name from the Mafia to La Cosa Nostra. In 1966 J. Edgar Hoover told a House of Representatives Appropriations Subcommittee : La Cosa Nwtra is the largest organization of the crimind underworld in this country, very closely organized and strictly disciplined. They haue committed almost every crime under the sun . . La Cosa Nostra is a criminal fraternity whose membership is Italian either by birth or national origin, and it has been found to contml major racket activities in many of our larger metropolitan areas, often workirzg in concert with criminals representing other ethnic backgrounds. It operates on a nationwide basis, with international implications, and until recent years it carried on its activities with almost complete secrecy. It functions as a criminal cartel, adhering to its own body of "lawJJand "justiceJ' and, in so doing, thwarts and usurps the authority of legally constituted judicial bodies . . . These 24 groups work with and control other racket groups, whose leaders are of various ethnic derivations. In addition, the thousands of employees who perform the street-level functions of organized crime's gambling, usury, and other illegal activities represent a cross section of the Nation's population groups. The present confederation of organized crime groups arose after Prohibition, during which Italian, German, Irish, and Jewish groups had competed with one another in racket operations. The Italian groups were successful in switching their enterprises from prostitution and bootlegging to gambling, extortion, and other illegal activities. They consolidated their power through murder and violence. Today, members of the 24 core groups reside and are active in the States shown on the map. The scope and effect of their criminal operations and penetration of legitimate businesses vary from area to area. The wealthiest and most influential core groups operate in States including New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Florida, Louisiana, Nevada, Michigan, and Rhode Island. Not shown on the map are many States in which members of core groups control criminal activity even though they do not reside there. For example, a variety of illegal activities in New England is controlled from Rhode Island. Recognition of the common ethnic tie of the 5,000 or more members of organized crime's core groups is essential to understanding the structure of these groups today. Some have been concerned that past identification of Cosa Nostra's ethnic character has reflected on ItalianAmericans generally. This false implication was eloquently refuted by one of the Nation's outstanding experts on organized crime, Sgt. Ralph Salerno of the New York City Police Department. When an Italian-American racketeer complained to him, "Why does it have to be one of your own kind that hurts you?", Sgt. Salerno answered : I'm not your kind and you're not m y kind. M y manners, morals,' and mores are not yours. T h e onLy thing we have in common is that we both spring from an Italian . In individual cities, the local core group may also be known as the "outfit," the "syndicate," or the "mob." States in which Organized Crime Core Group Members Both Reside and Operate heritage and culture-and you are the traitor to that heritage and culture which I a m proud to be part of. Organized crime in its totality thus consists of these 24 groups allied with other racket enterprises to form a loose confederation operating in large and'small cities. In the core groups, because of their permanency of form, strength ~Forganizationand ability to control other racketeer operations, resides the power that organized crime has in America today. INTERNAL STRUCTURE Each of the 24 groups is known as a "family," with membership varying from as many as 700 men to as few as 20. Most cities with organized crime have only one family; New York City has five. Each family can participate in the full range of activities in which organized crime generally is known to engage. Family organization is rationally designed with an integrated set of positions geared to maximize profits. Like any large corporation, the organization functions regardless of personnel changes, and no individual-not even the leader-is indispensable. If he dies or goes to jail. business qoes on. The hierarchical structure of the families resembles that of the Mafia groups that have operated for almost a century on the island of Sicily. Each family is headed by one man, the "boss," whose primary functions are maintaining order and maximizing profits. Subject only to the possibility of beinq overruled by the national advisory group, which will be discussed below, his authority in all matters relatinq to his family is absolute. Beneath each boss is an "underboss," the vice president or deputy director of the family. He collects information for the boss; he relays messages to him and passes his instructions down to his own underlings. In the absence of the boss, the underboss acts for him. On the same level as the underboss, but operating in a staff capacity, is the consigliere, who is a counselor, or adviser. Often an elder member of the family who has partially retired from a career in crime, he gives advice to family members, including the boss and underboss, and thereby enjoys considerable influence and power. Below the level of the underboss are the caporegime, some of whom serve as buffers between the top members of the family and the lower-echelon personnel. T o maintain their insulation from the police, the leaders of the hierarchy (particularly the boss) avoid direct communication with the workers. All commands, information, complaints, and money flow back and forth through a trusted go-between. A caporegima fulfilling; this buffer capacity, however, unlike the underboss, does not make decisions or assume any of the authority of his boss. Other caporegime serve as chiefs of operating units. The number of men supervised in each unit varies with the size and activities of particular families. Often the caporegima has one or two associates who work closely with him, carrying orders, information, and money to the men who belong to his unit. From a business stand- point, the caporegima is analogous to plant supervisor or sales manager. The lowest level "members" of a family are the soldati, the soldiers or "button" men who report to the caporegime. A soldier may operate a particular illicit enterprise (e.g., a loan-sharking operation, a dice game, a lottery, a bookmaking operation, a smuggling operation, or a vending machine company) on a commission basis, or he may "own" the enterprise and pay a portion of its profit to the organization, in return for the right to operate. Partnerships aye common between two or more soldiers and between soldiers and men higher up in the hierarchy. Some soldiers and most upper-echelon family members have interests in more than one business. Beneath the soldiers in the hierarchy are large numbers of employees and commission agents who are not members of the family and not necessarily of Italian descent. These are the people who do most of the actual work in the various enterprises. They have no buffers or other insulation from law enforcement. They take bets, drive trucks, answer telephones, sell narcotics, tend the stills, work in the legitimate businesses. For example, in a major lottery business that operated in Negro neighborhoods in Chicago, the workers were Negroes; the bankers for the lottery were Japanese-Americans; but the game, including the banking operation, was licensed, for a fee, by a family member. The structure and activities of a typical family are shown in the chart on the following page. There are at least two aspects of organized crime that characterize it as a unique form of criminal activity. The first is the element of corruption. The second is the element of enforcement, which is necessary for the maintenance of both internal discipline and the regularity of business transactions. I n the hierarchy of organized crime there are positions for people fulfilling both of these functions. But neither is essential to the long-term operation of other types of criminal groups. The members of a pickpocket troupe or check-passing ring, for example, are likely to take punitive action against any member who fiolds out morqthan his share of the spoils, or betrays the group to the police; but they do not recruit or train for a well-established position of "enforcer." Organized crime groups, on the other hand, are believed to contain one or more fixed positions for "enforcers," whose duty it is to maintain organizational integrity by arranging for the maiming and killing of recalcitrant members. And there is a position for a "corrupter," whose function is to establish relationships with those public officials and other influential persons whose assistance is necessary to achieve the organization's goals. By including these positions within its organization, each criminal cartel, or "family," becoines a government as well as a business. The highest ruling body of the 24 families is the "commission." This body serves as a combination legislature, supreme court, board of directors, and arbitration board; its principal functions are judicial. Family members look to the commission as the ultimate authority on or- An Organized Crime Family Boss Consigliere (Counselor) Underboss (Lieutenant) Caporegima (Lieutenant) Soldiers (Members grouped under Lieutenants) Cbrruption: Police and Public Officials Through threats, assault, and murder, enforce discipline over members, nonmembers and fronts on orders from leader. - Exercising Control in -Multi-State Area With and through nonmember associates and fronts-participate in, control or influence Legitimate Industry Food Products Realty Restaurants Garbage Disposal Produce Garment Manufacturing Bars and Taverns Waterfront Securities Labor Unions Vending Machines Others Illegal Activities Gambling (Numbers, Policy, Dice, Bookmaking) Narcotics Loansharking Labor Racketeering Extortion Alcohol Others ganizational and jurisdictional disputes. I t is composed of the bosses of the Nation's most powerful families but has authority over all 24. The composition of the commission varies from 9 to 12 men. According to current information, there are presently 9 families represented, 5 from New York City and 1 each from Philadelphia, Buffalo, Detroit, and Chicago. The commission is not a representative legislative assembly or an elected judicial body. Members of this council do not regard each other as equals. Those with long tenure on the commission and those who head large families, or possess unusual wealth, exercise greater authority and receive utmost respect. The balance of power on this nationwide council rests with the leaders of New York's 5 families. They have always served on the commission and consider New York as at least the unofficial headquarters of the entire organization. In recent years organized crime has become increasingly diversified and sophisticated. One consequence appears to be significant organizational restructuring. As in any organization, authority in organized crime may derive either from rank based on incumbency in a high position or from expertise based on possession of technical knowledge and skill. Traditionally, organized crime arouvs, like totalitarian governments, have maintained CODE OF CONDUCT The leaders of the various organized .crime families acquire their positions of power and maintain them with the assistance of a code of conduct that, like the hierarchical structure of the families, is very similar to the Sicilian Mafia's code-and just as effective. The code stipulates that underlings should not interfere with the leaders' interests and should not seek protection from the police. They should be "standup guysJJwho go to prison in order that the bosses may amass fortunes. The code gives the leaders exploitative authoritarian power over everyone in the organization. Loyalty, honor, respect, absolute obedience-these are inculcated in family members through ritualistic initiation and customs within the organization, through material rewards, and through violence. Though underlings are forbidden to "inform" to the outside world, the family boss learns of deviance within the organization through an elaborate system of internal informants. Despite prescribed mechanisms for peaceful settlement of disputes between family members, the boss "Family" discipline himself may order the execution of any family memberfor any reason. The code not only preserves leadership authority but also makes it extremely difficult for law enforcement to cultivate informants and maintain them within the organization. forts at investigation were abruptly terminated by the murders of two police officers, one, from New Orleans and one from New York City. The multimillion-dollar bootlegging business in the Prohibition era of the 1920's produced intensive investigations by the Treasury Department and the conviction of Chicago racket leader A1 Capone. NEED FOR GREATER KNOWLEDGE OF ORGANIZATION In the 1930's, the special racket group of Thomas E. A N D STRUCTURE Dewey in New York City secured the conviction of Although law enforcement has uncovered the skeletal several prominent racketeers, including the late Lucky organization of organized crime families, much greater Luciano, the syndicate leader whose organizational knowledge is needed about the structure and operations genius made him the father of today's confederation of of these organizations. For example, very little is known organized crime families. In the early 1940's, FBI inabout the many functions performed by the men occupy- vestigation of a million-dollar extortion plot in the moving the formally established positions in the organiza- ing picture industry resulted in the conviction of several tions. I n private business identifying a person as a "vice racket leaders, including the Chicago family boss who president" is meaningless unless one knows his duties. In was then a member of organized crime's national council. After World War I1 there was little national interest addition to his formal obligations, the corporate officer in the problem until 1950, when the U.S. Attorney Genmay have important informal roles such as expediter or eral convened a national conference on organized crime. troubleshooter. More successful law enforcement measures against the This conference made several recommendations concernorganized crime families will be possible only when the ing investigative and prosecutive needs. Several weeks entire range of informal and formal roles for each posi- later the well-publicized hearings of the Senate Special tion is ascertained. Answers to crucial questions must be Committee under Senator Kefauver began. The Kefound: While it is known that "money-movers" are em- fauver committee heard over 800 witnesses from nearly ployed to insure maximum use of family capital, how every state and temporarily aroused the concern of many does money move from lower-echelon workers to top communities. There was a brief series of local investigaleaders? How is that money spread among illicit activi- tions in cities where the Senate committee had exposed ties and into legitimate business? What are the specific organized crime operations and public corruption, but methods by which public officials are corrupted? What law enforcement generally failed to develop the investiroles do corrupted officials play? What informal roles gative and prosecutive wits necessary to root out the have been devised for successful continuation of each of activities of the criminal cartels. In 1957 the discovery of the meeting in Apalachin, the illicit enterprises, such as gambling and usury? Only N.Y., of at least 75 criminal cartel leaders from every through the answers to questions such as these will society be able to understand precisely how organized crime section of the Nation aroused national interest again. maintains a coherent, efficient organization with a per- This interest was further stimulated by disclosures in the manency of form that survives changes in working and hearings of Senator McClellan's Select Senate Committee investigating organized crime's infiltration of labor leadership personnel. and business. A concerted Federal enforcement response developed in the 19503, and special, institutionalized efT H E NATION'S EFFORTS T O CONTROL forts on the local level have been growing slowly since ORGANIZED CRIME that time. Investigation and prosecution of organized criminal groups in the 20th century has seldom proceeded on a continuous, institutionalized basis. Public interest and demands for action have reached high levels sporadically, but, until recently, spurts of concentrated law enforcement activity have been followed by decreasing interest and application of resources. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND The foothold that organized crime has gained in our society can be partly explained by the belated recognition on the part of the people and their governments of thc need for specialized efforts in law enforcement to counter the enterprises and tactics of organized crime. A few law enforcement officials became concerned with the illicit enterprises of Mafia-type groups in the United States near the close of the 19th century. Sustained ef- FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT Following the Kefauver hearings, the Department of Justice .commenced a concerted drive against the leading racket figures identified in the hearings. Federal prosecutors throughout the Nation were encouraged to initiate investigations and prosecutions of such persons. As a result, a number of high level organized crime participants were convicted of Federal law violations. Under authority of the immigration statutes, the Department was successful in effecting the deportation of other racketeers. In 1954, the Justice Department formed an Organized Crime and Racketeering (OCR) Section to encourage the continuation of these prosecutive efforts. Efforts to institutionalize an antiracketeering intelligence program were hindered by a lack of coordination and interest by some Federal investigative agencies. In 1958, after Apalachin, an Attorney General's Special for ihvestigative leads in income tax cases. Over 60 perGroup on Organized Crime was created in the De- cent of the convictions secured between 1961 and July partment of Justice with regional offices from which 1965 resulted from tax investigations conducted by the intelligence information was gathered and grand jury pro- Internal Revenue Service. Several high-level members ceedings conducted, concerning the Apalachin conferees. of organized crime families in New York City were conAfter trial and reversal of the convictions of 20 of these victed through the efforts of the Federal Bureau of conferees for conspiring to obstruct justice, the group's Narcotics. The FBI was responsible for convictions of organized functions were assumed by the existing OCR Section. In September 1960, the Federal Bureau of Investiga- crime figures in New York City, Chicago, and elsewhere. tion began to supply the.OCR Section with regular in- Enactment of statutes giving the FBI jurisdiction in intertelligence reports on 400 of the Nation's organized crime state gambling cases resulted in disruption, by investigafigures. But with only 17 attorneys and minimal inteili- tion and prosecution, of major interstate gambling operagence information from other Federal agencies, the section tions, including "lay-off betting, which is essential to the could not adequately fulfill its functions, which included success of local gambling businesses. In 1965, a number of factors slowed the momentum of coordinating all Federal law enforcement activities against organized crime, accumulating and correlating all nec- the organized crime drive. A Senate committee uncovessary data, initiating and supervising investigations, ered a few isolated instances of wiretapping and electronic formulating general prosecutive policies, and assisting the surveillance by Treasury Department agents, and some Federal prosecuting attorneys throughout the country. officials began to question whether special emphasis upon In 1961, the OCR Section expanded its organized crime organized crime in tax enforcement was appropriate or program to unprecedented proportions. In the next 3 fair. The Department of Justice was accused of extenyears, regular intelligence reports were secured from 26 sively using illegal electronic surveillance in investigations separate Federal agencies, the number of attorneys was of racketeer influence in Las Vegas casinos. Federal prosnearly quadrupled, and convictions increased. Indica- ecutors in some large cities demanded independence from tive of the cooperation during this enforcement effort was OCR Section attorneys and prosecutive policies. Attacks the pooling of information from several Federal agencies appeared in the press on the intensity and tactics of the Federal investigative and prosecutive efforts. A high rate of turnover among OCR Section attorneys meant disconThis is a diagram of an interstate gambling operation that tinuity of effort and reduced personnel by nearly 25 perthe FBI destroyed. Gamblers based in Brooklyn con- cent. This combination of adverse circumstances apparently trolled lottery operations not only in Brooklyn, but in Manhattan and Newark, New Jersey. The Newark led the OCR Section to believe that it could no longer "work" (cash and gambling records) went first to a secret expect the high degree of cooperation it had received from location on Varick Street in Manhattan and then, to- some Federal investigative agencies, and the intensity of gether with the Manhattan "work", to the Brooklyn base its efforts diminished. In May 1966, however, President where it was processed. Johnson directed Federal enforcement officials to review the status of the national program against organized crime. He restated his determination to continue and accelerate the program. In a White House memorandum he called upon the appropriate agencies and departments to coordinate their activities and cooperate to the utmost with the Department of Justice. STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT / Processing Brooklyn The Commission made a survey of 71 cities to determine the extent of State and local law enforcement against organized crime. The survey revealed that only 12 of the 19 cities that acknowledged having organized crime have specialized units within the police department to investigate that activity. In only 6 of those 19 cities are prosecutors specially assigned to work on organized crime. Only 3 of the 43 police departments that answered that they had no organized crime in their area had created units to gather intelligence concerning the possibility of its existence. One of the three, Los Angeles, has a 55-man unit that gathers intelligence information to prevent the expansion of organized crime. At present, well-developed organized crime investiga- of such offenders less difficult. The Illinois Crime Comtion units and effective intelligence programs exist within mission, through public hearings and the efforts of its police and prosecutive agencies in only a handful of own investigators, continually exposes organized criminal jurisdictions. There is, however, some evidence that activity. A governmental commission in California delocal police and prosecutors are becoming more aware of tailed the operations of criminal cartels in that State in the threat of organized crime. For example, in Phila- the early 1950's and recommended action that subsedelphia, both the police department and the prosecutor quently proved effective. have created units to work exclusively in this area. I n the Bronx County prosecutor's office responsibility for LIMITATIONS O N CONTROL EFFORTS antiracketeering work has been centralized. The New Efforts to curb the growth of .organized crime in England State Police Compact is a first step toward regional confrontations of organized crime. I n addition America have not been successful. I t is helpful in deto provisions for mutual assistance in a number of areas vising a program for the future to examine the problems and for coordination of command training, the compact encountered in attempting to.combat organized crime. provides for a centralization of organized crime data As described above, to which all members contribute and from which all draw. Difficulties in Obtaining Proof. This system should reduce current duplication and permit criminal cartels have organized their groups and operaa better coordinated attack upon organized crime. tions to insulate their higher echelon personnel from law In 1956 the Law Enforcement Intelligence Unit was enforcement and regulatory agencies. Every measure established in California. This was the first step toward has been taken to insure that governmental investigation, the development of a network for the exchange of data no matter how intensive; will be unable to secure live concerning people active in organized crime. The LEIU witnesses, the sine qua non of prosecution. Street workhas since expanded to more than 150 members through- ers, who are not members of organized crime families, out the Nation. I t maintains a central file in California, cannot prove the identities of the upper-level personnel. If workers are arrested for gambling or other illicit activand information is available to its members on request. The effectiveness of these State and local efforts is ities, the fear instilled in them by the code of nondisclosure difficult to assess. But only New York and California prevents their telling even the little they may know. Th'e have developed continuing State programs that have organization provides money and food for families of produced a series of convictions against major figures in incarcerated workers; this helps to keep the workers organized crime. Coordinated police activity has sub- loyal. Lawyers provided by the cartels for arrested emstantially aided this process. O n the local level, Chicago ployees preserve the interests of the organization ahead and New York City, where the organized crime problem of those of the particular defendant. Usually, when a crime is committed, the public calls is the most severe, appear to be the only cities in which large, firmly established police intelligence units continue the police, but the police have to ferret out even the to develop major cases against members of the criminal, existence of organized crime. The many Americans who are compliant "victims" have no incentive to report the cartels. illicit operations. The millions of people who gamble " illegally are willing customers who dp not wish to see their PUBLIC A N D PRIVATE CRIME COMMISSIONS supplier destroyed. Even the true victims of organized Among the most effective vehicles for providing public crime, such as those succumbing to extortion, are too information on organized crime are the crime investi- afraid to inform law enforcement officials. Some misgating commissions, which exist in a number of States. guided citizens think there is social stigma in the role of When established without having to rely on continuing "informer," and this tends to prevent reporting and governmental financial support and the resulting potential cooperating with police. Law enforcement may be able to develop informants, political pressures, the private crime commission has frequently rendered major service in exposing organized but organized crime uses torture and murder to destroy crime and corruption and arousing public interest. The the particular prosecution at hand and to deter others Chicago Crime Commission and the Metropolitan Crime from cooperating with police agencies. Informants who Commission of New Orleans have played major roles in do furnish intelligence to the police often wish to remain informing the citizens within their jurisdictions of the anonymous and are unwilling to testify publicly. Other menace of organized crime and have fulfilled substantial informants are valuable on a long-range basis and cannot be used in public trials. Even when a prosecution witeducational, investigative, and legislative functions. Where a governmentally sponsored nonpartisan crime ness testifies against family members, the criminal organcommission is created, as with the New York State Tem- ization often tries, sometimes successfully, to bribe or porary Commission on Investigation, significant benefits threaten jury members or judges. Documentary evidence is equally difficult' to obtain. have resulted. Established shortly after the Apalachin meeting, it has through a series of public hearings exposed Bookmakers at the street level keep no detailed records. organized crime and corruption. Recent loan-shark Main offices of gambling enterprises can be moved often hearings prompted legislative action to make prosecution enough to keep anyone from getting sufficient evidence for a search warrant for a particular location. Mechanical devices are used that prevent' even the telephone company from knowing about telephone calls. And even if an enforcement agent has a search warrant, there are easy ways to destroy written material while the agent fulfills the legal requirements of knocking on the door, announcing his identity and purpose, and waiting a reasonable time for a response before breaking into the room. Lack of Resources. No State or local law enforcement agency is adequately staffed to deal successfully with the problems of breaking down criminal organizations. Just one major organized crime case may take 2 to 3 years to develop and then several more years to complete through pr'osecution and appeal. Cases may require several manyears of investigative resources. The percentage of investigations that result in arrests is quite low. Requests for increased budgets in government are usually granted only upon a showing of success; i.e., a high number of arrests. An effective organized crime investigative effort may not be able to produce such statistics without years of intelligence gathering, and the drive for statistics may divert investigative energy to meaningless low-level gambling arrests that have little effect on the criminal organizations. Even with these known problems, the organized crime units of all but a few city police departments are staffed by less than 10 men, and only 6 prosecutors' offices have assigned assistants to work exclusively .or particularly in organized crime cases. Effective investigation and prosecution of organized crime require extensive experience. As noted in chapter 5, assistant prosecutors rarely stay in a district attorney's office for more than a few years, if that long. On the investigative level, with the exception of some Federal agencies, assignment to the organized crime intelligence unit may be only a step in an officer's career. The most proficient people are likely to be promoted out of the unit into supervisory positions, and their replacements must then start the difficult job of acquiring the skills for the peculiar demands of organized crime investigation. I n addition, few units have any personnel with the necessary accounting and legal knowledge. Lack of Coordination. Local police are hampered by their limited geographical jurisdiction, and law enforcement has not responded by developing sufficient coordination among the agencies. One gambling operation may range through several police jurisdictions; if only one agency is involved in the investigation, it may be unable to detect key elements of the illegal enterprise. The potential for Federal-local cooperation was illustrated in the past 3 years in Chicago. With search warrant affidavits signed by FBI agents and based on FBI information, Chicago police have arrested almost 1,000 gambling defendants and seized money and wagering paraphernalia valued at approximately $400,000. The monthly gross of gambling sites so raided exceeded $8'/2million. Unfortunately, such instances of sustained intensity are extremely rare. Agencies do not cooperate with each other in preparing cases, and they do not exchange information with .each other. Enforcement .officers do not trust each other for they are sensitive to organized crime's ability to corrupt law enforcement. Agencies have not developed strategies to overcome these problems and to insure that needed data can be effectively transferred. Failure to Develop Strategic Intelligence. Intelligence deals with all of the things that should be known before initiating a course of action. I n the context of organized crime there are two basic types of intelligence information: tactical and strategic. Tactical intelligence is the information obtained for specific organized crime prosecutions. Strategic intelligence is the information regarding the capabilities, intentions, and vulnerabilities of organized crime groups. For example, the body of knowledge built up by the FBI concerning the structure, membership, activities, and purposes of La Cosa Nostra represents significant strategic intelligence. At present, most law enforcement agencies gather organized crime intelligence information with prosecution as the immediate objective. This tactical focus has not been accompanied by development of the full potential for strategic intelligence. That failure accounts for the gaps in knowledge, described above, concerning the ways in which criminal cartels organize and operate as a business. Prosecution based merely upon individual violations that come to the attention of law enforcement may result in someone's incarceration, but the criminal organization simply places someone else in the vacated position. A body of strategic intelligence information would enable agencies to predict what directions organized crime might take, which industries it might try to penetrate, and how it might infiltrate. Law enforcement and regulatory agencies could then develop plans to destroy the organizational framework and coherence of the criminal cartels. Comprehensive strategic planning, however, even with an expanded intelligence effort, will not be possible until relevant disciplines, such as economics, political science, sociology, and operations research, begin to study organized crime intensively. Failure to Use Available Sanctions. Gambling is the largest source of revenue for the criminal cartels, but the members of organized crime know they can operate free of significant punishment. Street workers have little reason to be deterred from joining the ranks of criminal organizations by fear of long jail sentences or large fines. Judges are reluctant to jail bookmakers and lottery operators. Even when offenders are convicted, the sentences are often very light. Fines are paid by the organization and considered a business expense. And in other organized crime activity, when management level figures are convicted, too frequently the sentences imposed are not commensurate with the status of the offender. Lack of Public and Political Commitment. The public demands action only sporadically, as intermittent, sensational disclosures reveal intolerable violence and corruption caused by organized crime. Without sustained public pressure, political office seekers and office holders have little incentive to address themselves to combatting organized crime. A drive against organized crime usually uncovers political corruption; this means that .a crusading mayor or district attorney makes many political enemies. The vicious cycle perpetuates itself. Politicians will not act unless the public so demands; but much of the urban public wants the services provided by organized crime and does not wish to disrupt the system that provides those services. And much of the public does not see or understand the effects of organized crime in society. trary termination of a grand jury by supervisory judges constitutes a danger to successful completion of an investigation. The Commission recommends: At least one investigative grand jury should be impaneled annually in each jurisdiction that has major organized crime activity. If a grand jury shows the court that its business is unfinished at the end of a normal term, the court should extend that term a reasonable time in order to allow the grand jury to complete pending investigations. Judicial dismissal of grand juries with unfinished business should be appealable by the prosecutor and provision made for suspension of such dismissal orders during the appeal. The automatic convening of these grand juries would force less than diligent investigators and prosecutors to explain their inaction. The grand jury should also have recourse when not satisfied with such explanations. A NATIONAL STRATEGY AGAINST ORGANIZED CRIME Law enforcement's way of fighting organized crime has been primitive compared to organized crime's way of operating. Law enforcement must use methods at least as efficient as organized crime's. The public and law enforcement must make a full-scale commitment to destroy the power of organized crime groups. The Commission's program indicates ways to implement that commitment. The Commission recommends: The grand jury should have the statutory right of appeal to an appropriate executive official, such as an attorney general or governor, to replace local prosecutors or investigators with special counsel or special investigators appointed only in relation to matters that they or the grand jury deem appropriate for investigation. PROOF OF CRIMINAL VIOLATION The previous section has described the difficulties that law enforcement agencies meet in trying to prove the participation of organized crime family members in criminal acts. Although earlier studies indicated a need for new substantive criminal laws, the Commission believes that on the Federal level, and in most State jurisdictions where organized crime exists, the major problem relates to mat; ters of proof rather than inadequacy of substantive criminal laws, as the latter-for the most part-are reasonably adequate to deal with organized crime activity. The laws of conspiracy have provided an effective substantive tool with which to confront the criminal groups. From a legal standpoint, organized crime continues to grow because of defects in the evidence-gathering process. Under present procedures, too few witnesses have been produced to prove the link between criminal group members and the illicit activities that they sponsor. Grand Juries. A compulsory. process is necessary to obtain essential testimony or material. This is most readily accomplished by an investigative grand jury or an alternate mechanism through which the attendance of witnesses and production of books and records can be ordered. Such grand juries must stay in session long enough to allow for the unusually long time required to build an organized crime case. The possibility of arbi- When a grand jury terminates, it should be permitted by law to file public reports regarding organized crime conditions in the community. ' Immunity. A general immunity statute as proposed in chapter 5 on the courts is essential in organized crime investigations and prosecutions. There is evidence to indicate that the availability of immunity can overcome the wall of silence that so often defeats the efforts of law enforcement to obtain live witnesses in organized crime cases. Since the activities of criminal groups involve such a broad scope of criminal violations, immunity provisions covering this breadth of illicit actions are necessary to secure the testimony of uncooperative or criminally involved witnesses. Once granted immunity from prosecution based upon their testimony, such, witnesses must testify before the grand jury and at trial, or face jail for contempt of court. Federal, State, and local coordination of immunity grants, and approval by the jurisdiction's chief law enforcement officer before immunity is granted, are crucial in organized crime investigations. Otherwise, without such coordination and approval, or through corruption of officials, one jurisdiction might grant immunity to someone about to be arrested or indicted in another jurisdiction. T h e Commission recommends: A general witness immunity statute should be enacted at Federal and State levels, providing immunity sufficiently broad to assure compuls~onof testimony. Immunity should be granted only with the prior approval of the jurisdiction's chief prosecuting officer. Efforts to coordinate Federal, State, and local &unity grants should be made to prevent interference with existing investigations. Many prosecutors believe that the incidence Perjury. of perjury is higher in organized crime cases than in routine criminal matters. Immunity can be an effective prosecutive weapon only if the immunized witness then testifies truthfully. .The present special proof requirements in perjury cases, detailed in chapter 5, inhibit prosecutors from seeking perjury indictments and lead to much lower conviction rates for perjury than for other crimes. Lessening of rigid proof requirements in perjury prosecutions would strengthen-the deterrent value of perjury laws and present a greater incentive for truthful testimony. The Commission recommends: Congress and the States should abolish the rigid twowitness and direct-evidence rules in perjury prosecutions, but retain the requirement of proving an intentional false statement. WIRETAPPING AND EAVESDROPPING In connection with the problems of securing evidence against organized crime, the Commission considered issues relating to electronic surveillance, including wiretapping . and "buggingw-the secret installation of mechanical, devices at specific locations to receive and transmit conversations. Significance to Law Enforcement. The great majority of law enforcement officials believe that the evidence necessary to bring criminal sanctions to bear consistently on the higher echelons of organized crime will not be obtained without the aid of electronic surveillance techniques. They maintain these techniques are indispensable to develop adequate strategic intelligence concerning organized crime, to set up specific investigations, to develop witnesses, to corroborate their testimony, and to serve as substitutes for them-each a necessary step in the evidence-gathering process' in organized crime investigations and prosecutions. As previously noted, the organizational structure and operational methods employed by organized crime have created unique problems for law enforcement. Highranking organized crime figures are protected by layers of insulation from direct participation in criminal acts, and a rigid code of discipline inhibits the development of informants against them. A soldier in a family can complete his entire crime career without ever associating directly with his boss. Thus, he is unable, even if willing, to link the boss directly to.any criminal activity in which he may have engaged for their mutual benefit. Agents and employees of an organized crime family, even when granted immunity from prosecution, cannot implicate the highest level figures, since frequently they have neither spoken to, nor even seen them. Members of the underworld, who have legitimate reason to fear that their meetings might be bugged or their telephones tapped, have continued to meet and to make relatively free use of the telephone-for communication is essential to the operation of any business enterprise. In legitimate business this is accomplished with written and oral exchanges. In organized crime enterprises, however, the possibility of loss or seizure of an incriminating document demands a minimum of written communication. Because of the varied character of organized criminal enterprises, the large numbers of persons employed in them, and frequently the distances separating elements of the organization, the telephone remains an essential vehicle for communication. While discussions of business matters are held on a face-to-face basis whenever possible, they are never conducted in the presence of strangers. Thus, the content of these conversations, including the planning of new illegal activity, and transmission of policy decisions or operating instructions for existing enterprises, cannot be detected. The extreme scrutiny to which potential members are subjected and the necessity for them to engage in criminal activity have precluded law enforcement infiltration of organized crime groups. District Attorney Frank S. Hogan, whose New York County office has been acknowledged for over 27 years as one of the country's most outstanding, has testified that electronic surveillance is : the single most valuable weapon in law enforcement's fight against organized crime . . . It has permitted us to undertake major investigations of organized crime. Without it, and I confine myself to top figures in the underworld, my own ofice could not have convicted Charles,"Lucky'J Luciano, Jimmy Hines, Louis "Lepke" Buchalter, Jacob "Gurrah" Shapiro, Ioseph "Soc&" Lanza, George Scalise, Frank Erickson, John "Dio" Dioguardi, and Frank Carbo . . . Over the years New York has faced one of the Nation's most aggravated organized crime problems. Only in New York have law enforcement officials achieved some level of continuous success in bringing prosecutions against organized crime. For over 20 years, New York has authorized wiretapping on court order. Since 1957, bugging has been similarly authorized. Wiretapping was the mainstay of the New York attack against organized crime until Federal court decisions intervened. Recently chief reliance in some offices has been placed on bugging, where the information is to be used in court. Law enforcement officials believe that the successes achieved in some parts of the State are attributable primarily to a combination of dedicated and competent personnel and adequate legal tools; and that the failure to do more in New York has resulted primarily from the failure to commit additional resources of time and men. The debilitating effect of corruption, political influence, and incompetence, underscored by the New York State Commission of Investigation, must also be noted. In New York at one time, Court supervision of law enforcement's use of electronic surveillance was sometimes perfunctory, but the picture has changed substantially under the impact of pretrial adversaly hearings on motions to suppress electronically seized evidence. Fifteen years ago there was evidence of abuse by lowrank policemen. Legislative and administrative controls, however, have apparently been successful in curtailing its incidence. be held unlawful and are unwilling to report their activities. I t is presently impossible to estimate with any accuracy the volume of electronic surveillance conducted today. The Commission is impressed, however, with the opinions of knowledgeable persons that the incidence of electronic surveillance is already substantial and increasing at a rapid rate. I n 1928 the U.S. Supreme Present Law and Practice. Court decided that evidence obtained by wiretapping a defendant's telephone at a point outside the defendant's premises was admissible in a Federal criminal prosecution. The Court found no unconstitutional search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment. Enactment of Section 605 of the Federal Communications Act in 1934 preT h e Threat to Privacy. In a democratic society pri- cluded interception and disclosure of wire communicavacy of communication is essential if citizens are to think tions. The Department of Justice has interpreted this and act creatively and constructively. Fear or suspicion section to permit interception so long as no disclosure of that one's speech is being monitored by a stranger, even the content outside the Department is made. Thus, without the reality of such activity, can have a seriously wiretapping may presently be conducted by a Federal inhibiting effect upon the willingness to voice critical agent, but the results may not be used in court. When and constructive ideas. When dissent from the popular police officers wiretap and disclose the information obview is discouraged, intellectual controversy is smoth- tained, in accordance with State procedure, they are in ered, the process for testing new concepts and ideas is violation of Federal law. Law enforcement experience with bugging has been hindered and desirable change is slowed. External restraints, of which electronic surveillance is but one possi- much more recent and more limited than the use of the bility, are thus repugnant to citizens of such a society. traditional wiretap. The legal situation with respect to Today, in addition to some law enforcement agents, bugging is also different. The regulation of the national numerous private persons are utilizing these techniques. telephone communication network falls within recognized They are employed to acquire evidence for domestic rela- national powers, while legislation attempting to authorize tions cases, to carry on industrial espionage and counter- the placing of electronic equipment even under a warrant espionage, to assist in preparing for civil litigation; and system would break new and uncharted ground. At the for personnel investigations, among others. Technologi- present time there is no Federal legislation explicitly cal advances have produced remarkably sophisticated devices, of which the electronic cocktail olive is illustra- dealing with bugging. Since the decision of the Supreme tive, and continuing price reductions have expanded their Court in Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505 ( 1961) , markets. Nor has man's ingenuity in the development use of bugging equipment that involves an unauthorized of surveillance equipment been exhausted with the design physical entry into a constitutionally protected private and manufacture of electronic devices for wiretapping or area violates the Fourth Amendment, and evidence thus for eavesdropping within buildings or vehicles. Para- obtained is inadmissible. If eavesdropping is unaccombolic microphones that pick up conversations held in panied by such a trespass, or if,the communication is rethe open at distances of hundreds of feet are available. corded with the consent of one of the parties, no such commercially, and some progress has been made toward prohibition applies. utilizing the laser beam to pick up conversations within The confusion that has arisen inhibits cooperation a room by focusing upon the glass of a convenient win- between State and Federal law enforcement agencies bedow. Progress in microminiaturizing electronic compocause of the fear that information secured in one investinents has resulted in the production of equipment of gation will legally pollute another. For example, in New extremely small size. Because it can detect what is said York City prosecutors refuse to divulge the contents of anywhere-not just on the telephone-bugging presents wire communications intercepted pursuant to State court especially serious threats to privacy. orders because of the Federal proscription but do utilize Detection of surveillance devices is difficult, particularly where an installation is accomplished by a skilled evidence obtained by bugging pursuant to court order. agent. Isolated instances where equipment is discovered I n other sections of New York State, however, prosecutors in operation therefore do not adequately reflect the vol- continue to introduce both wiretapping and eavesdropume of such activity; the effectiveness of electronic sur- ping evidence at trial. veillance depends in part upon investigators who do not Despite the clear Federal prohibition against disclosure discuss their activities. The current confusion over the of wiretap information no Federal prosecutions of State legality of electronic surveillance compounds the assess- officers have been undertaken, although prosecutions of ment problem since many agents feel their conduct may State officers under State laws have occurred. One of the most serious consequences of the present state of the law is that private parties and some law enforcement officers are invading the privacy of many citizens without control from the courts and reasonable legislative standards. While the Federal prohisbition is a partial deterrent against divulgence, it has no effect on interception, and the lack of prosecutive action against violators has substantially reduced respect for the law. The present status of the law with respect to wiretap ping and bugging is intolerable. I t serves the interests neither of privacy nor of law enforcement. One way or the other, the present controversy with respect to electronic surveillance must be resolved. The Commission recommends: Congress .should enact legislation dealing specifically . with wiretapping and bugging. All members of the Commission agree on the difficulty of striking the balance between law enforcement benefits from the use of electronic surveillance and the threat to privacy its use may entail. Further, striking this balance presents important constitutional questions now pending before the US. Supreme Court in People v. Berger, and any congressional action should await the outcome of that case. All members of the Commission believe that if authority to employ these techniques is granted it must be granted only with stringent limitations. One form of detailed regulatory statute that has been suggested to the Commission is outlined in the appendix to the Commission's organized crime task force volume. All private use of electronic surveillance should be placed under rigid control, or it should be outlawed. A majority of the members of the Commission believe that legislation should be enacted granting carefully circumscribed authoritv for electronic surveillance to law enforcement officers ;o the extent it may be consistent with the decision of the Supreme Court in People v. Berger, and, further, that the availability of such specific authority would significantly reduce the incentive for, and the incidence of, improper electronic surveillance. The other members of the Commission have serious doubts about-the desirability of such authority and believe that without the kind of searching inquiry that would result from further congressional consideration of electronic surveillance, particularly of the problems of bugging, there is insufficient basis to strike this balance against the interests of privacy. Matters affecting the national sec;rity not involving criminal prosecution are outside .the.Commission's mandate, and nothing in this discussion is intended to affect the existing powers to protect that interest. SENTENCING Criminal statutes do not now authorize greater punishment when the violation was committed as part of an organized crime business.. The Model Sentencing Act creates a separate category for such violations. I t provides for 30 years' commitment of any felony offender who is so dangerous that the public must be protected from him and whose felony was committed as part of a continuing criminal activity in concert with one or more persons. The Model Penal Code also contains separate provisions for heavier sentences of defendants connected with organized crime. The Commission recommends: Federal and State legislation should be enacted to provide for extended prison terms where the evidence, presentence report, or sentence hearing shows that a felony was committed as part of a continuing illegal business in which the convicted offender occupied a supervisory or other management position. This will make it possible to distinguish, for example, between the streetworker in a gambling operation and an office supervisor or higher management person. There must be some kind of supervision over those trial judges who, because of corruption, political considerations, or lack of knowledge, tend to mete out light sentences in cases involving organized crime management personnel. Consideration should therefore be given to allowing the prosecution the right of appeal regarding sentences of persons i n . management positions in an organized crime activity or group. Constitutional requirements for such an appellate procedure must first be carefully explored. APPEALS FROM SUPPRESSION ORDERS The Commission's recommendation in chapter 5 ,that prosecutors be permitted to appeal trial court orders suppressing evidence is particularly important in organized crime cases, where so much investigative and prosecutive time has been expended, and where evidence gathering is extremely difficult. Allowing appeals would also help overcome corrupt judicial actions. I n gambling cases, particularly,. arbitrary rejection of evidence uncovered in a search is one method by which corrupt judges perform their services for organized crime. PROTECTION OF WITNESSES No jurisdiction has made adequate provision for protecting witnesses in organized crime cases from reprisal. .In the few instances where guards are provided, resources require their withdrawal shortly after the particular trial terminates. On a case-to-case basis, governments have helped witnesses find jobs in other sections of the country or have even helped them to emigrate. The difficulty of obtaining witnesses because of the fear of reprisal could be countered somewhat if governments had established systems for protecting cooperative witnesses. The Commission recommends: The Federal Government should establish residential facilities for the protection of witnesses desiring such assistance during the pendency of organized crime litigation. After trial, the witness should be permitted to remain at the facility so long as he needs to be protected. The Federal Government should establish regular procedures to help Federal and local witnesses who fear organized crime reprisal, to find jobs and places to live in other parts of the country, and to preserve their anonymity from organized crime groups. INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION UNITS State and Local Manpower. There is, as described above, minimal concentrated law enforcement activity directed at organized crime. Only a few cities have established police intelligence and prosecutorial units specifically for developing organized crime cases. Legal tools such as electronic surveillance and immunity will be of limited use unless an adequate body of trained and expert investigators and prosecutors exists to use those tools properly. The Commission recommends: Every attorney general in States where organized crime exists should form in his office a unit of attorneys and investigators to gather information and assist in prosecution regarding this criminal activity. Investigators should include those with the special skills, such as accounting and undercover operations, crucial to organized crime matters. Members of the State police could be assigned to this unit. In local areas where it appears that the jurisdiction's law enforcement agencies are not adequately combatting organized crime, State police should conduct investigations, make arrests, or conduct searches upon request of any branch of the local government. This should be done without the knowledge of local officials if, because of apparent c o m p tion, it is necessary. The State police should cooperate with and seek advice from the State attorney general's special unit. For local enforcement, The Commission recommends: Police departments in every major city should have a special intelligence unit solely to ferret out organized criminal activity and to collect information regarding the possible entry of criminal cartels into the area's criminal operations. Staffing needs will depend on local conditions, but the intelligence programs should have a priority rating that insures assignment of adequate personnel. Perhaps the enormous amount of manpower devoted to petty vice con- ditions should be reduced and the investigative personnel for organized crime cases increased. Criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of the units, other than mere numbers of arrests, must be developed. The background of potential intelligence unit members should be investigated extensively and only the most talented and trustworthy assigned to those units. Salary levels should be such that membership in the unit could be a career in itself. One of the duties of the police legal advisers recommended in chapter 4 should be consultation with the intelligence unit. Special training programs should be used to teach the necessary skills involved in organized crime investigative work. Because of the special skills and extensive time involved in organized crime cases, prosecution thereof requires concentrated efforts. The Commission recommends: The prosecutor's office in every major city should have sdicient manpower assigned full time to organized crime cases. Such personnel should have the power to initiate organized crime investigations and to conduct the investigative grand juries recommended above. Special training in these legal tactics should be provided; the prosecutors should work closely with the police units. Since Development and dissemination of intelligence. the activities of organized crime overlap individual police jurisdictions, the various law enforcement agencies must share information and coordinate their plans. On the Federal level, enforcement agencies are furnishing a large amount of intelligence to the Organized C&ne and Racketeering (OCR) Section in the Department of Justice. But there is no central place where a strategic intelligence system regarding organized crime groups is being developed to coordinate an integrated Federal plan for enforcement and regulatory agencies. The Commission recommends: The Federal Government should create a central computerized office into which each Federal agency would feed all of its organized crime intelligence. Intelligence information in the OCR Section is now recorded manually in a card catalog. Much information, such as that discovered in grand jury proceedings, has not been incorporated because of limited resources. Many Federal agencies do not submit information on a case until it has been completed. A central office in the Department of Justice should have proper recording facilities and should analyze intelligence information fed to it by all relevant Federal agencies keeping current with events. A pool of information experts from the FBI, Secret Service, central Intelligence Agency and other departments. and ~rivatecompanies should help build the Coordinated Effort Against Organized Crime Commitment of Political Leaders Commitment of Political Leaders 26 Federal Investigative Agencies Local Police Special Units Federal Prosecutors' Units Local Prosecutors' Units Federal Regulatory Agencies Government Crime Commissions Joint Congressional lnvestigative Committee Grand Jury Reports Federal Groups Local Groups Organized Crime State Groups Private Groups Commitment of Political Leaders Commitment of Citizens State Police Investigations Private Crime Commissions State Attorney General Intelligence Units Press and News Media State and Regional Intelligence Groups Social Scientists State Prosecutors' Units Private Trade Associations State Regulatory Agencies Government Crime Commissions ' . system, which would employ punch cards, tapes, and other modern information storage and retrieval techniques. Each agency, of course, would maintain its own files, but being able to draw upon the. capability of the central computer would eliminate duplication of effort and justify the cost of the new operation. A strategic intelligence system necessary to satisfy investigative, prosecutive, and regulatory needs must have specialists in economics, sociology, business administration, operations research, and other disciplines, as well as those trained in law enforcement. Since organized crime crosses State lines, the Commission recommends the creation of regional organizations, such as that established by the New England State Police Compact. Large States could develop statewide systems, such as exists in New York, as well as participate in regional compacts. These systems should permit and encourage greater exchange of information among Federal, State, and local agencies. Currently, information sharing proceeds on a personal basis; i.e., information is given officers who, through personal contact with agents of the disseminator, have proved their trustworthiness. Perhaps a central security system should be developed (like the military system), in which one who has been cleared to receive information and who demonstrates a need for it can obtain information, whether or not the disseminator and recipient are personally acquainted. Standards for clearance should be established, and any agency with available manpower could conduct the investigation of potential recipients of information. Sharing information on other than a person-to-person basis of mutual trust will be a delicate, evolutionary process. Preservation of the secrecy of each confidential informant's identity is an absolute requirement for.any successful intelligence-gathering agency. Law enforcement agents are loath to make information available when its source could be guessed or inferred. However, great . . amounts of intelligence can be shared without revealing the possible identity of the informant, and information sharing by means of a mechanical, central security system would still be of great value. The proposedorganized crime intelligence program of the New York State Identification and Intelligence System illustrates one way to solve the problem of keeping the source of information secret. By that system,the agency that commits information to central storage would be allowed to choose what other agencies may draw upon those particular data. Federal Law Enforcement. The Attorney General should continue to be the focal point of the Federal enforcement drive against organized crime. The Organized Crime and Racketeering (OCR) Section is the coordinating and policymaking body within the Department of Justice. The Commission believes that greater centralization of the Federal.efforf is desirable and possible. Experience in some areas has shown that an effective partnership can be built between OCR Section attorneys and prosecutors in the 94 U.S. Attorneys' offices throughout the Nation. Such cooperation should be the rule for the organized crime progrm, which should not be the exclusive province of either the OCR Section or the U.S. Attorneys. Different responsibilities within the Federal agencies have produced investigators with special skills and talents. The expertise of these agents should be used by organizing them into investigative teams that work exclusively on organized crime matters under the direction of the OCR Section. The Commission recommends: The staff of the OCR Section should be greatly increased, and the section should have final authority for decisionmaking in its relationship with U.S. Attorneys on organized crime cases. .The Federal Government could also do much to assist and coordinate the work of State and local organized crime enforcement. There is very little such assistance at present. The Commission recommends: A technical assistance program should be launched wherein local jurisdictions can request the help of experienced Federal prosecutors from the OCR Section. The Department of Justice, .through the FBI and the OCR Sectio?, should conduct organized crime training sessions for State and local law enforcement officers. This training could supplement the extensive general enforcement sessions now conducted by the FBI and thc narcotics enforcement training offered by the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. The proposed training would concentrate on the development of special investigative and prosecutive techniques necessary in organized crime investigations. The Commission recommends: The Department of Justice should give financial assistance to encourage the development of efficient systems for regional intelligence gathering, collection and dissemination. By financial assistance and provisions of security clearance, the Department should also sponsor and encourage research by the many relevant disciplines regarding the nature, development, activities, and organization of these special criminal groups. In view of the additional responsibilities cast upon the OCR Section by these recommendations, perhaps its status should be raised to a division-level operation which would be headed by an Assistant Attorney General appointed by the President. Thesc recommendations for the OCR Section would not remove any of the existing responsibility .of Federal investigating agencies. crime conditions. Legislative proposals to combat o w nized crime also result from the hearings of these committees. The Commission recommends: States that have organized crime groups in operation should create and finance organized crime investigation commissions with independent, permanent status, with an adequate staff of investigators, and with subpoena power. Such commissions should hold hearings and furnish periodic reports to the legislature, Governor, and law enforcement officials. * The Commission recommends: Joseph Valachi testifying before Senator McClellanJs Investigations Subcommittee Legislative Investigations. . T o give necessary impetus to a continuing drive against organized crime, the public must be constantly informed of its manifestations and influences. The changing nature of organized criminal activities also requires that legislator^ constantly analyze needs for new substantive and procedural provisions. T h e Commission recommends: 6 A permanent joint congressional committee on organized crime should be created. A oermanent 'committee would focus the interest of those members of Congress who have in the past displayed concern with the problem, and would involve a greater number of legislators than at present. I t could mean that there would be a larger staff to concentrate on the problem and to permit consideration of the implications of any new legislation for organized crime. In addition, the creation of such a committee would place the prestige of the U S . Congress behind the proposition that organized crime is a national problem of the highest priority. PUBLIC A N D PRIVATE CRIME INVESTIGATING Independent citizen crime commissions in metropolitan areas can provide enlightened resistance to the growth of organized crime and to the formation of alliances between it and politics. A citizen crime commission can give reliable and determined community leadership to assess the local government's effort to control organized crime. I t can provide impartial public education, marshal public support for government agencies that have committed resources to special organized crime drives, monitor judicial and law enforcement performance, organize public responses, and enlist business cooperation against infiltration by organized crime. COMMISSIONS Crime investigating commissionsfinanced by State governments, such as in New York and Illinois, have proved to be effective for informing the public about organized Citizens and business groups should organize permanent citizen crime commissions to combat organized crime. Financial contributions should be solicited to maintain at least a full-time executive director and a part-time staff. \ 'At this time there are not enough. citizen crime commissions functioning effectively in the Nation. A national coordinating headquarters could be established in w&hington, D.C., to encourage and guide the creation of new commissions and to provide services to improve existing ones. Private foundation funds should be sought to help establish and administer the headquarters. It would provide channels for communication among citizen crime commissions, between such commissions and national agencies of government, and between crime commissions and mutual interest associations such as the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National Dis-' trict Attorneys Association, the National Council on Crime and Delinquency, and others. Such a headquarters could give concerned citizens in any community the technical assistance necessary for initiating a crime commission. In addition to making training personnel available for short-term assignments with local commissions, a headquarters could establish formal procedures for training professionals in crime commission management. A national headquarters could also motivate States and communities to undertake reforms in their criminal justice systems and to deal with other community problems unrelated to organized crime. . PRIVATE AND GOVERNMENT REGULATION ' . The Commission recommends: Law enforcement is not the only weapon that govern- All newspapers in major metropolitan areas where orments have to control organized crime. Regulatory ac- ganized crime exists should designate a highly competent tivity can have a great effect. One means to diminish reporter for full-time work and writing concerning ororganized crime's influence on politics, for example, would ganized criminal activities, the corruption caused by it, be legislation subjecting political contributions and ex- and governmental efforts to control it. Newspapers in penditures to greater public visibility and providing incen- smaller communities dominated - by organized crime tives for wider citizen contributions to State and local po- should fulfill their responsibility to inform the public of litical activity. Tax regulations could be devised to re- the nature and consequence of these conditions. quire disclosure of hidden, or beneficial, owners of partnerships and corporations that do not have public owner- PARTICIPATION BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT LEADERS ship. Enforcement against organized crime and accompanyGovernment at various levels has not explored the ing public corruption proceeds with required intensity regulatory devices available to thwart the activities of only when the political leaders in Federal, State, and local criminal groups, especially in the area of infiltration of. legitimate business. These techniques are especially governments provide aggressive leadership. They are valuable because they require a less rigid standard of the only persons who can secure the resources that law proof of violation than the guilt-beyond-a-reasonable- enforcement needs. They are the only ones who can doubt requirement of criminal. law. Regulatory agen- assure police officials that no illegal activity or participatcies also have powers of inspection not afforded to law ing person is to be protected from proper enforcement enforcement. State income tax enforcement .could be action. They are the only ones who can insure that perdirected at organized crime's businesses. Fodd inspectors sons cooperating with organized criminal groups are not could uncover regulatory violations in organized crime's appointed to public office. They are the only ones who restaurant and food processing businesses. Liquor au- . can provide for effective monitoring of regulatory action thorities could close premises of organized crime-owned to expose irregular practices or favors given to businesses bars in which illicit activities constantly occur. Civil pro- dominated by criminal groups. They are the ones who ceedings could stop unfair trade practices and antitrust can provide full backing for a police chief who institutes violations by organized crime businesses. Trade associa- internal inspection, promotion and other practices, tions could alert companies to organized crime's presence as recommended in chapter 4, for controlling police corruption. and tactics and stimulate action by private business. Mayors, Governors, and the President of the United States must be given adequate information concerning . The Commission recommends: organized crime conditions. Dissemination of incomplete Groups should be created within the Federal and State or unevaluated intelligence about individuals would predepartments of justice to develop strategies and enlist sent grave civil liberties problems. However, government regulatory action against businesses infiltrated by leaders must be made aware of the particular activities of organized crime groups. organized crime. Private business associations should develop strategies 'to prevent and uncover organized crime's illegal and unfair business tactics. The Commission recommends: NEWS MEDIA Enforcement officials should provide regular briefings to leaders a t all levels of government concerning organized crime conditions within the jurisdiction. In recent fears, the American press has become more concerned about organized crime. Some metropolitan newspapers report organized crime activity on a continuing basis, and a few employ investigative reporters whose exclusive concern is organized crime. The television industry, as well, has accepted a responsibility for inform.ing the American citizen of the magnitude of the problem. In some parts of the country revelations in local newspapers have stimulated governmental action and political reform. Especially in smaller communities, the independence of the press may be the public's only hope of finding out about organized crime. Public officials concerned about organized crime are encouraged to act when comprehensive newspaper reporting has alerted and enlisted community support. The briefings should be supplemented by written reports further describing those conditions as well as current governmental action to combat them. Reports of conditions should also be furnished periodically by the Federal Government to State and local jurisdictions, and by State governments to local jurisdictions. Reports should be withheld from jurisdictions where corruption is apparent and knowledge by. a corrupt official of the information in the report could compromise enforcement efforts. Public fears of reporting organized crime conditions to apparently corrupt police and governmental personnel must also be met directly. If an independent agency for accepting citizen grievances, such as is suggested in chapter 13, is established, it should be charged with accepting citizen complaints and information about organized crime and corruption. Information obtained in this way could be forwarded to Federal, State, or local law enforcement officials, or to all of them, at the direction of the agency. Names of sources should be kept confidential if the citizen so requests or if the agency deems it necessary. The above program is not intended as a series of independent proposals.. I t represents an integrated package requiring combined action by the American people, its governments and its businesses. Organized crime succeeds only insofar as the Nation permits it to succeed. Because of the magnitude of the problem, the various branches of government cannot act with success individually. Each must help 'the other. Laws 'and procedures are of no avail without proper enforcement machinery. Prevention fails unless citizens, individually and through organizations, devise solutions and encourage their elected representatives. Regulation must accom-' plish what criminal law enforcement cannot. Above all, the endeavor to break the structure and power of organized crime-an endeavor that the Commission firmly believes can succeed-requires a commitment of the pub- lic far beyond that which now exists. Action must replace words; knowledge must replace fascination. Only when the American people and their governments develop the will can law enforcement and other agencies find the way. In many ways organized crime is the most sinister kind of crime in America. The men who control it have become rich and powerful by encouraging the needy to gamble, by luring the troubled to destroy themselves with drugs, by extorting the profits of honest and hardworking businessmen, by couecting usury from those in financial plight, by maiming or murdering those who oppose them, by bribing those who are sworn to destroy them. Organized crime is not merely a few preying upon a few. In a very real sense it is dedicated to subverting not only American institutions, but the very decency and integrity that are the most cherished attributes of a free society. As the leaders of Cosa Nostra and their racketeering allies pursue their conspiracy unmolested, in open and continuous defiance of the law, they preach a sermon that all too many Americans heed : The government is for sale; lawlessness is the road to wealth; honesty is a pitfall and morality a trap for suckers. The extraordinary thing about organized crime is that America has tolerated it for so long. Chapter 8 Narcotics and Drug Abuse IN I 9 6 2 A White House Conference on Narcotic and Drug Abuse was convened in recognition of the fact that drug traffic and abuse were growing and critical national concerns. Large quantities of drugs were moving in illicit traffic despite the best efforts of law enforcement agencies. Addition to the familiar opiates, especially in big-city ghettos, was widespread. New stimulant, depressant, and hallucinogenic drugs, many of them under loose legal controls, were coming into wide misuse, often by students. The informed public was becoming increasingly aware of the social and economic damage of illicit drug taking. Organized criminals engaged in drug traffic were making high profits. Drug addicts, to support their habits, were stealing millions of dollars worth of property every year and contributing to the public's fear of robbery and burglary. The police, the courts, the jails and prisons, and social-service agencies of all kinds were devoting great amounts of time, money and manpower to attempts to control drug abuse. Worst of all, thousands of human lives were being wasted. Some methods of medical treatment, at least for opiatedependent persons, were being tried, but the results were generally impermanent; relapse was more frequent than cure. T h e established cycle for such persons was arrest, confinement with or without treatment, release, and then arrest again. And the cause of all of this, the drug-prone personality and the drug-taking urge, lay hidden somewhere in the conditions of modern urban life and in the complexities of mental disorder. Responsibility for the drug abuse problem was not -at all clear. Was it a Federal or a State matter? Was it a police problem or a medical one? If, as seemed evident, it was a combination of all of these, which agencies or people should be doing what? The Conference did not answer these questions, but it did bring to them a sense of national importance and commitment. The President's Advisory Commission on Narcotic and Drug Abuse was created in 1963 to translate this commitment into a program of action. The Commission's final report, issued in November of that year, set forth a strategy designed to improve the control of drug traffic and. the treatment of drug users. The 25 recommendations of that report have been the basis for most of the subsequent Federal activity in this field. Many of them, notably those pertaining to civil commitment for narcotic addicts and the need for Federal controls on the distribution of nonnarcotic drugs, have been or are in the process of being implemented. This Commission has not and could not have undertaken to duplicate the comprehensive study and report on drug abuse so recently completed by another Presidential Commission. Yet any study of law enforcement and the administration of criminal justice must of necessity include some reference to drug abuse and its associated problems. I n the course of the discussion in this chapter, recommendations are made where they seem clearly advisable. I n many instances these recommendations parallel ones made by the 1963 Commission. There have been major innovations in legal procedures and medical techniques during the last few years. There are new Federal and State laws and programs designed to provide treatment both for narcotic addicts charged with or convicted of crime, and for those who'come to the attention of public authorities without criminal charge. These laws and programs signify that the Nation's approach to narcotic addiction has changed fundamentally. They are a creative effort to treat the person who is dependent on drugs. Careful implementation, evaluation, and coordination of the new programs, some of which are not yet in operation, will be absolutely essential. These are among today's first needs. New ideas are only a first step. Unless the programs they lead to are provided with sufficient rrloney and manpower and are competently administered, no improvement in drug abuse problems can be expected. , T H E DRUGS AND T H E I R REGULATION The drugs liable to abuse are usually put into the -two classifications of "narcotics'' and "dangerous drugs," and the people who abuse them are usually called "addicts" and "users." The terms have been used carelessly and have gathered around them many subjective associations. Some precision is necessary if they are to be used as instruments of analysis. ADDICTION There is no settled definition of addiction. Sociologists speak of "assimilation into a special life style of drug ' taking." Doctors speak of "physical dependence," an alteration in the central nervous system that results in painful sickness when use of the drug is abruptly discontinued; of "psychological or ps'ychic dependence," an emotional desire, craving or compulsion to obtain and experience the drug; and of "tolerance," a physical adjustment to the drug that results in successive doses producing smaller effects.and, therefore, in a tendency to increase doses. Statutes speak of habitual use; ,of loss of the power of self-control respecting the drug; and of effects detrimental to the individual or potentially harmful to the public morals, safety, health or welfare. Some drugs are addicting, and some persons are addicted, by one definition but not by another. The World Health Organization Expert Committee on AddictionProducing Drugs has recommended that the term "drug dependence," with a modifyiing phrase linking it to a particular type of drug, be used in place of the term "addiction." But "addiction" seems too deeply imbedded in the popular vocabulary to be expunged. Most frequently, it connotes physical dependence, resulting from excessive use of certain drugs. However, it should be noted that one can become physically dependent on substances, notably alcohol, that are not considered part of the drug abuse problem. I t should be noted also that psychic or emotional dependence can develop to any substances, not only drugs, that affect consciousness and that people use for escape, adjustment or simple pleasure. NARCOTICS The dictionary defines a "narcotic" as a substance that induces sleep, dulls the senses, or relieves pain. I n law, however, it has been given an artificial meaning. I t does not refer, as might be expected, to one class of drugs, each having similar chemical properties or pharmacological effects. I t is applied rather to a number of different classes of drugs that have been grouped together for purposes of legal control. Under the Federal laws, narcotics include the opiates and cocaine. Under most State statutes, marihuana is also a narcotic. The Opiates. These drugs have a highly technical legal definition, but for purposes of this chapter they may be taken to include opium, morphine, their derivatives and compounds and their synthetic equivalents. The opiates have great medical value. They differ widely in their uses, effects, and addiction potential. The most common are morphine and codeine. The former is a principal drug in the relief of pain, the latter in the treatment of cough. Many opiates are prescribed for use in approved medical settings. While the misuse or illicit use (drug "abuse" includes both) of some of these drugs has presented serious problems for State and Federal enforcement agencies, public concern as to the opiates is focused primarily on heroin, a morphine derivative. This is the chief drug of addiction in the United States. The effect of any drug depends on many variables, not the least of which are the mood and expectation of the taker. Drug effects are therefore best expressed in terms of probable outcomes. The discussion here is selective rather than exhaustive. With these provisos, it may be said that heroin is a depressant. It relieves anxiety and tension and diminishes the sex, hunger, and other primary drives. I t may also produce drowsiness and cause inability to concentrate, apathy, and lessened physical activity. It can impair mental and physical performance. Repeated and prolonged administration will certainly lead to tolerance and physical dependence. This process is set in motion by the first dose. An overdose may lead to respiratory failure, coma and death. With dosages to which a person is tolerant, permanent organic damage does not occur. However, secondary effects, arising from the preoccupation of a person with the drug, may include personal neglect and malnutrition. The ritual of the American addict is to inject the drug intravenously with a needle, and infections and abscesses may be caused by the use of unsterile equipment. Euphoria is an effect often associated with heroin, often reflecting the relief a particular individual gets from chronic anxiety. Among the symptoms of the withdrawal sickness, which reaches peak intensity in 24-48 hours, are muscle aches, cramps, and nausea. The Bureau of Narcotics maintains a name file of active opiate addicts. As of December 31, 1965, there were 52,793 heroin addicts (out of a total of 57,199 opiate addicts) listed. Most of the names in the file are of persons arrested by State and local police agencies and reported voluntarily to the Bureau on a form the Bureau provides for this purpose. Thus the inclusion of a person's name in the file depends in large measure on his coming to the attention of the police, being recognized and classified as an addict, and being reported. There is some uncertainty at each step. Moreover some police agencies, and many health and medical agencies, do not participate in the voluntary reporting system. There is also no place in the system for persons who use opiates without becoming addicted. For these reasons many people feel that the Bureau's file does not present a complete statistical picture of opiate use in this country. Indeed the Bureau makes no claims of infallibility for the reporting system. I t is intended as a device for arriving at a workable estimate of the extent and concentration of opiate addiction. The Commissioner of Narcotics has testified numerous times that the Bureau's figures are only approximations. The State of California is another source for statistics on drug addiction; it maintains a file of addicts-users in the State. I t should also be noted that other estimates of the present addict population, some of which cite figures as high as 200,000, are without a solid statistical foundation. More than one-half the known heroin addicts are in New York. Most of the others are in California, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Texas, and the District of Columbia. I n the States where heroin addiction exists on a large scale, it is an urban problem. Within the cities it is largely found in areas with low average incomes, poor housing, and high delinquency. The addict himself is likely to be male, between the ages of 21 and 30, poorly educated and unskilled, and a member of a disadvantaged ethnic minority group. The cost of heroin to the addict fluctuates over time and from place to place. So does the quality of the drug. Five dollars is a commonly reported price for a single "bag" or packet of heroin. The substance purchased ranges in purity from 1 to about 30 percent, the remainder consisting of natural impurities, and adulterants such as lactose and mannitol. Usually the addict does not know the strength of the doses he buys. Today, however, the drug available on the street is generally so far diluted that the typical addict does not develop profound physical dependence, and therefore does not suffer serious withdrawal symptoms. The basic Federal control law, the Harrison Narcotic Act of 1914, is a tax statute. It is administered by the Bureau of Narcotics, an agency of the Treasury Department. The statute imposes a tax upon the manufacture or importation of all narcotic drugs. Payment of the tax is evidenced by stamps affixed to the drug containers. The statute authorizes transfers of narcotics in the original containers by and to persons who have registered with the Treasury Department and paid certain occupational taxes ranging from $1 to $24 a year. Official order forms must be used in completing these transactions. There is an exception for the physician acting in the course of his professional practice. Unauthorized possession under the statute is a criminal offense, whether or not the drug is intended for personal use. Unauthorized sale or purchase is a criminal offense. Unauthorized importation is made punishable by a separate Federal statute. Unauthorized possession and sale are also criminal acts under the Uniform Narcotic Drug Act, the control statute in effect in most States. Heroin occupies a special place in the narcotics laws. I t is an illegal drug in the sense that it may not be lawfully imported or manufactured under any circumstances, and it is not available for use in medical practice. All the heroin that reaches the American user is smuggled into the country from abroad, the Middle East being the reputed primary point of origin. All heroin transactions, and any possession of heroin, are therefore criminal. This is not because heroin has evil properties not shared by the other opiates. Indeed, while it is more potent and somewhat more rapid in its action, heroin does not differ in any significant pharmacological effect from morphine. It would appear that heroin is outlawed because of its special attractiveness to addicts and because it serves no known medical purpose not served as well or better by other drugs. Cocainc. . This drug is included as a narcotic under Federal and other laws but, unlike the opiates, it is a powerful stimulant and does not create tolerance or physical dependence. I t is derived from the leaves of the coca plant cultivated extensively in parts of South America. At present it is not the major drug of abuse that it once was. Marihuana. This is a preparation made from the flowering tops of the female hemp plant. This plant often is found growing wild, or it can be cultivated, in any temperate or semitropical climate, including the United States. Most of the marihuana that reaches American users comes from Mexico. There it is cut, dried, and pulverized and then smuggled across the border, either loose or compressed in brick form. I t is commonly converted into cigarettes and consumed by smoking. Other derivatives of the hemp plant, such as hashish, which are more potent than marihuana, are rarely found in the United States. Marihuana has no established and certainly no indispensable medical use. Its effects are rather complicated, combining both stimulation and depression. Much of its effect depends on the personality of the user. The drug may induce exaltation, joyousness and hilarity, and disconnected ideas; or it may induce quietude or reveries. In the inexperienced taker it may induce panic. Or, one state may follow the other. Confused perceptions of space and time and hallucinations in sharp color may occur; the person's complex intellectual and motor functions may be impaired. These effects may follow within minutes of the time the drug is taken. The influence usually wears off within a few hours but may last much longer in the case of a toxic dose. The immediate physiological effect.^ may include nausea and vomiting, but there are no lasting physical effects, and fatalities have not been noted. Tolerance is very slight if it develops at all. ,Physical dependence does not develop. There is no reliable estimate of the prevalence of marihuana use. T o the limited extent that police activity is an accurate measure, use appears to be increasin p'lk seizures of marihuana by Federal enforcement aukhofities totaled 5,641 kilograms in 1965 as against 1,871 kilograms in 1960. Bureau of Narcotics arrests for marihuana offenses about doubled over the same period of time. So did the number of arrests by California , authorities. Marihuana use apparently cuts across a larger segment of the general population than does opiate use, but again adequate studies are lacking. An impressionistic view, based on scattered reports, is that use is both frequent and increasing in depressed urban areas, academic and artistic communities, and among young professional persons. There are many reports of widespread use on campuses, but estimates that 20 percent or more of certain college populations have used the drug cannot be verified or refuted. Marihuana is much cheaper than heroin. The director of the Vice Control Division, Chicago Police Department, testified in 1966 that the price of marihuana in Chicago was roughly 50 to 75 cents for a single cigarette, roughly $25 for a can the size of a tobacco tin, and from $85 to $125 a pound. Prices tend to be lower nearer the Mexican source. The Federal law controlling marihuana is a tax statute, enacted in 1937 and enforced by the Bureau of Narcotics. q,. -7 O n its face the statute authorizes marihuana transactions between persons, such as importers, wholesalers, physicians, and others, who have paid certain occupational and transfer taxes. But in fact, since there is no accepted medical use of marihuana, only a handful of people are registered under the law, and for all practical purposes the drug is illegal. Unauthorized possession, which in this context means possession under almost any circumstance, is a criminal act under Federal tax law. Sale or purchase of marihuana are also criminal offenses under this statute. Importation is made punishable by a separate statute. Possession and sale are also offenses under the Uniform Narcotic Drug Act, which controls marihuana in most States. DANGEROUS DRUGS The term "dangerous drugs" comn~onlyrefers to three classes of nonnarcotic drugs that are habit-forming or have a potential for abuse because of their stimulant, depressant or hallucinogenic effect. Central nervous system stimulants and depressants are widely used in medical practice and are not considered dangerous when taken in ordinary therapeutic.doses under medical direction. They are available on prescription. Drugs in the hallucinogenic class have not yet been proven safe for medical purposes and are not legally available in drugstores. Their sole legitimate use at present is by qualified researchers in connection with investigations reported to and authorized by the Food and Drug Administration. There is an exception in the case of peyote, the use of which is authorized in connection with religious ceremonies of the Native American Church. T H E STIMULANTS The most widely used and abused of the stimulants are the amphetamines, which are known generally as "pep pills." They bear chemical names such as amphetamine sulfate or dextroamphetamine sulfate and particular nicknames such as "bennies" or "dexies" (after trade names of the two drugs). There are dozens of amphetamine preparations in the market. They are prescribed and apparently are medically effective for relief of fatigue, for control of overweight, and in the treatment of mental disorder. The amphetamines cause wakefulness and have the capacity to elevate mood and to induce a state of wellbeing and elation. This is probably the basis of their medical value. I t is also the likely reason for their abuse. Tolerance develops with the use of amphetamines. This permits gradual and progressive increases in dosage. Too large a dose or too sudden an increase in dose, however, may produce bizarre mental effects such as delusions or hallucinations. These effects are more likely if the drug is injected intravenously in diluted powder forin than if it is taken orally in tablet form. Nervousness and insomnia are milder symptoms of abuse. Physical dependence does not develop. T H E DEPRESSANTS The most widely used and abused of the depressant drugs are the barbiturates. These are known generally as "goofballs." They have chemical names, such as pentobarbital sodium and secobarbital sodium, and particular nicknames, such as "nimbies" and "seccy" (after trade names of the two drugs). There are more than 25 barbiturates marketed for clinical use. They are apparently useful because of their sedative, hypnotic, or anesthetic actions and are most commonly prescribed to produce sleep and to relieve tension and anxiety. A person can develop tolerance to barbiturates, enabling him to ingest increasing quantities of the drug up to a limit that varies with the individual. Chronic administration of amounts in excess of the ordinary daily dose will lead to physical dependence, resulting, upon withdrawal of the drug, in a sickness marked at peak intensity by convulsions and a delirium, resembling alcoholic delirium tremens or a major psychotic episode. Excessive doses may also result in impairment of judgment, loss of emotional control, staggering, slurred speech, tremor, and occasionally coma and death. Barbiturates are a major suicidal agent. They are also reported, like the amphetamines, to be implicated in assaultive acts and automobile accidents. Among the other depressants involved in the drug abuse problem are a number of sedative and tranquilizing drugs, introduced since 1950, that are chemically unrelated to the barbiturates, but similar in effect. The best known of these are meprobamate (Miltown, Equanil) , glutethimide (Doriden), ethinamate (Valmid) , ethchlorvynol (Placidyl), methyprylon (Noludar) , and chlordiazepoxide (Librium) . There is strong evidence that abuse of these agents may lead to drug intoxication and physical dependence. Suicide by overdose, and deaths during withdrawal from some of the drugs, have also been reported. T H E HALLUCINOGENS Hallucinogenic, or psychedelic, drugs and the controversy that surrounds them have recently aroused the attention of the mass media and the public. This is certainly due in part to the increasing incidence of their use on college campuses. I t may also be' due to the emergence of new substances, such as LSD, many times more potent than such older hallucinogens as peyote and mescaline. All these drugs have the capacity to produce altered states of consciousness. Generally they are taken orally. LSD, the most potent of the hallucinogens, is a synthetic drug made by a chemical process; lysergic acid is the main component in the chemical conversion. Minute amounts of the drug are capable of producing extreme effects. I t is usually deposited on sugar cubes in liquid form, although recently it has been found frequently in pill form. Swallowing such a cube or pill is called "tak- College LSD party ing a trip." the follows : A recent publication of the Medical Society New YOrk described 'uch a trip as . . A f t e r the cubes, containini :100-600 nicg. [a microgram is one-millionth of a gram] kach, are ingested . a startling series of events occurs with marked individual variation. All senses appear sharpened and brightened; vivid panoramic visual hallucinations of fantastic brightness and depth are experienced as well as hyperacusis [abnormal acuteness of hearing]. Senses blend and become diffused so that sounds are felt, colors tasted; and fixed objects pulsate and breathe. Depersonalization also occurs frequently so that the individual loses ego identity; he feels he is living with his environment i n a feeling of unity with other beings, animals, inanimate objects and the universe i n general. T h e body image is often distorted so that faces, including the ukerJs, assum; bizarre proportions and the limbs m a y appear extraordinarily short or ' elongated. T h e user is enveloped b y a sense of isolation and often is dominated b y feelings of paranoia and fear. If large doses are ingested (over 700 mcg.) confusion and delirium frequently ensue. During L S D use, repressed material m a y be unmasked which is dificult for the individual to handle. Duration of the experience is usually 4 t o 12 hours but it.may last for days. . . The same publication cited as dangers of LSD: (1) Prolonged psychosis; ( 2 ) acting out of character disorders and homosexual impulses; ( 3 ) suicidal inclinations; (4) activation of previously latent psychosis; and ( 5 ) reappearance of the drug's effects weeks or even months after use. I t was reported that between March and December of 1965 a total of 6 5 persons suffering from acute psychosis induced by LSD were admitted to Bellevue Hospital in New York. The only legal producer of LSD ceased manufacture in April 1966, and turned over its entire supply of the drug to the Federal Government. A few closely monitored experimental projects involving LSD are still in progress. Peyote is the hallucinogenic substance obtained from the button-shaped growths of a cactus plant found growing wild in the arid regions of Mexico. Mescaline is a natural alkaloid, which occurs in the same plant. These drugs have appeared in capsule and liquid form and as a powder that can be dissolved in water. Psilocybin is a substance extracted from a mushroom fungus. I t appears in liquid and powder form. Different degrees of tolerance to the hallucinogens are reported. Physical dependence apparently does not develop. There is no reliable statistical information on the prevalence of dangerous drug abuse. However, there are indications of widespread and increasing abuse. The former Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, for example, has testified that enough raw material was produced in 1962 to make over 9 billion doses of barbiturates and amphetamines combined, and he estimated that one-half of these ended up in the bootleg market. There is no similar estimate of the proportion of the more than 1 million pounds of tranquilizer drugs each year that fall into the hands of drug abusers, but the figure certainly is high. A spreading use of the hallucinogens has undoubtedly been caused in part by the activities and advertising of groups formed for the very purpose of promoting experience in these drugs. These groups, or cults, have made broad and appealing claims in regard to the capacity of the hallucinogens to expand the power of the mind to understand self, love, God, and the universe. They are likely to understate the dangers that line the route to such mystical experiences. Whatever the other causes, cases of dangerous drug abuse coming to the attention of school and medical authorities and police officials have been steadily increasing in number. The prices of illicit dangerous drugs vary sharply in time and place. Some approximate ranges of reported price are from $0.10 to $1 for an amphetamine or barbiturate tablet, from $1 to $10 for a sugar cube saturated with LSD, and from $0.01 to $0.50 for a peyote button. All of these prices represent significant profits to the , seller. A series of Federal enactments that proved inadequate to deal with the traffic in dangerous drugs has given way to the Drug Abuse Control Amendments of 1965. The statute became effectbe February 1, 1966, and is now the even perfect and total enforcement of the drug laws could principal Federal law in the field. I t limits manufacture, prevent abuse of this kind. sale, and distribution of any controlled drug to certain By multiplying the number of 'known addicts by an designated classes of persons, such as registered wholesale average daily dose, the Federal enforcement agencies have druggists and licensed physicians. I t requires that inven- arrived at the very, rough estimate that 1,500 kilograms tories be taken and records of receipts and dispositions be (.I kilo=2.2 pounds) of heroin a year are smuggled into maintained. I t places restrictions on the refilling of pre- the United States. On the average, less than one-tenth scriptions. Criminal penalties are provided for viola- of this amount is seized by all enforcement agencies comtions,. including manufacture, sale, or distribution by bined. The principal foreign sources are thought to be unauthorized persons. The first offense is a misde- Turkey and to a much lesser extent Mexico and the Far meanor; the second, a felony. Possession of dnigs for East. In Turkey, the poppy is cultivated legally, and personal use is not an offense under this statute. its opium (heroin is a refined product of opium) is an 'All of the amphetamines and the barbiturates are con- important export commodity; but a substantial part of trolled by specific language in the statute. In addition, the annual crop is diverted by the farmer from the govany other drug with potential for abuse because of its ernment monopoly to the black market, where it brings depressant, stimulant, or hallucinogenic effect may be double the price. In Mexico the cultivation of the opium placed under control by designation. Some 22 other drugs poppy is itself illicit. I t takes place in remote and mounhave been so designated, including all of the hallucinogens tainous terrain. and 3 of the tranquilizers discussed above. The statute is Raw opium diverted in Turkey is converted to morphine enforced by the Bureau of Drug Abuse Control, a newly base at points near its source, reducing its bulk by a factor created agency within the Food and Drug Administration. of (10, and then forwarded to clandestine chemical laboraAlmost all States have some statutory scheme for con- tories, mostly in France, for processing into heroin. The trolling at least some of the dangerous drugs, but. there . is finished product is then smuggled into the United States, complete lack of uniformity in this legislation. either directly or indirectly through Canada or Mexico, It is obvious that the increasing use of drugs, including and proceeds on its course to the consumer. The heroin particularly those like LSD with great potential for harm, becomes less pure and more expensive as it moves through presents a serious challenge to the Nation. the illicit channels of distribution. The same 10 kilos of opium, which are purchased from the Turkish farmer The Commission recommends: Research should be undertaken devoted to early action Harvesting opium in Turkey on the further development of a sound and effective framework of regulatory and criminal laws with respect to dangerous drugs. In addition, research and educational programs concerning the effects of such drugs should be undertaken. ENFORCEMENT Drug enforcement is a question of finding the drugs and the people in the illicit traffic. Both tasks are formidable. THE DRUGS Different enforcement considerations are presented by the opiates (meaning heroin for purposes of this section) and marihuana on the one hand, and the dangerous drugs on the other. T o get the former into the country requires an illegal act of smuggling, and their possession and sale in virtually every circumstance are criminal offenses over which the State and Federal governments have concurrent jurisdiction. The dangerous drugs for the most part enter the illicit market by way of diversion from domestic supplies. Simple possession of these drugs is not an offense under any Federal statute. Under State law it may or may not be an offense, depending on the State and the drug involved. I t should also be noted that not all abuse of dangerous drugs stems from an illicit traffic. Abuse may occur, for example, if a dose of barbiturates greater than that called for in a legal prescription is taken. Not at the black-market price of roughly $350, and which are sufficient to produce roughly one kilo of pure (in this context about 85 percent) heroin, reach the American addict as thousands of doses of substance containing 1 to 30 percent heroin and costing $225,000 or more. The estimated 1,500 kilograms of heroin illegally entering the country each year represent less than one-half of 1 percent of the licit opium production in the world, and a n even smaller fraction of the combined licit and illicit production. The problem is thus how to block a small flow from a vast supply. T o do this, the Bureau of Narcotics maintains 12 posts of duty in 3 overseas districts. Nineteen agents were assigned to these posts at the end of fiscal 1966. Thev work with authorities in the host country in attempting to locate and seize illicit opium and heroin supplies destined for the United States. This effort has had considerable success. I n 1965, for example, the agents assisted in 82 investigations, which resulted in the seizure of 888 kilograms of raw opium, 128 kilograms of morphine base, and 84 kilograms of heroin. But the effort has obvious limitations. I t is somewhat like trying to dam a river at its widest point with much too little material. The Bureau of Customs maintains a force at ports and along land borders to protect the revenue and-to detect and prevent smuggling of contraband, including illicit drugs. This is not solely an enforcement task. Many nonenforcement personnel such as examiners, verifiers, and appraisers of merchandise are involved. Also in the nonenforcement category, although they play a vital role in the suppression of smuggling, are the inspectors, some 2,600 of whom were on the customs rolls at the end of fiscal 1966. These men handle the inspection of persons, their vehicles, and their effects arriving from abroad. In 1965 more than 180 million persons and 53 million vehicles and trains .arrived in the United States. Obviously nothing more than a cursory inspection of most of them was, possible. Such inspections are not well designed to uncover illicit drugs, which are generally small in bulk and cleverly concealed, but they often do lead to significant seizures-and probably deter countless smuggling violations. The customs enforcement arm is the Customs Agency Service. This is composed of: (1) Customs port investigators and customs enforcement officers. There were 492 such men on duty at the end of fiscal 1966. They conduct vessel and aircraft searches (more than 99,000 vessels and 210,000 aircraft arrived in the United States in 1965), perform ~ n i f o r m e d ' ~ a t r oin1 marked vehicles and carry out plainclothes assignments and surveillances at airports, piers, and border crossing points. ( 2 ) Customs agents. These men, 276 of whom were assigned at the end of fiscal 1966, are the top-echelon criminal investigators within the Bureau. develop intelligence and evidence concerning violations of the criminal statutes within customs enforcement jurisdiction. Some 65 kilograms of heroin and other illicit narcotics excluding marihuana were seized at ports and borders in fiscal 1966. Approximately one-half of all 1966 he^ One method of smuggling heroin customs seizures of illicit drugs resulted from prior information received from informants. Once heroin enters the country, unless it is seized quickly in the hands of the courier, the job of finding it in significant quantities becomes even more difficult. This is because it is broken up into smaller lots and diluted as it moves through the channels of distribution. Enforcement against the upper echelons of tlie traffic is the business of the Bureau of Narcotics, which at the end of fiscal 1966 had a force of 278 agents stationed in 13 districts in the country. Lower echelons of the traffic are targets for State and local narcotics enforcement. An accurate total of the personnel engaged in narcotics enforcement in all States and localities is not available. but the number would probably exceed a thousand. Frequently narcotics enforcement is part of the responsibility of local vice control squads. Federal agents seized 156 kilograms of illicit opiates and cocaine in the internal traffic in 1965, 95 kilos of heroin coming in a single seizure. No accurate total is available for illicit narcotic seizures by all States and municipal agencies. Many of the considerations noted above are applicable to the enforcement of the marihuana laws. More than 5,600 kilograms were seized by Federal authorities in 1965, the majority of it by the Bureau of Customs at points of entry along the Mexican border. Serious Federal enforcement of the drug abuse control amendments is just beginning. A ~ u r e a uof Drug Abuse Control has recently, been established within the Food and Drug Administration. I t now has 200 agents assigned to 9 field offices. I t hopes to have 500 agents assigned by 1970. State and local enforcement is handled by the narcotic units or vice control squads. The illicit traffic in depressant and stimulant drugs is quite new, and how it operates is only partially understood. I t appears to be fed mainly by diversions from the chain of legitimate drug distribution. Diversions are known to have occurred at all points in the chain from the manufacture of the basic chemicals to delivery of the finished dosage forms of the drug to the consumer. Large quantities of the basic depressant and stimulant powders have been ordered from chemical brokers and dealers by persons using fictitious names, indicating firms engaged in research. I n some cases, involving diversions of millions of capsules over periods of a few months, drugs have been sold directly to illegal peddlers by manufacturers of the dosage form. I n other cases drugs have been diverted by salesmen of manufacturing or wholesale firms, sometimes through the medium of fictitious drugstores. Again millions of tablets have been involved. Unlawful sales by retail pharmacists and by physicians have occurred. So, of course, have larcenies from plants and thefts from interstate shipments. . Apparently unregistered drug manufacturers (whose product duplicates the genuine article in substance) and drug counterfeiters (whose product duplicates the genuine article in appearance only) are also major sources of illicit drugs. Fraudulent means of obtaining drugs, such as forging prescriptions, are also practiced. The hallucinogens are not available for legitimate distribution. I n some cases the drugs are smuggled across the Mexican border. I n other cases the raw materials are present in large supply in this country, and supplies of peyote have reputedly been obtained by placing an order with a "cactus company" in Texas. LSD, while it may be produced by a relatively simple chemical process (the raw materials are also under Federal controls), is thought to come frequently from foreign sources, both legal and illegal. The problems of detecting this drug are special ones. I t is colorless, tasteless, odorless; one two-hundred and eighty thousandth of an ounce is enough to cause the characteristic effects. T H E PEOPLE Those involved in illicit drug traffic are either suppliers or consumers. They range from the organized crime boss who organizes 50-kilo heroin shipments, to the college student who smokes a single marihuana cigarette. The opiate traffic on the east coast is in heroin of European origin and is hierarchical in structure. The importers, top members of the criminal cartels more fully described in chapter 7 of this report dealing with organized crime, do not handle and probably do not ever see a shipment of heroin. Their role is supervisory and financial. Fear of retribution, which can be swift and final, and a code of silence protect them from exposure. Through persons working under their direction the heroin is distributed to high-level wholesalers, who are also members of the cartels. Beyond this point the traffic breaks out of the hands of the organized crime element and becomes increasingly diffuse. Low-level wholesalers are at the next echelon; they are on the neighborhood level. Retailers, street peddlers (who are often themselves addicts) and addicts round out the system. On the west coast the traffic is in heroin of Mexican origin and is carried on largely by independent operators. The actual smuggling is often done by persons hired for this purpose by the operators. The marihuana trade resembles the heroin traffic on the west coast. Occasionally the same people are involved, but they are not likely to be major racketeers, or to have dominant positions in the underworld. Not enough of the people in the dangerous drug traffic have been caught to form valid judgments about the traffic's personnel. I t appears that unregistered manufacturers and wholesalers and bulk peddlers are key figures. I t has been alleged, but not proved, that trafficking in these drugs has become an activity of organized crime. Certainly the profits are there in the case of the depressant and stimulant drugs. The hallucinogenic drug traffic appears to be less profit oriented than others. T H E TECHNIQUE The objectives of law enforcement are to reach the highest possible sources of drug supply and to seize the greatest possible quantity of illicit drugs before use. These are difficult goals, given the fact that drug transactions are always consensual. There are no complaining witnesses or victims; there are only sellers and willing buyers. The enforcement officer must therefore initiate cases. He must find and take up positions along the illicit traffic lanes. The standard technique for doing this is undercover investigation during which an officer assumes another identity for the purpose of gathering evidence or making a "buy" of evidence. The use of informants to obtain leads and to arrange introductions is also standard and essential. An informant may or may not be a person facing criminal charges. If he is not, he may supply information out of motives of revenge or monetary reward. More typically the informant is under charges and is induced to give information in return for a "break" in the criminal process such as a reduction of those charges. Frequently he will make it a condition of cooperation that his identity remain confidential. The payoff in enforcement is the "big case" against the major violator with executive rank in the traffic. This man is hard to identify and harder to implicate with legal evidence. He has a shield of people in front of him, and by not handling drugs himself he removes his liability to prosecution under laws that prohibit possession, sale, or other such acts. The conspiracy laws are the most useful weapon against such a person, and over the years many important convictions have been obtained under these laws on evidence developed by the Bureau of Narcotics and-the Bureau of Customs. T H E RESULTS Judgments about enforcement results are hard to make. Experience with the opiate laws has been .the longest. There are persuasive reasons to believe that enforcement .of these laws has caused a significant reduction in the flow of these drugs. The best evidence is the high price, low quality, and limited availability of heroin today as contrasted with the former easy availability of cheap and potent heroin. Arguments based on comparisons of the number of addicts in the general population at different points in time are difficult to assess because of the uncertainties in the estimates being compared. However, there is a widespread conviction that the incidence of addiction in the general population has declined since the enactment and enforcement of the narcotic control laws. The brunt of enforcement has fallen heavily on the user and the addict. I n cases handled by the Bureau of Narcotics, whose activities are directed against international and interstate traffickers, more than 40 percent of the defendants prosecuted are addicts. However, these addicts almost invariably are also peddlers, who are charged with sale rather than mere possession. I t is fair to assume that the percentage of addicts among the defendants prosecuted by State and local drug enforcement agencies is even higher. The enforcement emphasis on the addict is due to his constant exposure to surveillance and arrest and his potential value as an informant. T H E NEED TO STRENGTHEN LAW ENFORCEMENT More customs enforcement is not a simple formula for progress. T o begin with, it must be understood that illegal importations of drugs can never be completely blocked. The measures necessary to achieve or even approach this goal, routine body searches being one obvious example, would be so strict and would involve such a burden on the movement of innocent persons and goods that they would never be tolerated. Moreover, the demand and the profits being what they are in the drug traffic, there will always be people willing to take whatever risks are necessary to pass the customs barrier. These conditions make the impact of any enforcement buildup hard to determine in advance. everth he less the ports and borders are the neck of the illicit traffic, and it is at these points that the Commission believes a commitment of more men would achieve the most. Illicit drugs regularly arrive at these points in significant quantities and in the hands of people who, while not at the highest, are at least not at the lowest level of the traffic. More frequent interceptions of both the drugs and the people could reasonably be expected if the capacity to enforce customs laws was increased. Other important benefits, in the form of larger revenue collections and the suppression of smuggling generally, would also follow. Three separate studies of the manpower needs of customs enforcement operations have been made within the last 5 years. Each has arrived independently at the same recommendation : That the enforcement staff be increased by a total of about 600 positions. .But only a small fraction of this total has, in fact, been authorized. I n the meantime the overall customs workload, from which the enforcement workload is naturally derived, has increased by 5 or 10 percent a year, a rate exceeding every advance estimate. The need for more enforcement staff is thus more urgent now than ever. The Commission also believes that increases in the nonenforcement personnel of the Bureau of Customs are necessary. In the decade between 1955 and 1965 the number of people entering the United States increased by 50 percent, the number of aircraft by almost 100 percent. During the same period the number of inspectors who examine incoming passengers and their baggage increased only 4 percent. Examination today is, thereforc, less common and less effective. This is but one example of how much faster than its manpower the custo~nsworkload has grown. The inspection force should be augmented. If a sufficient number of new positions werc created, not only could regular inspections be improved but greater customs coverage of military shipments might also be possible. I n addition, roving inspection teams might be formed and used on a random basis to double or triple the inspection strength at particular ports of cntry for short periods of time. Mail examination is another customs activity that suffers from budgetary and manpower limitations. In 1965 only 5.5 percent of 47.6 million foreign mail packages . were examined. The Commissioner of Customs testified in 1966 that the rate of examination should be at least 10 percent to insure against the smuggling of illicit drugs and other contraband and to protect the revenues. He estimated that 60 additional employees, at a cost of about $450,000, could be expected to return between $6 and $8 million annually in duty collections. The Commission believes the addition of these employees would be a sound investment and would offer at least potentially valuable law enforcement benefits. The Commission recommends: The enforcement and related staff of the Bureau of Customs should be materially increased. There are no convenient devices, such as the rate of incoming persons or merchandise, to measure the workload of the Bureau of Narcotics. The need for more funds and more staff is thus hard to document. Yet the simple fact is that the Bureau has numerous complex tasks to perform. It bears the major Federal responsibility for suppression of traffic in illicit narcotics and marihuana. It assists foreign enforcement authorities within their own countries. I t assists in training local enforcement personnel in this country. I t not only enforces the penal statutes relating to narcotics and marihuana but also administers the laws relating to the legitimate importation, manufacture, and distribution of these drugs. The Commission believes that the Bureau's force of some 300 agents, spread across 10 foreign countries and throughout the United States, is not sufficient. I t certainly does not enable the Bureau to divert personnel from the business of making arrests, seizing drugs, and obtaining convictions, to the work of intelligence. Yet given the pyramidal structure of the illicit drug traflic and the limited exposure of those at the top, intelligence activity has a vital place in the enforcement effort. The Commission recommends. The enforcement staff of the Bureau of Narcotics should be materially increased. Some part of the added personnel should be used to design and execute a long-range intelligence effort aimed at the upper echelons of the illicit drug traffic. The Commission also notes that the Federal Government undertook responsibility in respect to dangerous drugs with the enactment of the Drug Abuse Control Amendments of 1965. I t is essential that adequate resources be provided to the Bureau of Drug Abuse Control to enable it to carry out these responsibilities. In enacting the 1965 Drug Abuse Control Amendments, Congress sought to control the traffic in dangerous drugs predominantly by a system of registration, inspection, and recordkeeping. The amendments apply to drugs in intrastate as well as interstate commerce. Thus, once a drug has been placed under control of the amend- ments, State law cannot exempt from regulation even intrastate commerce in that drug. Existing State laws dealing with dangerous drugs are strikingly dissimilar. In some States there are none at all. In some States nonmedical distribution and possession f' are criminal offenses, but there are no recordkeeping or other regulatory provisions. In others a version of the Model State Barbiturate Act, or legislation patterned after the Uniform Narcotic Drug Act, is in effect. In still others dangerous drugs are controlled like any other prescription legend drugs. Some State statutes list particu- , lar drugs. Others give an enforcement agency authority to designate drugs having certain characteristics. The Commission believes that effective control of traffic in dangerous drugs requires a joint Federal-State effort. Such an effort, in turn, requires common State and Federal regulatory provisions. With such provisions there could be a pooling of strength and a division of responsibility. A Model State Drug Abuse Control Act is now being distributed to the States by the Food and Drug Administration. Under this act, which automatically subjects a drug to State control upon its designation under the Federal law, State and Federal authorities could immediately combine to control the drug. With common , < recordkeeping provisions, State authorities could concen- %, trate their inspections on retailers, and Federal authorities, on wholesalers. The Model State Act as drafted is flexible enough to permit States to control drugs not regulated by Federal law and to insert their own provisions respecting possese @*a sion, penalties, licensing, etc. '' The Commission recommends: Those States which do not already have adequate legislation should adopt a model State drug abuse control act similar to the Federal Drug Abuse Control Amendments of 1965. The recordkeeping and inspection provisions of the 1965 amendments are at the heart of the Federal dangerous drug regulatory scheme. They are designed to serve several purposes: To furnish information regarding the extent of the dangerous drug problem and the points in T?, the chain of distribution where diversions of drugs occur; to facilitate the detection of violations; and to deter violations. Yet at present the 1965 amendments specifically state : "U No separate records, nor set form or forms for any of the foregoing records (of manufacture, receipt, and disposition), shall be required as long as records containing the required information are available. There are about 6,000 establishments, including 1,000 manufacturers and 2,400 wholesalers, which are required to register and keep records under the amendments. In addition, there are about 73,000 other establishments that are required to maintain records but not required to register. This group includes some 54,000 pharmacies or ,, % ' other retail drug outlets, some 9,000 hospitals and clinics, some 8,000 dispensing practitioners, and some 2,000 research facilities. The commission simply does not believe that a proper and productive audit of such a mass of records is possible without, at the very least, a provision requiring the records to be segregated or kept in some other manner permitting rapid identification and inspection. The Commission recommends: The recordkeeping provisions of the 1965 amendments should be amended to require that records must be segregated or kept in some other manner that enables them to be promptly identified and inspected. DRUG ABUSE AND CRIME Drug addicts are crime-prone persons. This fact is not open to serious dispute, but to determine its meaning is another matter. Analysis is best restricted to heroin because of the applicable laws, because of the information available, and because drugs with addiction liability present the clearest issues. I n order to obtain an accurate idea of the drug-crime relationship, it is necessary to make a clear distinction between the drug offenses and the nondrug offenses committed by addicts. DRUG OFFENSES Addiction itself is not a crime. I t never has been under Federal law, and a State law making it one was struck down as unconsitutional by the 1962 decision of the Supreme Court in Robinson v. California. I t does not follow, however, that a state of addiction can be maintained without running afoul of the criminal law. O n the contrary, the involvement of an addict with the police is almost inevitable. By definition, an addict has a constant need for drugs, which obviously must be purchased and possessed before they can be consumed. Purchase and possession, with certain exceptions not relevant in the case of an addict, are criminal offenses under both Federal and State law. So is sale, to which many addicts turn to provide financial support for their habits. In many States, the nonmedical use of opiates is punishable, as is the possession of paraphernalia such as needles and syringes designed for such use. In other States, vagrancy statutes make it punishable for a known or convicted addict to consort with other known addicts or to be present in a place where illicit drugs are found. Thus, the addict lives in almost perpetual violation of one or several criminal laws, and this gives him a special status not shared by other criminal offenders. Together with the fact that he must have continuous contact with other people in order to obtain drugs, it also gives him a special exposure to police action and arrest, and, in areas where the addiction rate is high, a special place in police statistics and crime rate computations. NONDRUO OFFENSES The nondrug offenses in which the heroin addict typically becomes involved are of the fund-raising variety. Assaultive or violent acts, contrary to popular belief, are the exception rather than the rule for the heroin addict, whose drug has a calming and depressant effect. Illicit drugs, as already noted, are expensive. Records compiled by the New York City police are sufficient proof of this. I n May 1965, a total of 991 admitted users of heroin were arrested in New York City. The average daily cost of heroin to these users was $14.34. In December of that year, the 1,271 heroin users arrested spent a daily average of $14.04. The price of the drug is not uniform in time or place; it differs in New York and Los Angeles and fluctuates everywhere according to the supply available on the street. But it is never low enough to permit the typical addict to obtain it by lawful means. So he turns to crime, most commonly to the theft 'of property. Stolen property cannot be converted at full value, especially by an addict who needs to dispose of it quickly. It is said that between $3 and $5 in mer-. chandise must be stolen to realize $1 in cash. The mathematics of this are alarming. Assuming that each of the heroin addicts in New York City, whose names were on file with the Bureau of Narcotics a t the end of 1965, spent $15 a day for his drug, and that in each case the $15 represented the net cash proceeds after conversion of stolen property worth $50, the addicts would be responsible each year for the theft of property valued a t many millions of dollars in New York City alone. This amount would, of course, have to be adjusted to take into account the addicts who are in jail or hospitalized; those, who obtain the price of heroin either through lawful means or by prostitution, selling of drugs, thefts of cash, or any other method which does not require the conversion of stolen property; and the addicts who are unknown to the authorities. The impact of these adjustments might be enormous but it cannot be accurately measured. The projected totals are so impressive that they lead one into the easy as_sumption that addicts must be responsible for most crimes against property where addiction is widespread. But this assumption cannot so easily bc verified. Records compiled by the New York City Police Department indicate that 11.1 percent of those arrested in 1965 for those felonies against property most often committed by addicts were admitted drug (mostly heroin) users. The comparable figure for 1964 was 12.5 percent; for 1963 it was 11.7.percent. The involvement of admitted drug users in arrests for selected felonies against the person was much lower-on the order of 2 percent. The 1965 figure for the involvement of admitted drug users in arrests for petit larceny was 9.8 percent. I t is impossible to judge what any of these figures might have been if they had reflected involvement in nondrug offenses of actual instead of admitted drug users. For the fiscal years 1956-65 inclusive, an average of 8 percent of all persons committed to Federal prisons and other penal institutions had an admitted drug (again mostly heroin) use history. O n the other hand, the New York City Department of Corrections reports that surveys taken of its average 1966 population (about 10,000 persons) show that almost 40 percent had an admitted history of drug use. As of December 31, 1966, there were 4,385 persons identified as users of heroin in the FBI's "Careers in Crime program"-a computerized record of criminal histories. This data is based on criminal fingerprint cards submitted by local and Federal agencies. The 4,385 people who were identified as heroin users had an average criminal career (the span of years between the first and last arrest) of 12 years during which they averaged 10 arrests. Six of these arrests on an airerage were for offenses other than narcotics. Of the total arrests accumulated by heroin users in the property crime and violent crime categories, 26 percent were arrests for violent crimes and 74 percent arrests for property crimes. O n the other hand, all criminal offenders in the program (over 150,000) ave;aged 23 percent arrests for violent crimes and 77 percent for property crimes. Seventy-two percent of all heroin users had an arrest for some other criminal act prior to their first narcotic arrest. The simple truth is that the extent of the addict's or drug user's responsibility for all nondrug offenses is unknown. Obviously it is great, particularly in New York City, with its heavy concentration of users; but there is no reliable data to assess properly the common assertion that drug users or addicts are responsible for 50 percent of all crime. More broadly, the Commission's examination of the evidence on the causal connection between drug use and crime has not enabled it to make definitive estimates on this important issue. Since there is much crime in cities where drug use is not thought to be a major problem, to commit resources against abuse solely in the expectation of producing a dramatic reduction in crime may be to invite disappointment.' While crime reduction is one result to be hoped for in eliminating drug abuse, its elimination and the treatment of its victims are humane and worthy social objectives in themselves. PENALTIES Since early in the century we have built our drug control policies around the twin judgments that drug abuse was an evil to be suppressed and that this could most effectively be done by the application of criminal enforcement and penal sanctions. Since then, one traditional response to an increase in drug abuse has been to increase the penalties for drug offenses. The premisc has been that the more certain and severe the punishment, the more it would serve as a deterrent. Typically this . 223 response has taken the form of mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment, increasing in severity with repeated offenses, and provisions making the drug offender ineligible for suspension of sentence, probation, and parole. Federal law was changed twice during the last decade. In 1951, following the post-World War II upsurge in reported addiction, mandatory minimum sentences were introduced for all narcotic and marihuana offenses, 2 years for the first offense, 5 years for the second, and 10 years for third and subsequent offenses. At the same time, suspension of sentence and probation were prohibited for second offenders. In 1956 the mandatory minimum sentences were raised to 5 years for the first and 10 years for the second and subsequent offenses of unlawful sale or importation. They remained at 2, 5, and 10 years for the offense of unlawful possession. Suspension of sentence, probation, and parole were prohibited for all but the first offense of unlawful possession. Many State criminal codes contain comparable, though not identical, penalty provisions. In support of existing mandatory minimum sentences for narcotics violations, it has been suggested that the high price and low quality of the heroin available on the street and the fact that serious physical dependence on the drug has become a rarity are evidence that there are fewer people willing to face the risk of more severe penalties. On the other hand, with respect to heroin, it has been noted that these trends preceded the pattern of mandatory minimum sentence provisions. And despite the application of such sanctions to marihuana, the use of and traffic . . . . . . . . . . . in that drug appear to be increasing. Since the evidence as to the effects of mandatory minimum sentences is inconclusive, the Commission believes that the arguments against such provisions, which appear in chapter 5, are a firmer basis upon which to rest its judgment in this case. Within any classification of offenses, differences exist in both the circumstances and nature of the illegal conduct and in the offenders. Mandatory provisions deprive judges and correctional authorities of the ability to base their judgments on the seriousness of the violations and the particular characteristics and potential for rehabilitation of the offender. There is a broad consensus among judges and correctional authorities that discretion should be restored. A 1964 policy statement of the Advisory Council of Judges and repeated testimony by officials of the Bureau of Prisons and Board of Parole are expressions of this consensus. Application of the mandatory minimums has had some measurable results. The first of these has been a substantial increase in the percentage of the Federal prison population serving sentences for narcotic and marihuana offenses. At the close of fiscal 1965 there were 3,998 drug-law violators confined in all Federal institutions. This number represented 17.9 percent of all persons confined. The average sentence being served by the drug-law violators was 87.6 months, and 75.5 percent of them were ineligible for parole. These figures compare with the 2,017 drug-law violators confined at the close of fiscal 1950, comprising 11.2 percent of all persons confined at that time. The 1950 violators were all eligible for parole, and while average sentence data is not available for that year, it would be safe to estimate that sentences averaged much less than one-half of 87.6 months. Some differential handling of narcotic addicts after conviction is permitted by the civil commitment laws discussed below, which bypass the penalty provisions. Other devices in the present law also permit some distinctions to be made among drug offenders. First offenders charged with unlawful possession under Federal law are eligible for suspended sentence, probation, and parole. Persons under the age of 22 are eligible for indeterminate sentencing under the Federal Youth Corrections Act. Some State laws distinguish mere possession from possession with intent to sell and provide separate penalties for the two offenses. Informal practices also are common, such as reduction of charge by the prosecutor (whose discretion is not circumscribed by the law) to avoid the mandatory minimum sentence provided for the greater offense. In its recommendations on mandatory minimums, the President's 1963 Advisory Commission sought to avoid the evils of treating all narcotics and marihuana offenders alike by dividing offenses into four groups: o The smuggling or sale of large quantities of narcotics or the possession of large quantities for sale. This would subject the offender to mandatory minimum sentences. Probation, suspension of sentence, and parole would be denied. o The smuggling or sale of small quantities of narcotics, or the possession of small quantities for sale. This would subject the offender to some measure of imprisonment but not to any mandatory minimum terms. Suspension of sentence would not be available but parole would. o The possession of narcotics without intent to sell. The sentencing judge would have full discretion as to these offenses. o All marihuana offenses. The sentencing judge would have full discretion. This Commission believes that these gradations as to the seriousness of offense are sound in principle. But, for the reasons set forth above and in the discussion in chapter 5 on sentencing, it does not believe they should be rigidified into legislation. Rather, judges and correctional officials should be relied on to take account of the nature of the offense and the record and status of the offender in making their decisions. The Commission recommends: State and Federal drug laws should give a large enough measure of discretion to the courts and correctional authorities to enable them to deal flexibly with violators, taking account of the nature and seriousness of the of. fense, the prior record of the offender and other relevant circumstances. I t should be noted that parole rights have already been reinstated for Federal marihuana violators by a provision of the Narcotic Addict Rehabilitation Act of 1966. I n submitting the foregoing recommendations, the Commission also wishes to record its concurrence in the view of the Bureau of Narcotics that long terms of imprisonment for major drug violators are essential. The Commission is opposed only to features of existing laws that deny to judges and correctional officials the flexibility to deal with the infinitely varied types of violations and offenders in accordance with facts of each case rather than pursuant to prescribed rigid rules. MARIHUANA In addition to suggesting that the penalties provided for narcotics and marihuana offenses be made more flexible, the Commission would like to comment specially on marihuana, because of questions that have been raised concerning the appropriateness of the substantive law applicable to this drug. The basic Federal control statute, the Marihuana Tax Act, was enacted in 1937 with the stated objectives of making marihuana dealings visible to public scrutiny, raising revenue, and rendering difficult the acquisition of marihuana for nonmedical purposes (the drug has no recognized medical value) and noncommercial use (the plant from which the drug comes has some commercial value in the production of seed and hemp). At the heart of the act are provisions requiring that all persons with a legitimate reason for handling marihuana register and pay an occupational tax, requiring that all marihuana transactions be recorded on official forms provided by the Treasury Department, subjecting transfers to a registered person to a tax of $1 an ounce, and subjecting transfers to an unregistered person to a prohibitive tax of $100 an ounce. Under the Uniform Narcotic Drug Act in force in most States, marihuana is defined and controlled as a narcotic drug. The act raises an insignificant amount of revenue and exposes an insigniccant number of marihuana transactions to public view, since only a handful of people are registered under the act. I t has become, in effect, solely a criminal law imposing sanctions upon persons who sell, acquire, or possess marihuana. Marihuana was placed under a prohibition scheme of control because of its harmful effects and its claimed association with violent behavior and crime. Another reason now advanced in support of the marihuana regulations is that the drug is a steppingstone or forerunner to the use of addicting drugs, particularly heroin. The law has come under attack on all counts, and the points made against it deserve a hearing. THE EFFECTS Marihuana is equated in law with the opiates, but the abuse characteristics of the two have almost nothing in common. The opiates produce physical dependence. Marihuana does not. A withdrawal sickness appears when use of the opiates is discontinued. No such symptoms are associated with marihuana. The desired dose of opiates tends to increase over time, but this is not true of marihuana. Both can lead to psychic dependence, but so can almost any substance that alters the state of consciousness. The Medical Society of the County of New York has classified marihuana as a mild hallucinogen, and this is probably as good a description as any, although hallucinations are only one of many effects the drug can produce. It can impair judgment and memory; it can cause anxiety, confusion, or disorientation; and it can induce temporary psychotic episodes in predisposed people. Any hallucinogenic drug, and many of the other dangerous drugs, can do the same. Marihuana is probably less likely to produce these effects than such moderately potent hallucinogens as peyote, mescaline, and hashish (another derivative of the plant from which marihuana comes), and much less likely to do so than the potent hallucinogen LSD. MARIHUANA, CRIME, A N D VIOLENCE Here differences of opinion are absolute and the claims are beyond reconciliation. One view is that marihuana is a major cause of crime and violence. ,Another is that marihuana has no association with crime and only a marginal relation to violence. Proponents of the first view rely in part on reports connecting marihuana users with crime. One such report by the district attorney of New Orleans was referred to in the. hearings on the 1937 act. I t found that 125 of 450 men convicted of major crimes in 1930 were regular marihuana users. Approximately one-half the murderers (an unstated number) and a fifth of those tried for larceny, robbery, and assault (again an unstated number) were regular users. However, the main reliance is on case files of enforcement agencies. Excerpts from these files have been used to demonstrate a marihuana-crime causal relation. The validity of such a demonstration involves three assumptions which are questioned by o p ponents of the present law: ( 1) The defendant was a marihuana user. Usually this can be determined only by the defendant's own statement or by his possession of the drug at the time of arrest. (2) He was under the influence of marihuana when he committed the criminal act. Again a statement, perhaps a self-serving one, is most often the source of the information. Chemical tests of blood, urine, and the like will not detect marihuana. (3) The influence of the marihuana caused the crime in the sense that it would not have been committed otherwise. Those who hold the opposite view cannot prove their case, either. They can only point to the prevailing lack of evidence. Many have done so. The Medical Society of the County of New York has stated flatly that there is no evidence that marihuana use is associated with crimes of violence in this country. There are many similar state- ments by other responsible authorities. The 1962 report of the President's Ad Hoc Panel on Drug Abuse found the evidence inadequate to substantiate the reputation of marihuana for inciting people to antisocial acts. The famous Mayor's Committee on Marihuana, appointed by Mayor La Guardia to study the marihuana situation in New York City, did not observe any aggression in subjects to whom marihuana was given. In addition there are several studies of persons who were both confessed marihuana users and convicted criminals, and these reach the conclusion that a positive relation between use and crime cannot be established. One likely hypothesis is that, given the accepted tendency of marihuana to release inhibitions, the effect of the drug will depend on the individual and the circumstances. It might, but certainly will not necessarily or inevitably, lead to aggressive behavior or crime. The response will depend more on the individual than the drug. This hypothesis is consistent with the evidence that marihuana does not alter the basic personality structure. M A R I H U A N A A S A PRELUDE T O ADDICTING DRUGS , The charge that marihuana "leads" to the use of addicting drugs needs to be critically examined. There is evidence that a majority of the heroin users who come to the attention of public authorities have, in fact, had some prior experience with marihuana. But this does not mean that one leads to the other in the sense that marihuana has an intrinsic quality that creates a heroin liability. There are too many marihuana users who do not graduate to heroin, and too many heroin addicts with no known prior marihuana use, to support such a theory. Moreover there is no scientific basis for such a theory. The basic text on pharmacology, Goodman and Gilman, The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics (Macmillan 1960) states quite explicitly that marihuana habituation does not lead to the use of heroin. The most reasonable hypothesis here is that some people who are predisposed to marihuana are also predisposed to heroin use. I t may also be the case that through the use of marihuana a person forms the personal associations that later expose him to heroin. The amount of literature on marihuana is massive. I t runs to several thousand articles in medical journals and other publications. Many of these are in foreign languages and reflect the experience of other countries with the use of the drug and with other substances derived from the hemp plant. The relevance of this material to our own problem has never been determined. Indeed, with the possible exception of the 1944 LaGuardia report, no careful and detailed analysis of the American experience seems to have been attempted. Basic research has been almost nonexistent, probably because the principal active ingredient in marihuana has only recently been isolated and synthesized. Yet the Commission believes that enough information exists to warrant careful study of our present marihuana laws and the propositions on which they are based. The Commission recommends: The National Institute of Mental Health should devise and execute a plan of research, to be carried on both on an intramural and extramural basis, covering all aspects of marihuana use. The research should identify existing gaps in our knowledge of marihuana. A systematic review of the literature will be necessary. The plan should provide for an intensive examination of the important medical and social aspects of marihuana use. I t should provide for surveys of the extent of marihuana use and of the nature of such use, i.e., occasional, periodic, or habitual. I t should provide for studies of the pharmacology of marihuana and of its immediate and long-term effects. I t might also provide for animal studies. The relation of marihuana use to aggressive behavior and crime should certainly be a subject of study. So should the relation between marihuana and the use of other drugs. The Commission of course does not wish to imply that the need for research is confined to marihuana. Much remains to be learned, for example, about the potential uses and dangers of hallucinogenic drugs. TREATMENT Until quite recently treatment opportunities for opiate addicts were largely restricted to the two Federal narcotic hospitals at Lexington, Ky., and Fort Worth, Tex. Within the past decade, numerous new programs for the treatment of addiction have been developed. However, there are virtually no programs for the treatment of users of the other dangerous drugs. LEXINGTON A N D FORT W O R T H The Public Health Service hospitals were established, in 1935 and 1938 respectively, for the primary purpose of providing treatment to Federal prisoners who were addicted to narcotic drugs. Voluntary patients, who make up almost one-half the hospital population at any given time, are admitted on a space-available basis after Federal prisoners have been accommodated. Since 1935 there have been more than 80,000 admissions of addictpatients to the two hospitals. The constructed capacity of Lexington is 1,042 beds and of Fort Worth 777 beds. After withdrawal of the drug and psychiatric evaluation, a wide range of services is available to the patient. These are mainly designed to develop and improve func- . tional skills and to accustom the patient to a stable environment. T h e . recommended length of stay for a voluntary patient is 5 months, but most check out much sooner against medical advice. The hospital authorities are powerless to prevent this. There is no effective aftercare or supervision in the community, except in the case of a prisoner-patient who is granted parole. The relapse rate is high, but there is - Doctor and patients at US.hospital, Lexington growing evidence that it is not as high as the 94-percent rate found in one short-term followup study. Much depends on whether relapse is taken to mean return to drugs once during a period of time or to refer to the drug status of the patient at the end of a period of time. One recent long-term (12-year) followup, using the second method of classification, found that, although 90 of the 100 heroin addicts studied had returned to drug use at some time, 46 of them were drug-free in the community at the time of death or last contact. Among the 30 who were considered to have made the best adjustment, the average length of abstinence was 7 years. Significantly, the best outcomes were found among those who had undergone some form of compulsory supervision after discharge. T H E CALIFORNIA REHABILITATION CENTER This facility, operated by the California Youth and Adult Corrections Agency, was established in 1961. Most admissions are of addicted misdemeanants and felons convicted in California courts and committed by order of the court. The program involves a combination of inpatient and outpatient treatment. The addicts are required to remain on inpatient status for at least 6 months, although the average is close to 15 months. During this period they are divided into 60-patient units for purpose of treatment. Work therapy, vocational courses, and a full academic course through high school also are offered. Upon release to outpatient status, the patients are supervised by caseworkers with special training and small caseloads. Patients are chemically tested for the presence of drugs five times a month, both on a regular and a surprise basis, for at least the first 6 months. Failure of the test or other indications of relapse to drugs results in return to the institution. A halfway house, the Parkway Center, provides guidance for those making a marginal adjustment in the community. T h e patient becomes eligible for final discharge after 3 drug-free years as an outpatient. The capacity of the Rehabilitation Center is 2,300 patients. Between September 15, 1961, and December 31, 1965, there were 5,300 admissions. During this period 3,243 persons were transferred to outpatient status. Although many were returned to the center, 1,700 persons remained on such status as of December 31, 1965; 27 persons had been finally discharged. N E W YORK STATE PROGRAM Between the effective date of the Metcalf-Volker Act, January 1, 1963, and June 30, 1966, there were 6,799 admissions of addicts to treatment units maintained by the State Department of Mental Hygiene. The majority of these were persons who chose treatment in lieu of This is a private antiaddiction society founded in 1958. The central location is in Santa Monica, but there are other installations inside and outside California. The organization is made up and managed entirely by exaddicts, aided by a volunteer medical staff. Membership is voluntary and not always available. The addict who seeks admission must first be sckeened by a committee. Once admitted, his compulsion to take drugs is countered by "attack" therapy and group pressure. If he does not respond, he can be expelled. If he does, he can move upward to levels of responsibility within the society, perhaps to an executive position. Some members return to the community; others become permanent Synanon residents. As of March 1964, according to its officers, there were 400 drug-free persons affiliated with Synanon. started on daily doses of methadone, a synthetic opiate that is itself addicting. The daily doses are gradually increased and finally become stable. The median stable dose is 100 milligrams per day. This phase of the program lasts about 5 weeks. I t is followed by release to the outpatient phases of the treatment. These involve supportive contacts with the hospital staff and hopefully lead the patient to a secure and responsible position in society. Many of the outpatients are, in fact, employed or in school. No attempt has yet been made to withdraw any outpatient from methadone. As used in the maintenance program, the methadone is dissolved in fruit juice and taken orally under supervision. I t is always dispensed from a hospital pharmacy, and the outpatients are required to return each day for their doses. No prescriptions have been given to patients for the purchase of methadone at drug stores. The patients must also give daily urine samples for analysis. According to the sponsors of the maintenance program, methadone given in adequate doses blocks the euphoric effects of heroin and does not itself produce euphoria, sedation, or distortion of behavior. The patients allegedly remain alert and functionally normal. The question being tested here is whether an opiate drug, regularly administered as part of a medical .program, can contribute to the rehabilitation of a heroin addict. The emphasis is on drawing the patient out of the addict community and away from a career of crime and into new social attitudes and relationships. The social rehabilitation of the addict is seen as a more important treatment goal than the medical cure of addiction itself. The results of the methadone maintenance research are fragmentary. No final judgments about its suitability as treatment or as a public health approach are yet possible. DAYTOP LODGE CYCLAZOCINE TREATMENT prosecution for a crime. The treatment units are located in six State hospitals having a total of 555 beds for addict-patients; they could handle over 2,200 addicts a year. Both inpatient and outpatient phases of treatment were provided. A new and more comprehensive program for the treatment and prevention of addiction is now planned in New York under legislation passed in 1966 and administered by a new agency, the State Narcotic Control Commission. Facilities will be greatly expanded, as indicated by a $75 million appropriation for capital construction. The Commission is authorized, among other things, to conduct basic, clinical, and statistical research; to operate rehabilitation and aftercare centers; and to establish a unified program of education, prevention; care, and community referral. SYNANON This is a voluntary program serving addicts placed on probation by the local courts in Brooklyn, N.Y. I t resembles Synanon in approach, but is supported by a Federal grant and is under court sponsorship. Its capacity, presently 25 addicts, is being expanded. This method involves daily administration of a new drug, cyclazocine, which is a long-acting opiate antagonist and blocks the effects of heroin. The drug is not itself a narcotic. This treatment has been tried, with' urinalysis to detect heroin use, on a pilot basis in New . York. , METHADONE MAINTENANCE This is an experimental method of treatment for heroin addiction. Its principal sponsors are Drs. Vincent P. Dole and Marie Nyswander. They began their program of research in January 1964, at the Rockefeller University Hospital in New York City. Subsequently treatment units were established at Manhattan General and other New York hospitals. Patients are admitted on a voluntary but selective basis. Motivation and a past record of treatment failures are among the important selection criteria. The patients are free to leave the program at any time. Of the 108 heroin addicts admitted prior to February 1, 1966, 101 were still in the program on that date. The other 7 had been dismissed from the program. The first phase of the treatment involves hospitalization and withdrawal from heroin. The patient is then PAROLE Parole is of course not a medical technique, but it may fairly be classified as a form of treatment insofar as it is used to overcome a person's dependence on drugs. Several parole projects, with specially trained staffs carrying small caseloads, are in operation. The theory is that a parole agency, with its authority over the addict, is ideally situated to arrange and coordinate his adjustments in the community. Frequent contact and intensive supervision are necessary. The outpatient phase of the California rehabilitation program mentioned above is a special parole project in method, if not in name. The prototype of such a project, however, was developed in New York. The 1960 final report of the Special Narcotic Project that a clearer distinction, which would make some allowof the New York State Division of Parole described the 'ance for the quality of compulsion in addiction, should results of a study of 344 addict-parolees supervised be- be made between addicts and other offenders. ~ a l i f o r n i awas the first State to initiate new procedures, tween 1956 and 1959. Of the total number supervised, enacting a Civil Addict Commitment Law in 1961. New 119 offenders had never been declared delinquent, and another 36 had been declared delinquent for reasons not York followed with the Metcalf-Volker Act in 1962, but related to drug use. Thus 155, o r ' 4 5 percent, were this legislation was revised and broadened in 1966. Also found to be abstinent., A followup study of the same in 1966 a Federal commitment law, the Narcotic Addict project parolees repprted that, by the end of 1962, the Rehabilitation Act, was enacted. These statutes repreabstinence rate had fallen to 32 percent. The median sent the most significant legislation in the field. The results are still too fragmentary, and experience length of supervision of the 344 addict-parolees was 15 months in 1962, as against 8 months in 1959. The New still too limited, to permit anything more than tentative York project now operates as the Narcotic Treatment judgments. A process of trial and error still lies ahead. Bureau. As of December 1966, there were 22 parole offi- The Commission therefore considers it imperative that cers in the Bureau with an average caseload of 30 parolees. the treatment programs be flexible enough to follow each Treatment of narcotic addiction is by no means a cer- promising idea and technicpe'as it emerges. Most of all, tain or perfected medical art. The most remarkable it is essential that the commitment laws be construed and feature of the treatment programs mentioned above, and executed to serve the purpose for which they were inthese represent only a sample, is their diversity of method. tended and by which alone they can be justified. This Careful and continuing evaluation of these programs, purpose is treatment in fact and not merely confinement which has often been absent in the past, is imperative. with the pretense of treatment. There is great need for better standards for measuring the outcome of treatment. T o think only in terms of THE TYPES O F CIVIL COMMITMENT "cure" is not very meaningful in the case of a chronic The expression "civil commitment" is misleading. The illness such as addiction. There is little knowledge about why a good outcome is achieved for one addict but not fact is that these commitments usually take place at some another, by one method but not another. More trained point during a criminal proceeding. They are denomipersonnel are desperately needed. Methods of treatment nated "civil" because they suspend that.crimina1proceedfor abusers of nonopiate drugs must be developed, and ing and because they do not result in penal confinement. Civil commitment is generally understood to mean there is a general need for research effort in the whole area of disorder, of which drug abuse is usu- court-ordered confinement in a special treatment facility, ally a symptom. New facilities will certainly be needed. followed by release to outpatient status under supervision The $15 million for each of the next 3 years authorized in the community, with provision for final discharge if the bv the Narcotic Addict Rehabilitation Act of 1966 for patient abstains from drugs and for return to confinement grants to State and local governments is a bare minimum. if he relapses. The total commitment is for an indeterStates with drug abuse problems, but without specialized minate period not to exceed a prescribed maximum term. treatment programs must initiate such programs. Hospi- The confinement phase usually entails withdrawal of to overcome psychic dependtals and medical schools must devote more attention to drugs and therapy de~i~gned ence. The outpatient phase generally includes a variety drug abuse. This is the beginning of what needs to of supportive services plus some form of periodic testing be done. for the use of drugs. Two subjects associated with treatment deserve particAt least four types of civil commitment can be ular.mention. One is civil commitment; the other is'the identified : use of drugs in medical 1. Commitment on request of noncriminal addicts, i:e., those who are neither charged with crime nor under sentence after conviction of crime. Both State laws and CIVIL COMMITMENT the Federal law offer this with the proviso that the addict The enactment of laws authorizing or compelling com- must subject himself to a prescribed maximum term. 2. Involuntary commitment of noncriminal addicts. mitment of drug addicts for purposes of treatment has been the most important development in recent years in There is provision for this type in the California law (it the drug abuse field. This trend has broad public accept- has produced only a small minority of the admissions since ance; peqhaps it has even assumed the proportions of a 1961), the recent New York law, and the Federal law. movement. I n candor it must be said that commitment Under each, the addict is entitled to a jury trial on the of addicts began as an experiment, born less out of an issue of addiction. established body of medical and scientific knowledge than 3. Commitment on request or consent of criminal adout of a sense of frustration with orthodox procedures dicts, i.e., those charged with crime but not yet convicted and a demand for new approaches. There ,was growing and those who have been both charged and convicted. awareness that drug addiction was a medical illness and The New York and Federal laws provide for this type during the preconviction stage of the proceeding only. The California law does not provide for it at all. 4. Involuntary commitment of criminal addicts. All three laws contain provision for involuntary -postconviction commitment. None contains provision for in'voluntary preconviction commitment. THE..ARGUMENTS PRO AND CON The involuntary commitment of noncriminal addicts and the voluntary commitment of criminal addicts are controversial and raise difficult issues. The most heated debate centers on the involuntary commitment of the addict who is not accused of crime. Its proponents compare it to the practices of involuntarily committing the mentally ill, or isolating persons with serious contagious diseases; they argue that the addict is both a health risk to himself and a crime risk to others; they point to the evidence that addiction is spread by social contact with addicts rather than by the recruiting efforts of peddlers. These premises, buttressed by the right of a State to protect the general health and welfare of its citizens, lead them to the conclusion that commitment for treatment offers the maximum benefit to the individual and the minimum risk to society. Its opponents dispute both the premises and the conclusions. They contend that at the very least there should be a specific finding that the person to be committed is reasonably likely to commit dangerous acts; that mere proof of addiction is not a sufficient showing that a person is dangerous to himself or others; and that, in any event, the cornrnitment is a subterfuge-it holds out the promise of a known method of treatment, or a reasonable prospect of cure, which does not exist. These questions are not easily resolved. However, the Commission believes that involuntary civil commitment offers sufficient promise to warrant a fair test. But it must not become the civil equivalent of imprisonment. The programs must offer the best possible treatment, including new techniques as they become available, and the duration of the commitment, either within or outside an institution, must be no longer than is reasonably necessary. Another group of issues is raised by voluntary commitment to treatment, before conviction, of addicts charged with crimes. The claimed advantages of such a commitment are that the addict can receive immediate treatment and avoid the stigma of criminal conviction. The eligible addict is given the choice of proceeding to trial or being committed. If he elects commitment, the criminal case is suspended pending the completion of treatment. The objection in principle to this form of commitment is that a defendant, even though mentally competent in a legal sense, can avoid trial simply by asserting the fact of his addiction in a preliminary proceeding. Thus, so contend the critics, the ultimate issue of guilt or innocence is never reached at all. I n practice there are further objections. These relate to : 0 The period of time within which the addict must exercise his election to undergo treatment. Under the Federal commitment law, the eligible addict must act within 5 days of being advised by the court of his right to elect. Thus the opportunity to consult with counsel is doubtful, and coercion to forego valid defenses is possible. The inflexible term of commitment. Under both the Federal and the New York laws, the term of commitment is for a period not to exceed 3 years. A person facing a charge carrying an average or expected sentence in excess of 3 years would probably be induced to elect treatment, whereas a person having the same or greater need for treatment, but facing a shorter sentence, would probably elect a trial. Thus the worst offenders would be channeled into the commitment program. .The fact that a mere showing of addiction is sufficient basis for commitment. No existing law makes it a condition of commitment that a relation between the addiction and crime charged be shown. The addict is not even required to establish that his addiction existed at the time of the alleged crime., Thus an addict may be relieved of his obligation to answer a criminal charge, even though his addiction was entirely unrelated to that charge. 0 The provisions that exclude certain addicts from treatment. The Federal act, for example, makes all of the following classes of addicts ineligible for commitment to treatment before conviction: Those charged with crimes of violence; those charged with unlawfully importing or selling a narcotic drug; those against whom a prior felony charge is pending; those with two or more felony convictions; and those who have been civilly committed because of narcotic addiction on three or more occasions. Some of these exclusions do not appear advisable. Addicts charged with sale of drugs should be eligible for treatment if the primary purpose of sale was to suppop their addiction. Likewise two prior felony convictions seem an arbitrary basis for exclusion, especially since prior drug felonies are counted. Finally, a history of past treatment failure is not a valid reason to exclude an addict from present treatment. Addiction is a long process and relapse is predictable. Limited treatment goals are the only realistic ones, and the vital question to ask in 'measuring success is'not whether the addict has completely abstained but whether,he has improved in the sense of being less dependent on drugs or using them less frequently. The fact of prior relapse says little about present treatment prospects. The Commission believes that, where laws exist permitting voluntary commitment of addicts who have been charged with but not convicted of crime, judges should have broad discretion to admit addicts to treatment. Only those who are dangerous or habitual criminals aside from their addiction should be excluded. . 230 MEDICAL PRACTICE AND ADDICTION What limits does the law set on the right of a physician to prescribe or administer narcotic drugs to a narcotic addict? This short question raises issues that have been warmly debated for a long time-issues that are not resolved by reference to the general proposition that the statutory and regulatory measures for the control of narcotic drugs are not intended to interfere with the administration of such drugs in legitimate medical practice. The important issues are: How and by whom is the concept of legitimate medical practice defined and given content? Does legitimate medical practice mean the same thing as that practice accepted and followed by a majority of doctors in the community or as that approved by official spokesmen of the medical profession? If so, and if adverse legal consequences attend any departure from legitimate medical practice, how can new medical ideas and techniques safely be developed? What allowance is made for the good faith of a doctor who departs from standard treatment procedures while acting in what he considers to be the best interests of his patient? Some background is necessary to put these issues into perspective. The Harrison Narcotic Act of 1914 regulates the distribution of narcotics. I t requires those whose usual business involves transactions in narcotic drugs (including physicians) to register and pay an occupational tax, and it imposes a commodity tax, evidenced by stamps, on all narcotics manufactured. I t further requires that all narcotics be distributed and transferred in original stamped packages, pursuant to order forms provided by the Treasury Department. Failure to comply with these provisions is a criminal offense. Specifically exempted Srom the operations of the act, however, are prescriptions issued by a physician "for legitimate medical uses" and distribution of drugs to a patient "in the course of his professional practice only." The very obvious but very important point to note here is that the medical practice exemption is part of a criminal statute. A prescription of drugs that falls outside this exemption is much more than a professional mistake on the part of a doctor. I t is a prosecutable offense. The American Medical Association has adopted and issued several statements on the use of narcotics in medical practice. T h e most recent, which appeared in 1963, and is currently in the process of revision, was prepared in collaboration with the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences. I t may be, summarized as follows : Continued administration of drugs fdr the maintenance of addiction is not a bona fide attempt at cure. In other words withdrawal of the drug must be accomplished before the rehabilitation phase of the treatment cari begin. Withdrawal is most, easily carried out in a drug-free environment, in specialized wards or installations for narcotic addicts. Under certain circumstances withdrawal may be carried out in other institutional settings, such as psychiatric wards of general hospitals. 0 Withdrawal on an ambulatory basis (outside an institution) is, as a general matter, medically unsound and n o t . recommended on the basis of present knowledge.. .Ambulatory clinic plans (dispensing driigs' to outpatient addicts through clinics established for that purpose) or. any other form,of ambulatory maintenance (giving.stable doses, to outpatient .addicts) are also medically unsound on the basis of present knowledge. 0 I t is ethical practice, after consultation and subject to keeping adequate records, to administer narcotics over a prolongid period to p a t i e n ~with chronic indrable and painful conditions. when reasonable aliernate procedures have failed, q to maintain an aged or infirm addict, when withdrawal would be dangerous to life. ,Finally it .is ethical to administer maintenance doses gknerally of methadbne, i synthetic narcotic, to an ad&t 'who is awaiting" admission to a narcotic facility, and to administer limited and diminishing doses to 'an addict during a process of withdrawal. 0 Research on the problems of narcotics addiction is absolutely necessary and present concepts are open to revision based on the results of such research. ' > . The AMA-NRC statement touches on areas of active controversy-maintenance, clinic plans, and ambulatory treatment. The Bureau of Narcotics accepts it as the authoritative definition of legitimate medical practice against which all medical practice is to be measured. However, there is a small but vocal minority, composed of reputable men within the medical profession, who do not consider it either authoritative or complete. At least some of these men do not regard withdrawal of the addict from drugs as the first, perhaps not even as the ultimate, treatment objective. Some would permit addicts to continue on stable doses of narcotics, either by means of a clinic arrangement or in some other medical setting. The Commission has no doubt that the AMA-NRC 1963 statement was an accurate expression of the consensus of medical opinion about treatment. I t has been given the explicit approval of the Bureau of Narcotics in a widely distributed pamphlet. Whatever the situation might have been before 1963, there is now no reason for any confusion or apprehension on the part of physicians about their legal right to treat addict-patients in most circumstances that are likely to arise. One dilemma remains. I t is equally felt by the medical profession and by agencies charged with enforcement of narcotic statutes. That dilemma is: What action is to be taken in regard to the physician who departs, or is suspected of having departed, from the AMA-NRC stanclards concerning the dispensing and prescription of narcotic drugs? Such a physician might have acted without the pretense of treatment, or a bona fide physician-patient relationship, in which case he would clearly have violated the law. But he might also have acted in complete good faith following what he considered to be the best course of treatment for his patient. Should he then be subject to a criminal investigation? One visit from an agent of the Bureau of Narcotics might well be enough to cause him to discontinue his method of practice. I t might also deter other physicians and discourage new treatment ideas and approaches. While the AMA-NRC statement leaves room for research looking to the revision of present treatment concepts, the Commission does not believe that this alone provides sufficient guidance. Who is to know where research begins and ends? How many patients may be involved and for how long? Can techniques that have been tried before, and perhaps failed, be tried again? Who is to judge the qualifications of the researcher and the controls built into the program? These plainly do not seem appropriate questions for enforcement agencies, and yet the answers may determine whether there has been a violation of the laws that 'those agencies enforce. The Commission believes that the ultimate resolution of these problems depends on closer cooperation and liaison between the medical profession and law enforcement. Some new measures of cooperation are already in effect. In 1965, for example, a national body was formed for the purposes of keeping current the standards of ethical medical practice with relation to narcotics and narcotic addicts and acting in an advisory capacity to the Bureau of Narcotics. This body is composed of the membership of the Committee on Problems of Drug Dependence, National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council, and of the Committee on Alcoholism and Drug Addiction, American Medical Association Council on Mental Health, meeting jointly. There must be frequent contacts between this body and the Bureau. In accordance with the AMA-NRC 1963 recommendation, responsible medical bodies should also be established in each State to collaborate in the investigation of physicians under question concerning alleged irregularities in prescribing or dispensing narcotics. Questions concerning the proper limits of medical research could also be referred to these bodies. The Commission further believes that, as recommended by the President's Advisory Commission on Narcotic and Drug Abuse in 1963, consideration should be given to clarification of the Bureau of Narcotics regulation which states that a prescription for narcotics "not in the course of professional treatment but for the purpose of providing the user with narcotics sufficient to keep him comfortable by .maintaining his customary use" is an unlawful act subject to the penalties of the Federal narcotics laws. This regulation is ambiguous, makes no allowance for research, and has caused much unnecessary misunderstanding. The inescapable fact is that medical science has not come very far or very fast in this extremely puzzling field. The need for expanded research is fundamental. I t is in the interest of both the medical profession and good law enforcement that no obstacles be put in the way of such research. EDUCATION In 1963 the President's Advisory Commission on Narcotic and Drug Abuse found that public and professional education in the field was inadequate. I t found the problem clouded by misconceptions and distorted by persistent fallacies. Unfortunately these conclusions are as valid today as they were 3 years ago. Misinformation about drugs and their effects is still prevalent, and the measures taken by the Federal Government to correct them are still limited, fragmented, and sporadic. The National Clearinghouse for Mental Health Information within the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMHI collects and disseminates information, but drug abuse is only one of its many concerns, and its audience is largely made up of researchers and other specialists. Similarly, the educational efforts of the Bureau of Narcotics and the Bureau of Drug Abuse Control, while well intended and well executed, are not on the necessary scale. There is a clear present need for a single agency, having a specific mandate for education, to prepare and distribute a broad range of materials, from pamphlets to films, suitable for presentation to target segments of the public, such as college students. The materials must above all be factual. The Commission recommends: A core of educational and informational materials should be developed by the National Institute,of Mental Health. This same recommendation was made by the 1963 Commission. Since that time a Center for Studies on Narcotics and Drug Abuse has been established within NIMH. This unit might be the appropriate one to charge with the major Federal responsibility for education. Wherever the responsibility is placed, it should be discharged with the cooperation of other Federal agencies, State and local agencies, universities, and private organizations. Adequate staff and funding should be provided on a priority basis. The urgent need for a Federal response in education produced at least one hopeful start in 1966. A program to increase understanding of drug problems on college campuses has been undertaken bv the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators under a contract with the Bureau of Drug Abuse Control. Regional seminars will be held for the benefit of campus officials. Written materials will be prepared and disseminated, and methods of communicating effectively with students will he explored. This is a useful, but only a very preliminary step. It is aimed at college students only. Moreover the work will end when the contract expires in 1967. The Federal responsibility for education will not expire at the same time. The Commission believes that the educational function must be given continuing and central direction by a single agency. ' . Chapter 9 Drunkenness Offenses TWO MILLION ARRESTS in 1965--one of every three arrests in America-were for the offense of public drunkenness. The great volume of these arrests places an extremely heavy load on the operations of the criminal justice- system. It burdens police, clogs lower criminal courts and crowds penal institutions throughout the United States. Because of the sheer size of the problem and because of doubts that have recently been raised about the efficacy of handling drunkenness within the system of criminal justice, the Commission sought to reexamine present methods of treating drunkenness offenders and to explore promising alternatives. I t was not in a position to undertake a comprehensive study of the complex medical, social, and public health problems of drunkenness. T H E EXISTING SYSTEM DRUNKENNESS LAWS Drunkenness is punishable under a variety of laws, generally describing the offense as being "drunk in a public place," often without providing a precise definition of drunkenness itself. Some laws include as a condition that the offender is "unable to care for his own safety." I n some jurisdictions there are no laws prohibiting drunkenness, but any drunkenness that causes a breach of the peace is punishable. In Georgia and Alabama, for example, drunkenness that is manifested by boisterous or indecent conduct, or loud and profane discourse, is a crime. Other jurisdictions apply disorderly conduct statutes to those who are drunk in public. I n Chicago, for example, the police, having no drunkenness law to enforce, use a disorderly conduct statute to arrest nondisorderly inebriates. Some jurisdictions permit police to make public drunkenness arrests under both State laws and local ordinances. The laws provide maximum jail sentences ranging from 5 days to 6 months; the most common maximum sentence is 30 days. I n some States an offender convicted of "habitual drunkenness" may be punished by a 2-year sentence of imprisonment. THE OFFENDERS The two million arrests for drunkenness each year involve both sporadic and regular drinkers. Among the number are a wide variety of offenders-the rowdy college boy; the weekend inebriate; the homeless, often unemployed single man. How many offenders fall into these and other categories is not known. Neither is it known how many of the offenders are alcoholics in the medical sense of being dependent on alcohol. There is strong evidence, however, that a large number of those who are arrested have a lengthy history of prior drunkenness arrests, and that a disproportionate number involve poor persons who live in slums. I n 1964 in the city of Los Angeles about one-fifth of all persons arrested for drunkenness accounted for two-thirds of the total number of arrests for that offense. Some of the repeaters were arrested as many as 18 times in that year. A review of chronic offender cases reveals that a large number of persons have, in short installments, spent many years of their lives in jail. I n 1957 the Committee on Prisons. Probation and Parole in the District of Columbia studied'six chronic offenders and found that they had been arrested for drunkenness a total of 1,409 times and had served a total of 125 years in penal institutions. A recent article in a Syracuse, N.Y., newspaper illustrates the point even more succinctly: H---- F-----, 69, appeared in Police Court for the 277th time on a public intoxication charge. F-----, who has served 16 years in the Jamesville Penitentiary in short terms on the charge, was returned there for a 6-month sentence. The great majority of repeaters live on "skid row"-a dilapidated area found in most large and medium-size cities in the United States. O n skid row substandard hotels and rookinghouses are intermingled with numerous taverns, pawn shops, cheap cafeterias, employment agencies that specialize in jobs for the unskilled, and religious missions that provide free meals after a service. Many of the residents-including the chronic drunkenness offenders-are homeless, penniless, and beset with acute personal problems. THE ARREST OF THE D R U N K E N N E S S OFFENDER The police do not arrest everyone who is under the in-. fluence of alcohol. Sometimes they will help an inebriate home. I t is when he appears to have no home or family ties that he is most likely to be arrested and taken to the local jail. One policeman assigned to a skid row precinct in a large eastern city recently described how he decided whom to arrest: T h e drunken behavior of some of the inmates is an added hazard. I t is questionable whether greater safety is achieved for the individual who is arrested for his safe keeping. The chronic alcoholic offender generally suffers from a variety of ailments and is often in danger of serious medical complications, but medical care is rarely provided in the tank; and it is difficult to detect or to diagnose serious illness since it often resembles intoxication. Occasionally, chronic offenders become ill during pretrial detention and die without having received adequate medical attention. If the offender can afford bail, he usuaIly obtains release after he sobers up. In many jurisdictions a n offender is permitted to forfeit bail routinely by not appearing in court. Thus, if the arrested person has the few dollars required, he can avoid prosecution; if he has no money, as is usually the case, he must appear in court. Drunkenness offenders are generally brought before a judge the morning after their arrest, sometimes appearing in groups of 15 or 20. Rarely are the normal procedural or due process safeguards applied to these cases. Usually defendants are processed through the court system with haste and either released or sentenced to several days or weeks in jail. In some cities only those offenders who request it are jailed. In others chronic offenders, who are likely to be alcoholics, are generally sent to jail. When a defendant serves a short sentence, he is fed, sheltered, and given access to available recreational facilities. In most institutions there is such a lack of facilities and financial resources that it is not possible to do more. Austin MacCormick, a former New York City Commissioner of Corrections, noted recently: I see a guy who's been hanging around; a guy who's been picked up before or been making trouble. I stop him. Sometimes he can convince me he's got a job today or got something to do. He'll show me a slip showing he's supposed t o go to the blood bank, or to work. I let him go. But if it seems to me that he's got nothing to do but drink, then I bring him in. Drunkenness arrest practices vary from place to place. Some police departments strictly enforce drunkenness statutes, while other departments are known to be more tolerant. In fact, the number of arrests in a city may be related less to the amount of public drunkenness than to police policy. Some of the wide variations in police practices can be seen in the table below that compares drunkenness arrests by two police departments known to be guided by policies of strict enforcement (Atlanta, Ga., and Washington, D.C.) to arrests by a department that is considered more tolerant (St. Louis, Mo.) . In some large and medium-size cities, police departments have "bum squadsyy that cruise skid rows and border areas to apprehend inebriates who appear unable to care for their own safety, or who are likely to annoy others. Such wholesale arrests sometimes include homeless people who are not intoxicated. OPERATION O F THE CRIMINAL SYSTEM AFTER ARREST T h e appallingly poor quality of most of the county jails in the United States is so well known that it is probably not necessary to discuss this point at any great length. T h e fact that the majority of all convicted alcoholics go to these institutions, however, makes it imperative that the public, and particularly those thoughtful citizens who are interested in the treatment of alcoholics, never be allowed to forget that our county jails are a disgrace to the country * * * and that they have a destructive rather than a beneficial effect not only on alcoholics who are committed to them but also on those others who are convicted of the most petty offenses. Following arrest, the drunk is usually placed in a barren cell called a "tank," where he is detained for at least a few hours. The tanks in some cities can hold as many as 200 people, while others hold only 1 or 2. One report described the conditions found in a tank in this way: Although he may have been picked u p for his own protection, the offender is placed in a cell, which may frequently hold as many as 40-50 men where there is no room t o sit or lie down, where sanitary facilities and ventilation are inadequate and a stench of vomit and urine is prevalent. Comparison of Drunkenness Arrests in Three Cities I I Disorderly conduct and vagrancy arrests I All arrests 0 0 -, I Number of arrests (1965) f? 1 u Percentage of all arrests accounted for by: Drunk arrests 1 Drunk. arrests After serving a brief sentence, the chronic offender is released, more likely than not to return to his former haunts on skid row, with no money, no job and no plans. Often he is rearrested within a matter of days or hours. In a memorandum of law submitted in a recent case of a .homeless alcoholic, defense counsel noted that his client had been arrested 31 times in a period of 4 months and 6 days. Counsel maintained that "it is fair to conclude [in view of three commitments during that period of time] that he must have been arrested once out of every two days that he appeared on the public streets of the District of Columbia." ported to jail, booked, detained, clothed, fed, sheltered, and. transported to court. In some jurisdictions, police officers must wait, often for hours, to testify in court. There is a commensurate burden on the urban courts. Notwithstanding the fact that an overwhelming caseload often leads judges to dispose of, scores of drunkenness cases in minutes, they represent a significant drain on court time which is needed for felony and serious misdemeanor cases. More subtly, drunkenness cases impair the dignity of the criminal process in lower courts, which are forced to handle defendants so casually and to apply criminal sanctions with so little apparent effect. In correctional systems, too, resources are diverted from serious offenders: After court appearance, some offenders are sent to short-term penal institutions, many of EVALUATION OF THE EXISTING SYSTEM which are already overcrowded. Correctional author-itiesestimate that one-half the entire misdemeanant popEFFECT ON T H E OFFENDER ulation is comprised of drunkenness offenders. In one The criminal justice system appears ineffective to deter city it was reported that 95 percent of short-term prisondrunkenness or to meet the problems of the chronic alco- ers were drunkenness offenders. holic offender. What the system usually does accomplish is to remove the drunk from public view, detoxify him, and provide him with food, shelter, emergency med- LINES FOR ACTION . . ical service, and a brief period .of forced sobriety. As The sheer size of the drunkenness probl?m in relapresently constituted, the system is not in a position to tion to the very limited knowledge about causes and meet his underlying medical and social problems. treatment makes it impossible to speak in terms of "solutions." There are, however, some important and promising lines that the Commission believes should be EFFECT ON THE SYSTEM.OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE explored. Including drunkenness within the system of criminal justice seriously burdens and distorts its operations. Be- TREATING DRUNKENNESS AS NONCRIMINAL cause the police often do not arrest the intoxicated person who has a home, there is in arrest practices an The Commission seiiously doubts that drunkenness inherent discrimination against the homeless and the alone (as distinguished from disorderly conduct) should poor. Due process safeguards are often considered un- continue to be treated as a crime. Most of the experts necessary or futile. The defendant may not be warned with whom the Commission discussed this matter, includof his rights or permitted to make a telephone call. And ing many in law enforcement, thought that it should not although coordination, breath, or blood tests to determine be a crime. The application of disorderly conduct statintoxication are common practice in "driving-while-in- utes would b e sufficient to protect the public against toxicated" cases, they are virtually nonexistent in com- criminal behavior stemming from intoxication. This was mon drunk cases. Yet, without the use of such chemical the view of the President's Commission on Crime in the tests, it is often difficult to determine whether the indi- District of Columbia, which recommended that the Disvidual is intoxicated or suffering from a serious illness trict of Columbia drunkenness law "be amended to require specific kinds of offensive conduct in addition to that has symptoms similar to intoxication. The handling of drunkenness cases in court hardly drunkenness." reflects the standards of fairness that are the basis of our Perhaps the strongest barrier to making such a change system of criminal justice. One major reason is that is that there presently are no clear alternatives for takcounsel is rarely present. Drunkenness cases often in- ing into custody and treating those who are now arrested volve complex factual and medical issues. Cross-exam- as drunks. The Commission believes that current efforts ination could be conducted on "observationsyy of a to find such alternatives to treatment within the criminal police officer such as "bloodshot" and "glassy" eyes, system should be expanded. For example, if adequate LC staggering gait," "odor" of alcohol on defendant's public health facilities for detoxification are developed, breath. The testimony of an expert medical witness civil legislation could be enacted authorizing the police on behalf of the defendant could be elicited. to pick up those drunks who refuse to or are unable to The extent of police time allotted to handling drunk- cooperate-if, indeed, such specific authorization is necenness offenders varies from city to city and from pre- essary. Such legislation could expressly sanction a period cinct to precinct. In most cities a great deal of time is of detention and allow the individual to be released from spent. The inebriate must be taken into custody, trans- a public health facility only when he is sober. ' The Commission recommends: Drunkenness should not in itself be a criminal offense. Disorderly and other criminal conduct accompanied by drunkenness should remain punishable as separate crimes. The implementation of this recommendation requires the development of adequate civil detoxification procedures. Among those seeking alternatives to processing drunkenness cases through the criminal system are the Vera Institute of Justice in New York City and the South End Center for Alcoholics and Unattached Persons in Boston. The Vera Institute has recently undertaken a project to explore the feasibility of using personnel other than the police to pick up drunks. Included in the study is an attempt to determine what percentage of drunks will come to a treatment facility voluntarily. The Vera program would circumvent the criminal process by establishing a system within a public health framework to care forthe immediate and long-range needs of the skid row inebriate. The Boston program, which has received funds from the Office of Economic Opportunity, provides an alternative to the police-correctional handling of the homeless alcoholic. St& personnel of the Boston South End Center have approached homeless inebriates in skid row and offered them assistance. An official of the program estimates that 80 percent of the people approached in this way responded willingly. The center screens and evaluates the cases and refers homeless alcoholics to appropriate community facilities. In the past year it has handled the cases of over 900 homeless alcoholics. The importance of developing an alternative to treating drunkenness within the criminal system is underlined by court decisions in two Federal circuits holding that alcoholics cannot be convicted for drunkenness. Easter v. District of Columbia, 361 F.21 50 (D.C. Cir. 1966) ; Driver v. Hinnant, 356 F.2d 761 (4th Cir. 1966). Pursuant to the Easter decision, alcoholics are no longer being convicted of public drunkenness in Washington, D.C. DETOXIFICATION CENTERS An alternate approach to present methods of handling drunkenness offenders after arrest and -aprerequisite to taking drunkenness out'of the criminal system is the establishment of civil detoxification centers. The detoxification center would replace the police station as an initial detention unit for inebriates. Under the authority of civil legislation, the inebriate would .be brought to this public health facility by the police and detained there until sober. Thereafter, the decision to continue treatment should be left to the individual. Experience in New York and Boston indicates that some alcoholics may be willing to accept treatment beyond the initial ."sobering up" period. The center should include such medical services as physical examinations, an emergency-care unit for the treatment of acutely intoxicated persons, and -transportation to a hospital, if advanced medical care seems necessary. , The Commission recommends: Communities should establish detoxification units as part of comprehensive treatment programs. The Department of Justice has recently provided funds to establish detoxification centers as demonstration projects in St. Louis and Washington, D.C. The St. Louis center is already in full operation; plans for the Washington center are under way. Both units have sufficient facilities to house for a period of a few days those who are in need of "drying out." They also have "inpatient programs," in which patients are given high protein meals with vitamin and mineral supplements and appropriate medication to alleviate alcohol withdrawal symptoms. Bath and laundry facilities are available, as are basic clothing and limited recreational facilities. Regularly scheduled Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, film showings, work projects, group therapy, and lectures are part of the program. During their stay patients are counseled by social workers and other staff members. The police might also bring to such a center intoxicated persons charged with a variety of petty offenses apart from drunkenness, with violations of administrative code, and with such felony offenses as driving while intoxicated, assault, and larceny. If the police planned to prosecute the case, a summons could be left with the offender to in court at a later date. If an intoxicated defendant was charged with committing a the police could make an individual determination as to the most appropriate detention facility. If he seemed likely to appear in court he might be taken to the detoxification facility. Otherwise, he would presumably be taken to the local jail, unless there were adequate detention facilities on the premises of the detoxification center. AFTERCARE PROGRAMS ~h~~~is little reason to believe that the chronic will change a life pattern of drinking after a few days of sobriety and care at a public health unit. The detoification unit should therefore be supplemented by a network New St. Louis Detoxification Center --- -- - - -- - I I of coordinated "aftercare" facilities. Such a program might well begin with the mobilization of existing community resources. Alcoholics Anonymous programs, locally based missions, hospitals, mental health agencies, outpatient centers, employment counseling, and other social service programs should be coordinated and used by the staff of the detoxification center for referral purposes. It is well recognized among authorities that homeless alcoholics cannot be treated without supportive residential housing, which can be used as a base from which to reintegrate them into society. Therefore, the network of aftercare facilities should be expanded to include halfway houses, community shelters, and other forms of public housing. ' The Commission recommends: Communities should coordinate and extend aftercare resources, including supportive residential housing. The success of aftercare facilities will depend upon the ability of the detoxification unit to diagnose problems adequately and to make appropriate referrals. A diagnostic m i t attached to, or used by, the detoxification unit could formulate treatment plans by conducting a thorough medical and social evaluation of every patient. Diagnostic work should include assistance to the patient and his family in obtaining counseling for economic, marital, Or problems. Subsequent appropriate agencies will be crucial to the success of the overall treatment plan. The diagnostic unit, through referral to a job and housing service, might also assist the patient in moving out of the deteriorating environment of skid row. Philadelphia has already established a diagnostic and relocation center, which offers diagnostic, recreational, therapeutic, vocational counseling, and housing relocation services, including training in social and occu,pational skills. I RESEARCH I ' With over five million alcoholics in the country, alcoholism is the Nation's fourth largest health problem. Research aimed at developing new methods and facilities for treating alcoholics should be given the priority called for by the scope of the need. The Commission recommends: I Research by private and governmental agencies into alcoholism, the problems of alcoholics, and methods of treatment, should be expanded. j 1 The application of funds for research purposes appears to be an appropriate supplement to the proposed detoxification and treatment units. Consideration should be given to providing further legislation on the Federal level for the promotion of the necessary coordinated treatment programs. Only through such a joint commitment will the burdens of the present system, which fall on both the criminal system and the drunkenness offender, be alleviated. Control of Firearms THE ASSASSINATION OF President John F. Kennedy with a mail-order rifle offered a grim and tragic illustration of what can result when firearms are easily available to anyone in the United States. The Commission strongly believes that the increasing violence in every section of the Nation compels an effort to control possession and sale of the many kinds of firearms that contribute to that violence. During 1963,4,760 persons were murdered by firearms. During 1965, 5,600 murders, 34,700 aggravated assaults and the vast majority of the 68,400 armed robberies were committed by means of firearms. All but 10 of the 278 law enforcement officers murdered during the period 1960-65 were killed with firearms. And statistics, of course, cannot even indicate the personal tragedy each of these offenses caused. The issue of firearms control has been debated heatedly throughout the country in the past few years. Many millions of the estimated 50 million privately owned guns in the United States belong to hunters, gun collectors, and other sportsmen. Their representative organizations resist controls over the present easy accessibility of rifles and shotguns. Many other millons of firearms-pistols, revolvers, rifles, and shotguns-are owned by citizens determined to protect their families from criminal attack and their property from loss to burglars. In a nationwide sampling conducted for the Commission by the National Opinion Research Center, 37 percent of the persons interviewed said that they kept firearms in the household to protect themselves. Some citizens who fear assault and robbery in the streets of our cities carry firearms about for self-protection. Many of these firearms owners contend that control over the purchase and possession of firearms conflicts with the need and right to defend themselves, their families, and their property. Although the Commission believes that controls at all levels of government must be strengthened in order to reduce the probability that potential criminal offenders will acquire firearms, it agrees that the interests of persons desiring such weapons for legitimate purposes must be preserved as much as possible. No system of control, of course, can guarantee that society will be safe from the misuse of firearms, but the Commission is convinced T h e arsenal of a sniper who killed 12 people that a strengthened system can make an important contribution to reducing the danger of crime in the United States. EXISTING FIREARMS CONTROL LAWS Regulation of firearms in the United States is based upon three Federal laws, various kinds of State legislation, and a large number of local ordinances. The first of the Federal laws, the National Firearms Act of 1934, applies to machine guns, short-barreled and sawed-off rifles and shotguns, mufflers and silencers, and concealable firearms-not including pistols. The 1934 act requires that possessors register all of these weapons and devices with the Treasury Department, and it imposes annual taxes on firearms manufacturers, importers, and dealers. Taxes ranging from $5 to $200 are also imposed on the transfer of registered weapons and other equipment. The Federal Firearms Act of 1938 requires the licensing of all manufacturers and dealers who use the facilities of interstate or foreign commerce. I t prohibits the knowing transportation of firearms in interstate commerce to, or receipt by, any person who has been convicted of a felony, or who is a fugitive from justice. The law requires that most kinds of firearms imported into or manufactured in the United States bear serial numbers, and it prohibits the interstate transpbrtation of stolen firearms, or those with mutilated serial numbers. The 1938 law also prohibits the licensed manufacturers and dealers from transporting firearms into States in violation of State laws requiring a permit to purchase firearms. The third Federal law regulating firearms is the Mutual Security Act of 1954, which authorizes the President to regulate the export and import of firearms. Administration of the act has been delegated to the Department of State. The Department of Defense, which formerly disposed. of its surplus firearms through commercial and other private channels, suspended all such sales several months ago. I t is now considering the advisability of destroying surplus or obsolete weapons in the future. . There is a widti diversity in the purpose and scope of State gun control laws : . Twenty-five States require a license to sell handguns at retail, 8 require a permit (or the equivalent) to purchase a handgun, 11 require a waiting period between purchase and delivery of a halidgun, 1 requires. a license to possess a handgun, 29 require a license to carry a handgun, 19 prohibit the carrying of a concealed handgun, 18 require a license to carry a handgun in a vehicle, 22 prohibit the carrying of a loaded firearm in a vehicle, and 4 States require the registration of firearms. New York State's Sullivan law is the most stringent firearms control regulation in the United States. The laws of several States require that anyone carrying concealable firearms have .a license, but the Sullivan law prohibits anyone from keeping a pistol or revolver in his home ,or place of business without a license. Further, no one'may even purchase a pistol or revolver until he has obtained either a license to possess or a license to carry such a weapon. The New York law does not require a license to possess or carry rifles and shotguns, but does state that they'cannot be carried in an automobile or a public place when loaded. I n addition to the State laws, there are many county, city, town, and village ordinances that require licenses for the possession or purchase of firearms. LIMITED EFFECTIVENESS OF PRESENT LAWS At first glance, the combined regulatory machinery established by these firearms laws may appear to provide sufficient control. This appearance is misleading. A 1966 Federal Bureau of Investigation survey of the chief administrators of police departments in 10 large cities discloses that all but one believe that the easy accessibility of firearms is a serious law enforcement problem. On the Federal level, the statutes do little to control the retail and mail-order sale of handguns, rifles, and shotguns. The provision of the Federal Firearms Act of 1938 prohibiting Federal licensees from transporting firearms into States in violation of State laws requiring a permit to purchase firearms has an extremely limited effect. Only eight States have enacted permit laws. If there are local ordinances within a State, but no State law, the Federal provision does not apply. The prohibition against transport of firearms to, or receipt by, felons or fugitives applies only to direct interstate shipment and does not prevent such persons from buying firearms locally after they have been transported from another State. Despite the Federal laws, therefore, practically anyonethe convicted criminal, the mental incompetent, or the habitual drunkard-can purchase firearms simply by ordering them in those States that have few controls. Strict controls by one State or city are nullified when a potential criminal can secure a firearm merely by going into a neighboring jurisdiction with lax controls, or none at all. While information is sparse, there are strong indications that mail-order houses and other out-ofState sources provide a substantial number of guns to Federal agents seize 300 tons of guns in a single raid. those who commit crimes. One study by the Massachusetts State Police showed that 87 percent of concealable firearms used during the commission of crimes in Massachusetts in a recent year were obtained from sources outside the State. I n order to prevent criminal use of firearms, the police must have some way of following weapons into the hands of the ultimate consumer. But only in four States do police agencies have a method of determining who owns firearms and where they are located. The requirement that each person register firearms-a tool available to law enforcement in almost every industrial nation in the world-has been compared with the State control of automobiles and drivers. At a time when there were very few automobiles, registration was not thought necessary. When automobiles became so numerous that they posed a serious physical threat to society, comprehensive registration was felt to be essential. A final failing in the present system of control is the ease with which extremely low-priced, and therefore widely available, surplus weapons are brought into the United States from foreign countries. At the present time it is estimated that at least 1 million such weapons are reaching the civilian market each year. During the recent hearings of the Senate Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency, law enforcement officials testified that foreign imports accounted for a significant percentage of the total number of firearms coming into their possession as a result of having been used in the commission of crimes. The figures ranged from a low of 18 percent in Washington, D.C., to a high of 80 percent in Atlanta, Ga. The limited statutory framework within which the State Department mus; operate any effective control over the importation of firearms. If the import in question does notinvolve machineguns, sawed-off shotguns, or the other weapons covered by the 1934 National Firearms Act, each transaction is approved routinely, as long as the dealer is a bona fide businessman engaged in a bona fide business transaction. PUBLIC OPINION ABOUT FIREARMS CONTROL Public opinion on the subject of firearms control has been sampled several times in the last few years by the Gallup Poll. According to the 1966 poll, a substantial majority of persons interviewed47 percent-said they favored "a law which would require a person to obtain a police permit before he or she could buy. a gun." Even -. when the same question was put to firearms owners, a majority-56 percent-indicated thaf*,they favored police permits to purchase guns. A second question asked by the .Gallup Poll was directed to the problem of guns and juveniles. "Which of these three plans would you prefer for the use of guns by persons under the age of l a f o r b i d their use completely; put strict regulations on their use; or continue as at present with few regulations?" In response, 27 percent of those questioned and 17 percent of firearms owners said they favored completely forbidding the use of guns by persons under 18; 55 percent of all persons and 59 percent of gun owners said they favored strict regulation; and 15 percent of all persons and 22 percent of the gun owners wanted to continue as at mesent. On the question of outlawing all handguns except for police use ( a question last asked in 1959) 59 percent of the sample were in favor and 35 percent were opposed. THE CONTROVERSY ABOUT FIREARMS CONTROL While the majority of the public favors reasonable firearms control, the National Rifle Association and other citizen groups have provided an effective legislative lobby to represent those hunters, gun collectors, and other persons who oppose additional regulation. Many arguments are offered by this opposition. The most emotional position-one this Commission must reject outright-is that licensing and registration provisions for handguns, rifles, and shotguns would disarm the public and thus render it easy prey for violent criminals, or an invading or subversive enemy. In fact, all proposals for regulation would permit householders and shopkeepers to continue to possess firearms. Licensing and registration for the legitimate firearms owner would merely add a small measure of inconvenience to the presently largely unregulated mail-order and over-thecounter sales of firearms. I t is this inconvenience that appears to be the underlying reason for the opposition to more firearms control. Opponents suggest that laws calling for registration would penalize the law-abiding citizen, who would comply-while not touching criminals who would not comply. They thus conclude that such laws do not address themselves to the real problem of firearms misuse. Those supporting stricter control of firearms agree that many potential criminal offenders will obtain firearms even with additional laws. But they point to the conclusion of the Senate Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency, which found that criminals, for the most part, purchase their firearms through the mails or in retail stores, rather than stealing them. One police chief from a large western city told an FBI survey that, after permissive State legislation had preempted local controls, there were "several instances of homicide committed within 30 minutes of the time a short firearm was purchased by a person who would not have been granted a permit to purchase one under the former legislation." During the first year's operation of a Philadelphia ordinance requiring a permit to obtain a firearm, 73 convicted persons were prohibited from purchasing firearms in the city. Federal Bureau of Investigation statistics demonstrate that a higher proportion of homicides are committed with firearms in those areas where firearms regulations are lax, than in those areas where there are more stringent controls. In Dallas, Tex., and Phoenix, Ariz., firearms regulations are fairly weak. I n Dallas in 1963, 72 percent of homicides were committed with firearms; in Phoenix 65.9 percent were committed with firearms. In Chicago, where regulations are more strict, 46.4 percent of the homicides were committed with firearms. In New York City, with the most stringent gun controls of any major city in the United States, only about 25 percent of the homicides are committed with firearms. Opponents of additional controls contend that firearms are dangerous only if misused and that the appropriate legal remedy is to punish illegal use of firearmsnot to hamper ownership. Supporters of control argue that it is not enough to rely on the deterrent effect of punishing the wrongdoer after the act to prevent others from misusing guns. They maintain that firearms should be kept out of the hands of those who intend to use them wrongfully. Opponents of firearms control legislation also rely upon the Second Amendment's guarantee of "the right to bear arms." The Second Amendment, in its entirety, states: A well regulated.Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. The U.S. Supreme Court and lower Federal courts have consistently interpreted this Amendment only as a prohibition against Federal interference with State militia and not as a guarantee of an individual's right to keep or carry firearms. The argument that the Second Amendment prohibits State or Federal regulation of citizen ownership of firearms has no validity whatsoever. COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS Since laws, as they now stand, do not accomplish the purposes of firearms control, the Commission believes that all States and the Federal Government should act to strengthen them. Any legislative scheme should maximize the possibility of keeping firearms out of the hands of piential criminal offenders, while at the same time affording citizens ample opportunity to purchase such weapons for legitimate purposes. I t is appropriate to ban absolutely the sale of those weapons no citizen has a justifiable reason for owning. The Commission recommends: Federal and State Governments should enact legislation outlawing transportation and private possession of military-type firearms such as bazookas, machine guns, mortars, and antitank guns. In addition, dangerous or potentially dangerous persons should be prohibited from purchasing firearms. The Commission recommends: States should enact laws prohibiting certain categories of persons, such as habitual drunkards, drug addicts, mental incompetents, persons with a history of mental disturbance, and persons convicted of certain offenses, from buying, owning, or possessing firearms. Prevention of crime and apprehension of criminals would be enhanced if each firearm were registered with a governmental jurisdiction. A record of ownership would aid the police in tracing and locating those who have com- A gun display in a retail chainstore mitted or who threaten to commit violent crime. Law enforcement officers should know where each gun is and who owns it. The Commission recommends: Each State should require the registration of all handguns, rifles, and shotguns. If, after 5 years, some States still have not enacted such laws, Congress should pass a Federal fiearms registration act applicable to those States. Government regulation to prevent those with criminal purposes from purchasing firearms cannot be effective as long as mail-order sales and retail sales to persons living outside the seller's State are not controlled. It is essential, also, to reduce and to regulate the importation into the United States of large numbers of cheap firearms. Since sporting weapons such as rifles and shotguns apparently present less danger of criminal use than do handguns, control over the latter should be more stringent. A truly effective system of regulation requires a meshing of State and Federal action. The Commission recommends: Each State should require a person to obtain a permit before he can either possess or carry a handgun. Through licensing provisions, Federal law should prohibit mai1:order and other interstate sales of handguns and should regulate such sales of rifles and shotguns. Federal legislation to implement these goals should prohibit the interstate shipment of handguns except between federally licensed importers, manufacturers, and dealers. A Federal licensee should also be prohibited from selling handguns to an individual not living in the State of the seller. The interstate shipment of shotguns and rifles should be delayed a sufficient time for law enforcement authorities in the buyer's hometown to examine his sworn statement concerning age and other factors affecting his eligibility to purchase such a weapon, and the consent of these authorities should be required before the weapon may be shipped. Antiqu'e dealers could continue to operate under reasonable regulations. States may also want to prohibit firearms sales to persons under a certain age, such as 18 or 21, or require parental approval for firearms registration in a minor's name. Science and Technology THE SCIENTIFIC A N D TECHNOLOGICAL revolution that has so radically changed most of American society during the past few' decades has had surprisingly little impact upon the criminal justice system. I n an age when many executives in government and industry, faced with decisionmaking ~roblems, ask the scientific and technical community for independent suggestions on possible alternatives and for objective analyses of possible consequences of their actions, the public officials responsible for establishing .and administering the criminal law-the legislaiors, police, prosecutors, lawyers, judges, and corrections officials-have almost no communication with the scientific and technical community. More than two hundred thousand scientists and engineers are helping to solve military problems, but only a handful are helping to control the crimes that injure or frighten. millions of Americans each year. Even small businesses employ modern technological devices and systems, but the Nation's courts are almost as close to the quill pen era as they are to the age of electronic data processing. The police, with crime laboratories and radio networks, made early use of technology, but most police departments could have been equipped 30 or 40 years ago as well as they are today. Hospitals and clinics draw heavily upon the most recent developments in engineering and medical science, but the overwhelming majority of reformatories, jails and prisons are, technologically speaking, a century or more in the past. This lack of contact between criminal justice and science and technology is true even in the Federal Government, where, as recently as 1965, the Justice Department was the only Cabinet department with no share of the roughly $15 billion Federal research and development budget. In order to help bring scientific knowledge and techniques to bear on the problems of criminal justice, the Commission, in collaboration with the Office of Law Enforcement Assistance, established a task force on science and technology in April 1966. The task force was given the job of showing how the resources of science and technology might be used to solve the problems of crime. In the subsequent months, the task force sought: Police officer and scientific consultants check robbery data on large-kale computer. T o identify the problems, immediate and long term, that technology is most likely to help solve, and to suggest the kinds of research and development needed. T o identify and describe crime control problems in a form susceptible to quantitative analysis. T o point out the kinds of important data on crime control and the criminal justice system that are lacking, unreliable or otherwise unusable, and to propose means of correcting such deficiencies. T o analyze problems in crime assessment, police, courts, and corrections as an aid to the Commission and its other task forces. T o suggest organizational formats within which technological devices and systems can be developed, field tested, and rendered useful. With a scope so broad, and limited time and manpower, only a few problems could be studied in detail. The task force gave major attention to computer technology, information systems, c6mmunications engineering, and systems analysis, since these appeared to offer the greatest unrealized potentials for systemwide improvement. Within the criminal justice system, the greatest potential for immediate improvement by technological innovation appeared to be in police 'operations, and so the task force looked particularly hard at the police and somewhat less hard at courts and corrections. Some of the results are presented here and detailed in the task force report. The results included : 0 A compilation of field data examining certain relation- ships between police patrol operations and the apprehension of criminals. A proposal for improving police responsiveness to calls at minimum cost. 0 A program that could, dramatically reduce police radio frequency congestion. A research and development program for developing a semiautomatic fingerprint recognition capability, to replace the present system which cannot regularly trace a criminal with 'less than a full set of prints. Studies examining possible alternative alarm systems, nonlethal weapons, and other technological innovations for police operations. El A procedure for reducing cemin unnecessary delays in moving criminal cases through the courts. An examination of how programed learning techniques can be used in the rehabilitation of young offenders. fl A review of the application of statistical techniques to decisions about treatment of convicted criminals. O Methods for making auto theft more difficult, which automobile manufacturers have agreed to incorporate into the design of future models. U An exploratory attempt to apply systems analysis to the overall criminal justice system, which produced several highly suggestive but still tentative results. 17 An outline, but not a detailed design, of a national information system for criminal justice agencies. U A proposal for a national research and development program. These results are only illustrations of the potential contributions of science and technology to crime control. They must be developed in detail for each local situation, and they suggest many other opportunities. As illustrations, however, they appear to offer sufficient promise of the potential benefits from science and technology to warrant major further work immediately. Modern technology can provide many new devices to improve the operations of criminal justice agencies, and particularly to help the police deter crime and apprehend criminals. I t is far easier, however, to imagine and develop devices than to choose the ones in which to invest necessarily limited equipment budgets. Technology can indeed fill most reasonable requests and can thereby provide considerable help to law enforcement. We must still decide what devices we want relative to the price we are willing to pay in dollars, invasion of privacy, and other social costs. I t is technically feasible, for example, to cut auto theft drastically by putting a radio transmitter in every car in America and tracking all cars continuously. But this might cost a billion dollars and, even more important, create an intolerable environment of unending surveillance. Science can provide,the capability, but the public as a whole must participate in the value discussion of whether or not the capability is worth its financial and social costs. Furthermore, no one can say what most devices or systems will do about crime; little is known of what anything will do about crime. The effect of this or that device upon crime will be speculative until careful field evalua- Apprehension Process tions are conducted. However, not all technological innovations can be postponed until these evaluations are completed. Judgment must identify where technology appears to offer the greatest promise. This may involve some wasted effort, but the urgency of crime control warG rants the risk of some waste. Introduction of appropriate technology is often hindered by budgets, which not very helpfully distinguish between "equipment" and "personnel" rather than between functions such as "general-purpose police patrol" and "investigation of homicide." For example, since a two-man car on continuous patrol costs about $100,000 @ per year, it would be surprising if patrol operations could not be significantly improved by a capital investment exceeding the current $3,000 per car. But such an investment might severely strain the equipment budget, and might be passed up, even if it could result in a much larger saving in personnel costs. Dollars could be allocated more rationally by making use of the program budgeting techniques now being used by the Federal Government. Because of the enormous range of technological possibilities, it is essential to begin not with technology but with problems. Technological efforts can then be concentrated where they are most likely to be productive. Systems analysis has been used most successfully in fields C like national defense and mass transportation to determine where technological resources can most usefully be directed over a broad field of concern. These techniques and approaches can be usefully applied to the problems of crime control, relating alternative means to desired ends. Because of the importance of this approach, the task force has illustrated how systems analysis might be applied in a small number of cases: T o reduce courtroom delay, to speed police response to a call, and to examine the overall criminal justice system in an integrated way. Because the task force on science and technology brought a new viewpoint and analytical and quantita- 0 tive techniques to the subject matter, the Commission encouraged it to examine some of the basic problems of crime and crime control not within the traditional boundaries of science and technology. As a result, a number of ideas and conceptions were uncovered that provided significant new insights into the problems with 0 which the Commission dealt. One of several possible examples can serve to illustrate this point. Although it is common knowledge that the number of arrests made each e Figure i By Alarms Witnesses Victims and other means Crime C r i m e Committed Detected -Information Communicated to Police -Appropriate -Police Cars Police Response Selected Dispatched to Crime Scene by Radio * i i LBY Patrol year in the United States for nontraffic offenses is very large (the FBI estimates exceed -6 million), it has never been. known what percen,tage of the ,population is arrested. This percentage depends strongly on the proportion of arrests that are of persons never.before arrested. This proportion is difficult to estimate because of the incom~letenessof arrest records. A mathematical analysis performed by the task force used a conservative estimate-one new offender in eight arrests-and indicated tentatively that about 40 percent of the male children living in the United States today will be arrested for a nontra$c offense sometime in their lives. The proportion is even higher for boys living in a city. If sustained by additional data, these startling results refute the common notion that most people never encounter the criminal justice system, and only a small class of "criminals" do. Although this statistic and many like it are vital to understanding how the system operates, there are no estimates, however tentative, of many such numbers. Reasonable estimates of the numbers connected with crime and the criminal iustice system are necessary for a systematic analysis of crime control. Virtually all the efforts of the Commission have been hampered by the pervasive lack of adequate objective information about crime and the possible effects of various techniques for crime control. Each year, judges in this country pass roughly 2 million sentences. Almost all, sentencing decisions are made with little or no information on the likely effect. ofi the sentence on future criminal .behavior. About 200,000 policemen spend half of their Yet, no police chief can time on "preventive" obtain even a rough estimate of how much crime is thereby "prevented." The factfinding, analytical, and experimental methods of science offer one approach to identifying some of the important questions and developing the required information. POLICE OPERATIONS Of all criminal justice agencies, the police traditionally have had the closest ties to science and technology, but they have called on scientifid resources primarily to help in the solution of specific serious crimes, rather than for assistance in solving general problems of policing. The task force focused its efforts on some illustrative applications of science and technology to the broad problems of police operations. The police control crime primarily by apprehending criminals and by posing a convincing threat of apprehension. The apprehension process (figure 1) beginsSeither with the detection of a crime by patrol or by a report to the police, followed by the dispatch of police to the scene. Then come search, investigation, interrogation, data gathering, suspect checkouts and arrest, sometimes followed by more investigation and assistance in prosecution. The police field operations centering around apprehension are closely tied to technology. Automobiles, radios, crime laboratories, scientific investigation, and police weaponry are essential technical aids to the operations of a modern police force. Science and technology can improve the capabilities of the police in the apprehension process. However, many promising developments are inhibited by the lack of data on just what situations confront the police, and by the lack of systematic studies of police patrol and apprehension operations. A number of studies have been undertaken in the past, but much.more potential lies in the use of new analysis techniques and the opportunities for computer processing of the data. T o try to illustrate some of these potentials, the task force undertook a limited first-hand study of police operations. I t then conducted an illustrative cost-effectiveness analysis comparing alternative means of reducing response time. These studies.are summarized in this section, followed by an examination of the sequence of stages in the apprehension process--detection, communication to police, police command and control and communications, evidence gathering by fingerprints and analysis by crime laboratories-to identify some of the scientific and technological contributions to each. ANALYSIS OF FIELD DATA ON APPREHENSIONS The purpose of this study, conducted with the Los Angeles Police Department, was to identify and assess the influence of various factors in the apprehension process on the solution of crimes. The study was, essentially, an analysis of records: Reports of calls for service, patrol field activity, crimes, detective investigations, arrests, and other case clearances. Data were collected on time delays within the communications~dispatchingcenter and ,responsetime in the field. Of the total of 1,905 crimes examined in the study, 25 percent (482) resulted in arrests or other -clearances. Seventy percent of the cleared cases were cleared by ar- Arrive at Scene - Police Cars Travel to Crime Scene Hot Search in Crime Vicinity Warm Search in Crime Vicinity Cold Search by Detectives Check out Suspects Gather Evidence 1 Apprehend Suspect Between Response Time and rests, 90 percent of which were made by the patrol force. Table 1 .-Relation Arrests More than half the arrests were made within 8 hours of the crime, and almost two-thirds of the arrests were made Average Average Average within the first week of the crime. Typeof call communlca- field recombined t i o g t e r .pan. time The most significant factor in clearance is whether or (travel time) (minutes) 0 (minutes) (minutes) not a suspect is named in the crime report. As shown in -figure 2 if a suspect is neither known,to the victim nor Emergency Crime uncleared----1.92 4.38 -- 6.30 arrested at the scene of the crime, the chances of ever arArrest made ---__--1.11 3.00 4.11 resting him are slim. Of the 482 cleared cases, 63 perNanemergency Crime uncleared..-.3.84 14.00 7.84 cent involved "named suspects." Of these, about half inbut urgent. Arrest made_--__.-2.61 2.71 5.32 volved suspects actually known to the victim, about 30 7.25 112.94 2 20.19 percent were on-the-scene arrests by patrol officers and AH other nonemergency Crime uncleared....Arrest made--...--4.561 10.20 another 20 percent by store security officers. The maI I jority of the crime cases, a total of 1,556 (82 percent), in1 Ve small sample. 2 ~eakctshigh proportion of "take report" calls. volved suspects not named in the crime report. Of these, 1,375 (88 percent) were not cleared. Most of the cleared cases with unknown suspects were cleared because of an The Commission recommends: on-the-scene arrest, initiated either by radio call or by 43 field observation. These results suggested examining the Similar studies exploring the detailed characteristics of importance of rapid response in catching the suspect at crimes, arrests,. and field investigation practices should be undertaken in large metropolitan police departments. the scene. From table 1, the overall police response time for Among the matters to be considered, as shown by the emergency calls is seen to average 6.3 minutes for those cases involving crimes subsequently not cleared. The Los Angeles study, are : average is only 4.1 minutes for cases in which the police Criteria for priority of dispatching of patrol cars. were able to make an arrest. A similar difference Design and tests of sets of criteria for emergency exists for the calls classified as nonemergency. Thus, for response. Los Angeles, on the basis of these data, short response Assessing in more detail the effects of response time. time correlates with ability to make an arrest. Sampling incoming calls and following them through A similar picture results when the probability of arrest activitiesinto the field. is related to response time. When response time was 1 Use of equipment, such as portable recording devices, minute, 62 percent of the cases ended in arrest. When all to simplify data collection by the investigating officer. cases with response time under 16 minutes were grouped together, only 44 percent red to arrest. The correlation This kind of factual study could also be extremely valubetween arrest and response time may. be a cause-andable in determining the effects on later stages in the effect relationship, or it may have developed through criminal process of the questioning of suspects, warning some third factor to which both arrest and response time them as to their rights, and introducing counsel into the are related. More carefully controlled tests than were situation. possible in the time available are needed to establish a definitive causal relation. 1 1 1 I 1-1 ez I e; SYSTEMS ANALYSIS ,OF RESPONSE TIME I N Clearance of Crimes with Named and Unnamed Suspects. 1,905 crimes Total Clearance Rate = 25% A HYPOTHETICAL CITY Figure 2 ( 4 8 cases) Uncleared (1,375 c a s e s ) Named Suspects Unnamed Suspects (349 cases) Clearance Rate = 86% (1,556 cases) C l e a r a n c e R a t e = 12% On the basis of the correlation between response time 2 and arrests, and because officials desire rapid response to 4 create an impression of effective police presence as well as to aid in apprehension, the task force examined means of reducing response time. In particular, an analysis was conducted to determine how to get the greatest reduction in response time per dollar of cost. This analysis was accomplished by making a mathematical model of the apprehension process in a hypothetical city. Although the numerical values used in this example, being based on averages from several large cities, typify a major city in the United States, any police department would in practice have to use data developed for its specific case. -, The hypothetical city is assumed to cover 100 square u miles and to have the police force, telephone system, and other variables shown in table 2. A city this size would e Table 2.-~escription Table 3.-Resources Associated With Time Delays in t h e Apprehension Process of Hypothetical City Details Item Components of response time Resources The city is a 10- by 10-mile square. Geography ....-.....------------Rate of call receipt 40 calls per hour or approxirnately 350,000 calls per ..-...-..-.... 1 yearare handled by the pollee telephonecomplaint clerks. 30 one-man mobile units are dispatched per hour. Rate of police mobile unit dispatch.. 40 one-man patrol cars. Total mobile force 2......-.--.--.- Time from detection until attempt is made to transmit message to police dispatcher. Police callboxes, olice radio network,common carrler tefephone automatic alarm and associated commun)icatlons. Incoming message queue waiting time ...-.. 1 Telephone operators. -- 25 m.p.h. Speed of mobile force ...-...-.-... Public telephone distribution.-..-.I I Time untildetection .-..-.,.-.-----------Police patrol unit, sensors, alarms, public's response. Control center response time--. - 1,000 distributed uniformly throughout city. .--.-...--. Police control center internal operations. Field force response time.. ......-......-. Patrol unit, car-location devices. 1 Patrol time at crime scene......... 30 minutes average. Number of call complaint clerks .... 2 or 3. I This might be typical for a city of about 500,000 population. Considersonlymobile units ass~gnedto patrol funct~onsIndependent of special detective forces and supervisory vehicles. have a population of about 50PJ000and be comparable in population density to Atlanta or Indianapolis. I n the analysis, time delays.in the apprehension process were related to system resources (table 3 ) , and costs were associated with each resource. The analysis computes the time reduction and costs associated with various means of reducing response time. The improvements were measured in seconds of delay saved per dollar. The results of the analysis are summarized in table 4. I n the first column the delays caused by each activity are identified. For example, the patrol mobility delay is the time from the termination of the dispatch order to arrival at the scene of the crime. The basic operating unit associated with this activity is a one-man patrol car (col. 2 ) . The number of such units already in use is 40 (col. 3 ) . The amount of this delay is 2 16 seconds (col. 4 ) . If one additional unit were added, response time would decrease by 4 seconds (col. 5 ) . The patrol unit is expected to be used 264,000 times a year (col. 6 ) . The cost of an additional unit is $50,000 per year (col. 7 ) . Multiplying the delay saved per call per additional unit (col. 5 ) by the frequency of use (col. 6 ) and' dividing by the cost of the additional unit (col. 7 ) , one obtains the number of seconds saved per dollar, 2 1.1 seconds (col. 8 ) . Employing this technique, one can evaluate the changes in other components such as the complaint clerk, public callbox, automatic car locator, and computer and colTable 4.-Cost-Effectiveness Elements of delay lateral equipment for the communications center. For this case, automating the command center is seen to be the most attractive alternative. If there are only two complaint clerks, adding a third is the next most desirable step. As is shown in table 4, adding a fourth would not be desirable. Among the conclusions about the hypothetical city that may be drawn from detailed analysis of the sort illustrated are : Automatic car-locator systems costing $100,000 or less per year to operate would decrease the system delay a t least twice as much as a comparable investment in additional patrol units. Since telephone waiting time is very sensitive to load, an additional complaint clerk would be. warranted in places where the 'clerks are now busy. Since the hypothetical city already has public callboxes, the incremental value of additional ones would be low. The effectiveness of callboxes is relatively large, so that cities that now keep their callboxes locked should open them to the public. Random detection of crimes by patrolling cars is an infrequent event, except in the case of stolen cars. A might expect to observe a street robbery once every 14 years. These results apply directly only to the hypothetical city just described but they suggest what might be learned from similar analyses in real cities. Analysis of Delay Reduction in Hypothetical City Basic unit 1 Number of units currently allocated 1 . Delay time (seconds) 1 1 Seconds of delay saved Frequency of pe!,call per, use(calls/year) addlt~onalunit 1 Cost per year of additional unt 1 Seconds of delay saved per dollar allocated I Telephone queue waiting time .....--...-. Complaint clerks. Delay due to lack of command and control function automation. Delay due to lack of knowledge of exact position of patrol unit. I 71.7 .-.-..-.-...-.-.... .. Computer and related hardware for cornmand and control center. 0 1 120 1 90 1 1 1 1 1 Automatic car locator system .........-. Patrol mobility delay .-,-........------.. I-man patrol car.. ......-.---.-.---.-- a: 264,000 20 6 18 4 1 200,000 -- -- 264. WO 100, WO 50,000 1 I 119 47. 5 21.1 are not recommended. Accessible street emergency communication facilities, discussed below, can serve many of the same functions, and can be developed much more readily. COMMUNICATIONS TO THE POLICE Burglary suspect triggers hidden camera and alarm. DETECTION BY ALARMS AND SURVEILLANCE DEVICES Devices for sounding an alert with no human intervention would have advantages both as a deterrent to criminals and in facilitating the response to an incident. Many devices are available: silver-tape electric alarms, pressure and acoustic sensors, radar, and ultrasonic, infrared, and ultraviolet beams. These devices can protect unattended premises from intrusion by detecting. movement in a room or motion across a perimeter. False alarms are a problem for any alarm system. I n Washington, D.C., in 1965, 4,450 alarms were received by the police; 98 percent of them were false. Since answering each false alarm takes an average of about 30 minutes and since patrol cars tend to spend about half their time answering calls, this was approximately equivalent to full-time duty of one patrol car. New, low-cost private alarm systems are being developed and may become widely installed. These devices can automatically send prerecorded messages directly to the police. As a consequence, the police should expect 'a significant increase in the number of false alarms. T o prevent this increase from seriously disrupting police operations, police departments should establish minimum standards for direct-calling alarm installations. On-site inspection should be required to assure that the alarm itself is mechanically and electrically reliable (usually not a serious problem), that its installation is not subject to simple accidental failure as from blowing wind, and that it- is not subject to accidental triggering by. the occupant.. Various kinds of street alarnl or surveillance networks have been proposed to detect crime in the streets. The proposals range from simple pushbutton alarms to sophisticated pattern-recognizing devices that detect cries of "help." Other sensors include closed-circuit TV cameras (fed to a console at the police station), simple microphones, and magnetic sensors triggered by specially coded devices carried by individuals. To explore these suggestions, the task force has examined several system designs. The automatic systems cost over $1 million per square mile, far too much for most communities. Furthermore, they may pose an insoluble false-alarm problem and so ' The apprehension process can respond only after it gets a call, and a number of things can be done to modify existing street communications equipment to make it easier for a victim or a witness to reach the police. The victim of a robber careful enough to steal the last dime cannot now use the public telephone. Public telephones can be adapted so that the operator can be reached without usin&monev. ,, as was demonstrated in a recent test in w art ford,-~onn. The Bell Telephone System is now planning to extend this capability widely. Most major cities have a network of police callboxes that are usually inconspicuous and locked. Washington, D.C., has 920 such boxes, or about one every one-fourth mile. During World War I1 these boxes*were painted red, white, and blue, and made available to the public in case of air raids and other emergencies. The Commission recommends: Police callboxes should be designated emergency callboxes," should be better marked and lighted, and should be left unlocked. The false-alarm rate for such callboxes would probably be far less than from a mechanical alarm, since a potential prankster would have to reveal his voice. While experience with a police callbox may not turn out to be fully comparable, one metropolitan fire department estimates the false alarm rate for calls received over the telephone to be less than 3 percent, far less than the falsealarm rate for an automatic or a mechanically-actuated alarm. In trying to call the police from an ordinary telephone, a person may be bewildered by the many police jurisdictions and the various telephone numbers associated with them. I n the Los Angeles area alone, there are 50 different telephone numbers that reach police departments within Los Angeles County. It should be possible to have a single telephone number to reach the police directly. England has such a universal emergency number. The Commission recommends: ._/ Wherever practical, a single police. telephone number should be established, a t least within a metropolitan area and eventually over the entire United States, comparable to the telephone company's long-distance information number. This is difficult but feasible with existing telephone switching centers; it appears practical with the new electronic switching systems being installed by the Bell System, and should be incorporated. In the interim, telephone companies should print on each telephone number disc the number of the police department serving that telephone's location. COMMAND AND CONTROL Once a call reaches the police, the facts must be sent to the police officers who will respond. This linkage occurs in the police communications center, which performs what the military calls the command-and-control function. Military analysts have given extensive attention to this function. The communications center's role has increased as the telephone has become the common access to the police, and as more police officers have been equipped with radios. Even though the communications center is the nerve center controlling the minute-by-minute deployment of the police force, it has received surprisingly little attention. I t is often squeezed into a spare corner of police headquarters under the command of a sergeant or a patrolman. I t operates with obsolete or poorly designed equipment and procedures that have tended to evolve by chance rather than through careful design. A notable exception is Chicago, which invested $2 million in, modernizing its center in 1961. When a person calls the police, a complaint clerk takes the call, decides on the police reaction and its priority, passes the information to a radio dispatcher who then dispatches a car. This gathering, evaluating, and disseminating of information normally takes from 1 to 5 minutes, and occupies 20-50 percent of the total response time. I t can take much longer during periods of intense congestion. Immediate Improvements. Even before considering major new technology, improving such simple aspects of command and control as floor layouts, design of headsets and microphones, and location of control switches Chicago Police ~ e j a r t m e n t ' scommunications center and time stamps can improve a center's performance under heavy load. In some centers, the same person serves as the complaint clerk and the dispatcher; in others, the functions are separated. Some centers have a dispatcher handling part of a city; others have several dispatchers all handling calls for the whole city. Such differences, which can affect performance significantly under critical loads, have evidently evolved more from tradition and physical restrictions than as the result of planning. Each of the different possible configurations can be experimentally measured, both in operating centers and under laboratory control in a simulation laboratory. In this manner, standard and emergency plans and procedures can be tested, decision rules can be evaluated, and training and experience can be provided police officers under simulated extreme conditions. In a riot or other general emergency, the communications center must transform a police department from a loose collection of independent units to a cohesive, coordinated force. Means must be provided to collect and display, rapidly and continuously, all the varieties of tactical intelligence relating to the location of events and the disposition of forces. The communications center staff must be headed by a commander who can assimilate this information and who has the authority to command the available forces. Contingency plans for situations that might arise must be developed and stored in a readily accessible form. These plans can be tested in a simulation laboratory. The Commission recommends: A versatile laboratory for continuing simulation of communications center operations, looking primarily toward changes in operating procedures and arrangements, should be established with' Federal support. . Computer-Assisted Command and Control. In addition to operating changes, introduction of modern 252 technology can make a significant contribution. The entire police command-and-control function should be subjected to a basic reexamination taking full account of the promising new technological opportunities offered by computers and communications links. The review should not begin with the new technology, however; it should begin by considering questions of when, where, and how to use the police patrol force, and how to respond to various types of routine and emergency situations. I t should examine on paper and by experiment the extent to which preventive patrol deters crime, how forces should be allocated by time and by geography, optimum patrol tactics, appropriate conditions for conspicuousnessand for covertness, how to respond to riots, and many other questions. The patrol operation will then be able to benefit markedly from computer assistance-much more than from merely automating current procedures. It is possible to describe the general outlines of a computer-assisted command-and-control system. In such a system, depicted in figure 3, telephone calls to the police are still answered by a complaint clerk, now a "controller." He enters the type of incident, the address, and a priority code into a k'eyboard connected to a computer. The controller can specify what the situation requires: whether a one- or two-man car should be sent, whether two vehicles should respond, etc. The rest is then automatic. The computer maintains records of street-address locations and'the location and availability of each patrol car, and finds the best car to respond to the call. It prepares a dispatching order that is automatically sent to the selected car as a computer-generated voice message or by some digital data link such as teletype. If the patrol officer does not acknowledge the messace within, say, 10 seconds, a second car can be sent on the call. The dispatch orders, the status of the patrol cars, events in progress, and other basic control information can be displayed by the computer to command officers, who can always countermand the computer-originated orders. They can concentrate on the unusual while the computer automatically handles the routine. Since response time depends primarily on a car's distance from the call, automatic car-location devices could be tied directly to the computer, so that it could dispatch the closest car. An analysis shows that even a crude system with accuracies of only about mile radius would ordinarily serve the purpose. Burglar and other alarms could be linked directly to the computer. If an alarm went off, the computer, knowing the alarm's location, could immediately dispatch the appropriate car without the controller's intervention. A computer-assisted command-and-control system offers many new possibilities for the deployment of a patrol force. As the crime pattern in a city changes hour by hour, its patrol force could be redeployed to respond to it. As parts of the city are stripped of patrolmen by calledfor services, other units could be assigned as backup. Under a riot or other emergency situation, contingency plans could be programed so that appropriate units would be deployed to the emergency, and adequate backup maintained. With all information on calls stored in the computer, complete analysis of the operations of the patrol force could be conducted regularly to aid in assigning forces in response to changing crime patterns. It. is estimated that the total operating cost of such a system for a 100-car city would range from $500 to $2,000 per car for new equipment, $200,000 to $400,000 per year for computer rental, a similar amount for computer personnel, plus $500,000 to $2 million for control-center equipment and design. In measuring the impact of the cost of these items on a police budget, it is relevant to @2 note that a two-man patrol beat costs about $100,000 per year. e The Commission recommends: An experimental program to develop a computer-assisted command-and-control system should be established with 6 Federal support. A great deal of analysis and experimentation should precede and accompany the implementation of this proposal. Many possible equipment combinations will have to be weighed, basic organizational and procedural ques- @ tions will have to be examined. The following programs should be undertaken to implement the system: 17 Two or three large cities should be funded for a detailgd study of their patrol operations in order to determine how they would use a computer-assisted command-and-controlsystem. C As part of the effort, an extensive reexamination of the communications systems should be undertaken to insure that channels are available, and to assess the utility * of car locators and mobile teletype. Based on the results of the studies, one of the cities should be selected for installation of a prototype0 system. As the new system is developed, it should first be used in simulated operation in parallel with the manual system, then with a manual backup, and finally, take over control. The development process will need continual modifica-c tion and testing and should be guided by an organization experienced in the development of large computer-based systems. POLICE RADIO COMMUNICATIONS c All dispatch messages must go from the communications center to the mobile patrol force by radio. The most troublesome problem in police radio communications is the critical shortage of radio frequencies available to the police community. A police officer who needs help should not have to wait for a clear frequency. In thef Chicago metropolitan area, for example, 38 separate" suburban cities with 350 patrol cars must share one frequency. This congestion results in excessive delays and A Possible Computer-Assisted Police Command-Control System. Figure 3 Calls for Sewice f / - I Decision to commit Selection of type unit Input address and call type f-- Communications Center I /L Loverride Dispatch Order :V"zt DIS~~L~ Status Board Command * / \ -- Alarms / Selection of Nearest Available Unit Computer 7 Street Address Locator ' Status Display Generator Stolen Auto Want andwanted File Availability and Location File 1 Police Car Locators Voice Radio Dispatch Field Unit - Policeman Field Action Processing of calls Flow of information - - Two-way radio links underuse of the police force while patrol officers or dispatchers wait to gain the air. In addition, in emergency situations that require mutual support, neighboring police departments cannot communicate because their radios operate on different frequencies. The Commission recommends: Frequencies should be shared through the development of larger and more integrated police mobile radio networks. dent that these techniques will increase the cost of the mobile radio network. The networks will be less wasteful of radio frequencies, more flexible in use, and more costly to implement than the many small individual networks now existing. Federal Government encouragement in the form of financial support may be necessary. In addition, frequency space is available in most areas within the VHF TV band between TV stations, and especially within the underloaded UHF T V band. One TV channel can provide over 100 radio channels, but represents only a small loss (2 percent for one UHF channel) to the TV community. c g With sharing of frequencies, each user, when its demand peaks, could use any available capacity, a basic The Commission recommends: concept employed in telephone and electric-power networks. For instance, if each of two departments uses its The FCC should develop plans for allocating portions of private channel 50 percent of the time, then each one the TV spectrum to police use. finds a busy signal half the time. If they were to share Communications must be maintained with foot patroltheir two channels, a user would find both channels busy only 35 percent of the time. If four such users were to men and with police officers who have left their cars. group together, then all channels would be busy less than Police officials are unanimous in their desire for small 20 percent of the time. If their demands peak at differ- portable radios so that patrolmen can call for assistance in any emergency and so that supervisors can maintain ent times, then the advantages are even greater. closer contact with those they supervise and make more The relationship between the Federal Communications Commission and the police and other public safety users effective use of the entire police force. C Miniaturized transceivers for the officer away from his must be altered so that the FCC no longer receives a sepcar and for the foot patrolman would have similar feaarate request from each individual public safety user. tures. Because portable sets will be limited by transmitter power output, both will require base stations-the The Commission recommends: car for one and probably the precinct house for the other. The FCC should require metropolitan areas to submit Large-scale production economies can produce a miniacoordinated requests for additional frequencies, with the turized unit at a low cost, perhaps under $150. manner in which action on a local level is coordinated left to the discretion of local governments. The Commission recommends: c c In suburban communities coordination is likely to come about by police agencies in different jurisdictions sharing frequencies. Core cities may be large enough to be able to develop efficient mobile radio networks for their own use, sharing their own public safety frequencies to balance the peak loads, since schoolbuses, highway maintenance trucks, police cars, etc., have radio demands that peak at different times. With the gradual creation of coordinated networks, the FCC will be in a position to require projection of future needs so that radio frequencies can be allocated more rationally in the future. The Commission recommends: Greater use should be made of multichannel radio trunks. Generally, individual stations (patrol cars, dispatchers) will have to be reached by transmissions coded to trigger a particular receiver on whatever frequency is open at the time, instead of monitoring a single frequency. Selective coding minimizes the present system's inflexible dependence on frequency, but enables the individual user to retain its independence while using the system. It is evi- The Federal Government should assume the leadership in initiating portable-radio development programs and consider guaranteeing the sale of the first production lots of perhaps 20,000 units. c Such a program would automatically create a standardized portable police radio. A modest standardization program for car radios would add considerable flexibility to a police department's choice of radio suppliers. Gross C standardization of size, mounting brackets, receptacles, and control heads can and should be accomplished immediately, and should go far to make it possible to use the products of different manufacturers interchangeably. More detailed standardization of radio equipment is less obviously useful for it could serve to inhibit manu- 2 facturers from improving their product. Certain obvious electronic features that involve system compatibility, such as selective codes to trigger receivers, should be standardized as early as practicable. Teletypes or other digital data links to and from police cars could remove a large part of the normal voice traffic (_' and also provide a paper copy of the message to the car. Because radio signals tend to bounce off buildings and Modem computer technology can make feasible the search of a file of even millions of prints with a single latent print. Such a deveiopment would also contribute to more efficient positive identification. The FBI, the New York State Identification and Intelligence System, 'and several industrial organizations have already initiated studies on aspects of the fingerprint recognition problem. FINGERPRINT IDENTIFICATION Completely automatic recognition capability is desired eventually, but semiautomatic operation-a trained operEffective police, work draws on fingerprint identifica- ator working in conjunction with a machine-appears to tion capability both to apprehend those who leave what be the more feasible approach with current technology. are called latent prints at the scene of a crime and to Developing the search capability would take several years identify positively persons held in custody. and be relatively costly. Positive identification of persons already held is made The Commission recommends: by searching files structured around a 10-print classification system, since all 10 prints can be obtained from such persons. Manual techniques of 10-print classification and Two studies leading to the development of a semiautosearch have been used for more than 50 years, and are matic fingerprint recognition system should be underlimited primarily by the time a search takes. Technical taken: A basic study of classification techniques and a advances here would both speed up police identification utility study to assess the value of a latent print-searching and reduce the costs of the present classification and capability. searching procedure. The classification study should develop statistical data Unfortunately, the structure of most present files precludes tracing an unknown offender who has left less than on the information contained in fingerprints (e.g., the a full set of prints. 0 n c e . a suspect has been'taken into variations in ridge counts from core to delta for ulnar custody, his fingerprints can be compared with even a sin- loops) and ultimately should establish a search procedure gle print recovered from the scene of the crime. By the based on these data. The utility study should be consame token, a single print can be matched against com- ducted for the purpose of estimating how many more arplete prints of a short list of likely suspects. But the proc- rests a few selected law enforcement agencies might have ess is now entirely manual and so time consuming that made if they had had a latent fingerprint capability. If an effective procedure is developed and its utility demonit cannot be used to check less than a full set of prints strated, these studies should be followed by an equipment against a national file or kvin a substantial local file of development program. previous offenders. Most large police departments maintain a specially organized file of single fingerprints of CRIME LABORATORIES several thousand persistent criminals. Only a small perThe crime laboratory has been the oldest and strongcentage of offenders are in such a file, and only a small est link between science and technology and criminal percentage of the searches are successful. justice. Because of this tradition, and because the best laboratories, such as the FBI's, are well advanced, the science and technology,task force did not devote major attention to criminalistics. There are some excellent laboratories in key locations around the country. However, the great majority of police department laboratories have only minimal equipment and lack highly skilled personnel able to use the modern equipment now being developed and produced by the instrumentation industry. Techniques such as neutron activation analysis and mass spectrometry permit the identification of ever smaller pieces of material evidence. Voice prints and photographic developments will expand the ability to detect and apprehend criminals. T o bring these advances more directly into police operations, improvement in crime laboratories must proceed in two directions: other structures, mobile receivers could produce distor-. tions that result in teletype errors. While digital links could save bandwidth, the need for extra transmissions to eliminate teletype errors could substantially ieduce much of that saving. Further investigation of this problem is needed. Establishment of laboratories to serve the combined needs of police departments in metropolitan areas. Expansion of research activitiesin major existing and in new laboratories. . The need for the. regional laboratories follows naturally from the increasing expense of facilities and the increasing demand for individuals of superior technical competence. The research is needed to speed the application of new instrumentation possibilities. NONLETHAL WEAPONS A patrol officer, in meeting the diverse criminal situations he must face, has a limited range of weaponryeither the short-range nightstick or the potentially lethal handgun. If an officer feels that his life is threatened, he may have to shoot, with the attendant risk that the suspect or innocent bystanders may be killed. If a suitable nonlethal weapon were made available, it could supplement the officer's present arsenal and possibly serve as a replacement for the handgun. In the past 100 years, 180 New York City policemen have been killed while apprehending suspects. A study of these 180 cases revealed that in every instance the combat range was 21 feet or less and that in most cases it was 10 feet or less. Since 1960, 96 percent of the murders of police officers have been with firearms, and of those 78 percent were with handguns. Thus, in most emergency situations, the officer does not have an opportunity to make a careful weapon selection-nonlethal or lethal-and he should have the services of one weapon or a combined weapon. The weapon should be immediately available and ready for instant use. For a nonlethal weapon to be an acceptable replacement for a handgun, it must incapacitate its victim at least as fast as a gun. Even then there might be opposition to it. A criminal knowing that he cannot be killed might act more aggressively than he would facing a gun. he qualities that must be sought in a general purpose nonlethal weapon are almost immediate incapacitation and little risk of permanent injury to the individual who is the target. . Survey of a wide range of possibilities leads to the conclusion that these requirements are incompatible with current technology. For example, darts have been used to inject tranquilizing drugs into animals. However, the drugs presently available offer too great a risk, because of the close correspondence between the dose required to incapacitate quickly and a lethal dose. No nonlethal weapon is presently available that could serve as a replacement for the handgun, but a continuing effort to achieve such a weapon should be pursued. I n this connection the products of military . research should be continually examined. for possible applicability. When a nonlethal weapon is considered as a supplement to the policeman's gun, the requirements for immediate incapacitation can be relaxed. Supplemental nonlethal weapons, such as tear gas or CS gas dispensers in various forms, might be used in circumstances in which an officer's life was not threatened, but it would be necessary foipolice departments to set careful guidelines specifying the circumstances under which they could be used. Evalua- tion of public reaction to the use of various nonlethal weapons under various circumstances would be an essential part of research into this subject. ALLOCATION OF POLICE PATROL RESOURCES All police departments have the problem of allocating patrol forces-how many men to assign to each.shift and to each precinct. Most departments assign men equally to all shifts, which simplifies scheduling but is an inefficient use of manpower. Some departments usk a formula that weights the previous year's reported crimes, radio calls, population, etc., for each precinct and then assign the patrol force proportionately to the precinct's weighted score. For example, if there were 1,000 crimes in precinct A and 600 crimesain precinct Bythis procedure might suggest transferring officers from precinct B to precinct A. But the conditions in precinct B might be more conducive to deterring crime. If an additional officer in precinct B could suppress 50 crimes whereas one in precinct A could suppress only 10 crimes, then it might be desirable to transfer an officer from A to B. Estimating this relative effectiveness of a police officer is, of course, extremely difficult, since the number of assigned officers is only one of many factors influencing the crime rate. I t is, however, important to develop such an estimate to make efficient use of the police force. Statistical techniques, such as regression analysis, should be used to develop such estimates. Even though the final determination of the effect of an officer on crime must come ffom controlled experiments in the field, the experiments should be preceded by preliminary analysis so that the experiments can be more productive of both information and crime reduction. An inherent difficulty of most statistical analysis is its inability to distinguish between cause and effect. For example, in many police precincts, additional officers are assigned as crime increases. Because the additional crime causes additional manpower allocations, the two may appear positively correlated. But this certainly does not permit the blind conclusion that the additional police cause the additional crime. Thus, any results must be used with caution, checking the predictions against actual observations before acting on the results. The task force undertook a preliminary analysis based on limited data contained in the statistical digests of the Los Angeles Police Department from 1955 to 1965. The standard statistical procedures of regression analysis were used to predict the number of reported serious crimes in each of the department's divisions as a function of the number of patrol officers assigned to the division to get an estimate of the change in the number of serious crimes associated with the reallocation of a patrolman from one division to another. I n the regression analysis for each division, an attempt was made to factor out the effects due to changes in the population, simple time trends resulting from changing characteristics of the population, as well as the number of patrol officers assigned. This model could be improved by adding such variables as median education level of the inhabitants, median income, and by replacing total population with population by age groups, when data become available. In 4 of the 11 divisions, most of the changes in the numbers of crimes could be accounted for. In these 4, there were differences in the relative effectiveness of assigned patrolmen, suggesting that a shift of officers might have led to a net decrease in crime. T o determine the feasibility of this and other related techniques, further theoretical development and trials in actual' operations are needed. Several such approaches should be tried to develop methodologies that can be applied by other police departments. . The Commission recommends: . Police departments should undertake data collection and experimentation programs to develop appropriate statistical procedures for manpower allocation. COURT OPERATIONS I t is a basic precept of our society that justice should not be administered with one eye on the clock and the other on the checkbook. But it is too often the fact that justice in the United States is rationed because of the limited resources at its disposal. At the same time, justice is effectively denied because of inordinate delays between arrest and final disposition. Science and technology can help to achieve the most efficient use of the available resources, provided always that it is recognized that the ends of just~cemust be served first. The task force has focused its attention on the processing of defendants through a court, with special emphasis on the reduction of delay. Various sokutions to the problem of delay have been suggested by judges, lawyers, and court administrators. Whether or not these solutions would indeed reduce delay can only be determined after they have been put into effect. In order to make preliminary tests of some alternatives without disrupting the operating courts, the task force examined the feasibility of computer simulation techniques for experimenting with various modifications in court procedures. Because the enormous variety of court systems in the Nation differ in organization and procedure, no single model will seke to yepresent them all. The approach taken therefore was to test the feasibility of simulating one of these systems, a court in the District of Columbia. The steps followed were: (1) describing in detail the organization and structure of the court system for processing felony defendants; (2) analyzing the available data on felony defendants to determine whether delay occurs and to identify when and where it occurs; . Madlan Time (In days) behveen Events for the Felony Cases Filed In the Distrlct Cour! of the Dlslrlct 01 Columbia in 1985. Figure 4 Jury Acquittal Conviction Aneat ** <1 1 * Initlal Appearance -p- Hear"-yPrelirnlnary Grand Jury Indictment Returned Arraignment 1.3 Guilty Plea 5-1 64 'Timetable recommended by Administration of Justice Task Force (maximum days) indicated in boldface. "Observed processing times between'staoes indicated in lightface, (3) developing a computer simulation of the processing system that could be used to study possible modifications of the system. The time delay problem was approached by analyzing in detail the data on 1,550 felony defendants whose cases commenced by-filing of indictment or information in the District Court of the District of Columbia in 1965. The time periods that these defendants were in the court system were compared with the timetable presented in chapter 5. The timetable recommends a maximum of 4 months between initial appearance and final trial disposition with a maximum of 14 days from initial appearance to formal charge. Measured against the recommended timetable and evaluated in terms of best estimates of actual court and attorney time, appreciable delays do exist. (See figure 4.) For example, one-half of the defendants who pleaded guilty or were dismissed were in the court system longer than 4 months. The defendants who went to trial took a median time of over 5 months from initial appearance to conviction or acquittal. At least a month passed before a grand jury indictment in one-half the cases. Contrary to generally held beliefs, motions were not the main cause of delays. Only one-half of the defendants filed one or more motions; one-half of these were filed more than 40 days after arraignment. Experienced lawyers have pointed out that most of the steps in the actual processing of defendants in the District Court require very little actual court time: The initial hearing for a defendant takes only a few minutes; a preliminary hearing usually takes between 15 and 30 minutes; a grand jury can hear, deliberate and vote on the average case in less than 30 minutes; arraignment takes a few minutes; most motions can be heard in 10 minutes. A guilty plea takes as much court time as it takes a defendant to answer a dozen questions. The court time spent on a defendant who pleads guilty (approximately one-half of the felony defendants) probably totals less than 1 hour, yet the median time from initial appear- Non-Jury Acquittal ance to disposition is 4 months. The data indicated that one-third of the time was spent waiting for return of the grand jury indictment. After arraignment on the indictment, additional time is required for the preparation of the necessary papers. But for the average case, the actual time devoted to this process is a few days at the most, not weeks or months. COMPUTER SIMU&ATION OF A DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT TOstudy the impact of alternative methods of alleviating the delay in the processing of felony cases, the task force developed a computer simulation of the court processing activity. The simulation permitted experimentation with the court operating procedures with no disruption to the actual court operation. The model was validated by using the 1965 felony data cited above. In 1965, one grand jury was sitting and an average of five district court judges were assigned to the criminal part of the court. Under these conditions, the simulation faithfully reflected the actual court operation: In both there was a median time of approximately 6 weeks between initial presentment and the return of an indictment, and 14 weeks from arraignment to beginning of trial. Most of the time prior to arraignment was spent waiting at the Grand Jury Division for indictment (5 out of 7 weeks). By simulating the system with a second grand jury sitting part of the time, the wait for indictment was reduced from 35 days to less than 1 day, resulting in a median time of approximately 2 weeks from initial presentment to return of the indictment. Thus, it appears that for a cost of probably less than $50,000 per year for the additional grand jury and associated support resources, the delay from presentment to return of indictment could be reduced by 70 percent. The total delay would be reduced by 25 percent, since the time from arraignment to trial would be unchanged. By requiring motions to be filed and heard within 17 days and increasing the Grand Jury Division resources, without increas- ing the number of district court judges, the median time from arraignment to trial could be reduced from 15 to 9 weeks. Most felony cases can be properly prepared in 9 weeks. The resulting median total time from initial presentment to trial disposition could then be 3 months compared to over 5 months observed in 1965. The above analyses indicate that the timetable of the Administration of Justice Task Force is practical. More generally, simulation has been found an effective tool for examining reallocation of existing resources or efficient allocation of additional resources. An additional example of the use of the simulation is in examination of the possible consequences of changes in defendants' behavior resulting from changes in court procedure. I t has been argued that one effect of the Bail Reform Act will be to reduce the number of guilty pleas.. The impact of various possible reductions of guilty pleas on time in the court system can be tested in the simulation. For example, if the Act had been in effect in 1965, and if it had resulted in reducing the number of defendants who pleaded guilty from 55 percent to 35 percent, then the median times from presentment to trial disposition would have increased approximately 2 weeks, or 10 percent. The additional judge and attorney resources required to maintain their current schedule or the new time table could be determined through the simulation. An important immeasurable factor'not accounted for is the'effect of changes in processing on the actions of defendants and court officials. The human in the system adapts to his environment and any changes made to it. The model assumes the various changes made will not affect the feedback process. For this reason, before any changes can be seriouslyproposed, the results of the simulation must first be thoroughly analyzed and discussed in detail with the court officers. The Commission recommends: The simulation techniques developed should be extended to several large urban areas as pilot studies with Federal support to determine their applicability to other court systems and to develop them in further detail. CORRECTIONS OPERATIONS The subject matter of corrections comprises three kinds of problems: Techniques for the rehabilitation of offenders, decisions about what treatment to apply to each individual, and means of maintaining custody'of prisoners. Conventional alarms and surveillance devices can increase security and reduce the costs of holding offenders who cannot or should not be released into the community. Information systems and statistical analysis of the information they contain can provide better and more complete information about individual offenders and treatment possibilities in order to find the most suitable treatments. Systems analysis will make it possible to study m e h s for improving the allocation of resources and for examining some of the consequences of modification in operating procedures. Rehabilitation calls primarily for knowledge at the frontiers of the behavioral sciences. The task force has looked into one area of educational technology, programed learning, to assess its potential for improving vocational skills. PROGRAMED LEARNING TO AID REHABILITATION Many delinquent careers are associated with failure in school. I t is a short route from academic failure to dropping out of school to idleness and unemployment to entry into a spiraling criminal career. Some dropouts fail because they cannot adapt to a classroom social situation. If there were some alternative way of educating them, they might find a rewarding place in the community and refrain from crime. Programed learning offers one such opportunity. In programed learning, currently being conducted with published booklets in at least two correctional institutions, and experimentally with computers at several research centers, the student works through the educational material on his own, testing his understanding at frequent intervals. Whenever his responses exhibit lack of comprehension, he is diverted back to correct his deficiency. He works at his own pace, he checks his own performance, and he can do most of this alone. One study at Draper Correctional Center in Alabama found that students completed one academic year of schoolwork in 200 hours of work with programed-learning materials. The average cost per academic year of advancement was under $400. Based on the expected contribution of each year's schooling to future earnings, the discounted future taxes from that year's schooling would be about $800, more than enough to cover the cost of education, without considering the thousands of dollars of criminal-career costs saved and, most important, providing a chance for a fuller life. About 70 percent of the first class of graduates from the Draper vocational school were two-time losers-men who had previously been jailed, released, and jailed again. Of the 78 youthful offenders who have graduated from this school (which began about 2 years ago) and who have been paroled and placed in jobs, only four have been returned to wison for committing " new crimes and six for technical violations of parole conditions. Compared to the usual one-third to two-thirds rate of return to prison, a return rate of between one-seventh and one-eighth is remarkable. These figures are the result of only a preliminary field test of programed aids to instruction at correctional institutions. Much more careful and thorough experimentation is needed before drawing definite conclusions about how much recidivism can be reduced. Programed learning appears to have significant advantages for educating the identitied problem children who find their way into correctional institutions, and also for crime-prone populations in the community. Its use should be encouraged, and further evaluated in controlled cir- cumstances, using conventional teachers or even fellow inmates for supervision. The shortage of adequate programed learning texts, especially in vocational subjects relevant to local job opportunities, is the primary limitation on more effective and wider use of the technique. The development of programed learning materials should be subsidized by the Federal Government. STATISTICAL TECHNIQUES TO AID DECISIONS Thc desirability of developing statistical data to estimate the effects of different sentences and correctional treatment o n different types of offenders has been noted in chapter; 5 and 6. Information concerning the likelihood that the individual will return to crime is essential. Just as important as the evaluation of the individuals being treated in a correctional system is the evaluation of the treatment itself. Without objective evaluation of methods of treatment, it is difficult, if not impossible, to make rational choices about the kinds of treatment programs that should be developed or about the ~ e o p l eto whom they should be applied. Most of the available information about such questions is in one of two forms: "rules of thumb" that have evolved out of experience and are justified or rationalized in large part on the basis of anecdotal histories of operations, and statistical tabulations of operations in which there was neither a control group nor an adequate characterization of the experimental group. There is a need to correlate both individual characteristics and type of treatment to recidivism' as measured by further commission of crimes, arrests, and commitments. Judges and corrections officials need information that will help them decide what treatment to prescribe. They need to know the differential effects of various kinds of treatment on various kinds of individuals. Statistical analyses of large numbers of criminal-career histories will bc required to provide these needed correlations. REDUCING CRIMINAL OPPORTUNITIES Everyone has an obligation to others as well as to himself not to invite crime. Banks, supermarkets, and other businesses take steps to make it more difficult to pass bogus checks; shop and home owners protect against burglary and theft by the use of concealment, alarms, and locks; individuals .take precautions such as not carrying large amounts of cash. There are two important techniques for reducing criminal opportunities: hardening the targets of crime, and inhibiting poten,tial criminals. Automobile design modication to make the car less vulnerable to theft is an example of hardening a target, and street lighting an example of an inhibitor. INCREASING THE DIFFICULTY OF AUTO THEFT Auto theft is costly. About 28 percent of the inhabitants of Federal prisons are there following conviction of interstate auto theft under the Dyer Act. I n California alone, auto thefts cost the criminal justice system over $60 million yearly. Even more important, auto thefts are primarily juvenile acts. Although only 21 percent of all arrests for nontraffic offences in 1965 were of individuals under 18 years of age, 63 percent of auto theft arrests were of persons under 18. Auto theft represents the start of many criminal careers. In an FBI sample of juvenile auto theft offenders, 41 percent had no prior arrest record. Many of the juveniles who steal automobiles are incompetent drivers and frequently damage the vehicle or injure themselves or others. Many thefts occur simply because a boy sees an unlocked automobile. The FBI reports that 42 percent of the autos stolen had keys in their ignitions or their ignitions unlocked. Even of those stolen when the ignitions were locked, a t least 20 percent were stolen merely by shorting the ignition with tools as simple as paper clips or tinfoil. I n one city, the change in the Chevrolet lock (eliminating the unlocked "off position) in 1965 resulted in about 50 percent fewer 1965 Chevrolets stolen The Commission recommends: than the previous year's model. Statistical aids for helping in sentencing and selection of These findings suggest that the easy opportunity to proper treatment of individuals under correctional super- take a car may contribute significantly to auto theft and vision should be developed. that thefts by the relatively casual or marginal offender In addition to assisting in treatment selection, statistical would be reducible by making theft more difficult than techniques of experiment design must play an important merely starting the car. Educational campaigns advisrole in correctional program development, testing, evalu- ing drivers to lock their cars are important, but their ation, and planning. Of all the behavioral areas, offender effect is difficult to sustain. A more fundamental change rehabilitation offers perhaps the best opportunity for in the ignition system and other automobile components reasonably careful experimental control to determine the is needed. Many possibilities exist. Spring-ejection locks effects of actions taken. There should be an expanded can prevent the driver from leaving the key in the igniuse of careful, controlled evaluation in the developmen,t tion; sturdier housings can enclose the ignition terminals; of correctional programs. Program development should heavier metal cables can surround the ignition wires; bc preceded by careful studies of the specific correctional steering wheel locking devices can be used, as is done on objectives, and testing should be conducted by personnel several foreign cars. I n 1960, the Federal Republic of qualified in the behavioral sciences and in statistical Germany made the following a part of the highway code: an,alysis. "Passenger cars, stationwagons, and motorcycles should be equipped with an adequate safety device against unauthorized use of vehicles. The locking of the doors and removal of the ignition key are not regarded as safety measures within the meaning of the preceding sentence." This problem has been discussed by Commission and Department of Justice representatives with the four major automobile manufacturers and they have indicated their desire to develop and install devices to increase the security of their products. These will include making the ignition system connector cable much more difficult to remove from the ignition lock, increasing the ignition key combinations, and locating the ignition system in less accessible places. These basic improvements will be made in some 1968 models. One manufacturer is testing an arrangement that will help reduce the possibility of leaving the key in the ignition lock in an unattended parked car and hopes to install such a device in the 1969 models at the latest. Although the above steps will contribute to the reduction of auto thefts, the following additional improvements should be carefully considered : 0 A steering column or transmission lock that immobilizes the car when the gearshift lever is put into the proper position and the key removed. With this type of lock, starting an engine by shorting the ignition does not permit the car to be driven away. Coupling the xbove lock with an ignition system that causes the driver to remove the key fn>m the ignition. This can be done by a spring-loaded lock or key that pushes the key out; or by requiring the key to be not only turned, but also pulled out of the ignition in order to stop the engine; or by attaching a buzzer that goes off if the key is left in the ignition when the engine is t u n e d off. ~ l t h o u ~the h automabile manufacturers are best able to integrate such devices into the design of their vehicles, it is desirable that some Federal agency work with them to establish minimum requirements on the actual implemenation. This responsibility could .well be assigned to the National, Highway Safety Agency as part of its program to establish safety standards for automobiles. REMOVING THE COVER OF DARKNESS Improved street lighting is frequently advocated by the police and by highway departments as an important tool for combatting crime. Its proponents assume that adequate street lighting will, first, deter certain types of street crimes by increasing the offender's risk of being detected and, second, enhance the probability of apprehending the offender. These assumptions are fortified by the general sense of security that the individual feels when streets are brightly lit. The police and the public alike frequently remark that they have no proof that improved street lighting reduces crime, but the public does feel safer. Unfortunately, existing studies do not present definitive conclusions as to the effects of lighting on crime. In 1956, the central business district of Flint, Mich., was relit. Six-thousand-lumen incandescent lights were replaced with 20,000-lumen multiple fluorescent brackettype lights. A study conducted over a 6-month period indicated that there was a 60 percent reduction in the number of all felonies and misdemeanors, and an 80 percent reduction in larcenies. However, there was, at the same time, an increase in police surveillance in the area. Since the experiment was not adequately controlled, the effects of patrol and relighting are confounded, so that any conclusions on the effects of street lighting alone must be considered only tentative. In New York City, four police precincts designated as high crime areas were converted from incandescent lighting to mercury vapor lighting. The rate of nighttime crimes dropped by 49 percent after the installation of the lights. After over 80 percent of the city street lighting was modernized over a period of four years at a cost of $58 million, the total number of felonies in the city increased by approximately 43 percent. Due to the extreme difficulty of assessing the effects of the numerous other variables, it is virtually impossible to determine what the felony rate would have been if the lights had not been installed. The only results it is possible to reach now are: 0 There is no conclusive evidence that improved lighting would have a lasting or significant impact on crime rates, although there are strong suggestions that it might. Improved street lighting will reduce some types of crimes in some areas, i.e., given a light and dark street to commit a crime,, a criminal will normally choose the dark street. 0 Improved street lighting accompanied by increased police patrol can reduce crime rates in an area. When new lighting programs are instituted, police departments should be encouraged to maintain records of crimes in the relighted and adjoining areas. .With information on past, present, and projected crime rates and on other relevant variables, it may be possible to assess better the impact of lighting on crime. SYSTEMS ANALYSIS O F CRIMINAL JUSTICE THE USEFULNESS AND LIMITATIONS OF SYSTEMS ANALYSIS The criminal justice system is an enormous complex of operations. Subjecting such a system to scientific investigation normally involves making changes in its operations in order to observe the effects directly. Whenever practical, this kind of controlled experimentation is clearly the best kind. But experimentation inside a system is often impractical and even undesirable, not only because the costs could be prohibitive, but because normal opera- tions are frequently too critical to be disrupted. .Instead, the scientist may be able to formulate a mathematical description or "model'? of the system in order to illuminate the relationships among its parts. Systems analysis involves construction and manipulation of such mathematical models in order to find out how better to organize.and operate the real-life systems they represent. I t is desirable to conduct such analyses of the criminal justice system for several reasons: O They develop an explicit description of the criminal justice system and its operating modes so that the system's underlying assumptions are revealed. They provide a vehicle for simulated experimentation in those instances in which "live" experimentation is unfeasible. They identify the data that must be obtained if essential calculations are to be made of the consequences of proposed changes. These advantages must be considered in light of a sober appreciation of what cannot be done by constructing and using .models. The cause-a.ld-effect relationships in the real world of criminal justice are so complex and so intricately interwoven that any mathematical description of them is bound to be a gross simplification. At the present time, even the most basic relationships are.poorly understood, and the available data contribute little to further understanding. Moreover, in so dynamic a system, the causal relationships themselves are constantly changing and will change further as increased understanding changes people's behavior. Clearly, a system of this magnitude and complexity cannot be studied in detail even descriptively, much less analytically, in a few months by a few people. However, sufficient benefits have accrued from similar analyses conducted on equally complex systems, such as air traffic systems and national economies, to warrant probes in this direction. The State of Califor.. . & , ., .... 1 . A CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM MODEL The first step in developing a model of the criminal justice system is describing in detail the events that occur Figure5 Unapprehended Offenders Index Crimes 2mtnI;;d / !!?- with Estimates of Flow of Offenders and Direct Operating Costs for Index Crimes in the United States in 1965. 1 - 1 ' / I Criminal Justice System Model Population d nia has already supported..a pioneering study this sort at the Space General Corp. The task force further developed .these approaches in order to lay a foundation on which additional analytical development could be based and also to identify the primary data needs. Among the capabilities provided by models is the ability to conduct cost-effectiveness analyses. These analyses, applied with particular success in the Department of Defense, provide a means for determining which of several alternative courses of action will provide maximum effectiveness for a given cost, or minimum cost for a given effectiveness. There are many different measures of both cost and effectiveness applicable to crime control programs. Numerical costs include direct dollar costs of operating the criminal justice system, as well as indirect costs such as lost income of offenders who are denied good jobs. Numerical measures of 'effectiveness include reductions 'in the rates of the various crimes. Nonquantitative considerations such as justice, individual liberty, rights-of privacy, and freedom from fear of victiinization are of vital concern, but are beyond the realm' of numerical treatment. The techniques of analysis can be brought to bear only' on those parts of crime and criminal justice that are amenable to quantification, and these measurable values must always be considered in relation to what are frequently more important, often unquantifiable values in making any decisions about modification of police, court, or corrections operations. The cost-effectiveness approach does not force a quantification of unmeasurable human values. Rather, it sets out those implications that are quantifiable, and thereby permits a sharper focus on the critical Galue questions of social policy by the legislator and the administrator. 727,000 , No Complaint Filed or Charge Reduced A"est Police Formal Accusation and Detention $ 7,000.000 13,000 260,000 Referred by . Other Sources 200.000 Number in boldface indicates estimated flow of persons arrested for index crimes. Numbers in regular type indicate estimated costs incurred at processing stages. : \ Juvenile Processing $240,000,000 as offenders are processed through the system. This description is then translated into computer language so that numerical values can be attached to the various aspects of the system and the results analyzed as desired. The resulting model can be used to calculate what happens to arrested offenders as they flow through the court and corrections subsystems. An example using Index crimes in the United States is shown in figure 5. The diagram presents an estimate of the costs incurred at each stage and the number of people traveling each route through the system. At some of the processing stages, offenders can be released, dismissed, acquitted, discharged, or otherwise returned to the general population. When this happens, there is a chance of their being rearrested for some new crime and reprocessed through the criminal justice system. The feedback nature of the model enables it to trace criminal careers. Thus, one product of such a model is a compilation of lifetime criminal career patterns from data that describe the chances that an offender of a particular age will be arrested, charged, tried, dismissed, rearrested, etc. Any analysis of the criminal justice system is hampered by a lack of appropriate data. Data on the extent of crime, costs of operations, recidivism characteristics, arrest rates, parole violations, etc., are either not complete, not gathered or of questionable accuracy. The task force culled available sources for information, and often had to rely on approximations or on extrapolations of data characteristic of specific jurisdictions. Because of the gaps in the data, any numerical results must be viewed as tentative. Numerical results are presented to illustrate the potential uses of the analysis and to give impetus to the collection of proper data for use in more definitive studies. - SOME SPECIFIC ILLUSTRATIVE APPLICATIONS 0 The effects upon court and correctional caseloads and operating costs of a 10 percent increase in police clearance rates. 0 The effects upon c o k t and correctional cos& and workloads of providing counsel to all those arrested. The effects upon costs and arrest rates in a particular state of instituting a given community treatment program for certain sentenced offenders. The projected workloads and operating costs of police, courts, and corrections for the next 5 years. The effects upon recidivism and associated costs of statistical techniques that permit sentencing judges to prescribe optimum treatment programs. However, such analyses require a completeness and detail of description that will take many years of research to develop and will always have elements of uncertainty. As an illustration of the approach, the science and technology task force formulated a preliminary model to examine several issues with existing data, or, where none were available, with hypothetical data. Criminal Justice costs of Index Crimes in the United States. Basic to any evaluation of proposed changes in the criminal justice system is knowledge of the current costs of the system. These costs include both the dollar costs and the intangible social costs. The task force was, of necessity, restricted to dollar costs. I n fact, not even all of the dollar costs can be considered. This examination omits consideration of the indirect dollar costs, which include items such as lost incomes of 63,000 Prison 45,000 Parole $382,000,000 Bench Trial 39,000 $13,000,000 - 20,000 130,000 Guilty Plea Violators Sentencing $15,000,000 Jury Trial , With sufficient effort, an adequately,complete and detailed model could be developed from the rudimentary, generalized model shown in figure 6. I t would permit examination of such questions as: Unsupervised Sentence (Fine, etc.) 6,000 Acquitted 5,000 .. 35,000 569000 Probation \ $44,000,000 10,000 35,000 $19,000,000 $16,000,000 Jail \/ Release \ V Acquitted 3,000 / . 'witnesses and defendants, lawyers' fees, etc. Rather, it is restricted to costs directly incurred by criminal justice agencies. Fixed and variable costs are allocated to each offense of each type on the basis of estimates, some of them necessarily arbitrary (e.g., allocation of patrol force time to index crimes), of the division of time and effort by police, courts, and corrections. Because of the necessary imperfections in the cost estimates, the percentage distribution of costs among the various Index crimes, and especially the dollar costs, should not be taken as definitive. Given the time it takes to process an offender at each stage, and the associated costs, it is possible to calculate the direct costs of processing cases in the system by crime type. Figure 6 shows how these costs are attributable to each of the 1965 Index crimes in the United States. I t can be seen that the property crimes of burglary, larceny of $50 and over, and auto theft, which account for 87 percent of the Index crimes, also account for the bulk (81 percent) of the system costs for Index crimes. In figure 6, the system costs for each kind of Index crime are attributed to the major cost components. The results show that corrections accounts for a large portion of the total cost in cases of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter (81 percent), forcible rape (42 percent), and robbery (42 percent), where police clearance rates are high. For property crimes, which have lower clearance rates, police costs are a much larger proportion of the total costs. Figure 6 shows how these system costs for Index crimes are distributed among the major system components. The processing of juveniles, from courts through corrections, is shown separately in the diagram. The police account for the bulk of the costs, 67 percent. Correctional programs (including probation) are the next largest, accounting for 20 percent. In table 5 these system costs are presented as the cost per individual crime. The Index crimes other than willful homicide cost the criminal justice system directly about $750 (aside from the social costs of the crime itself and any subsidiary indirect costs). The cost per offender arrested, however, is about $3,000, since there are about one-fourth as many reported arrests as reported Index crimes. Another costing approach would omit the large amounts of police costs charged to the offenders, and Estimated Criminal Justice System Direct Operating Costs for United States lndex Crimes in 1965. Figure6 2,780,000 Reported lndex Crimes Costs Attributed to Each Type of lndex Crime Total Costs: $2,097,000,000 Forcible Rape Auto Theft Burglary 39% 6820,000,000 1,173,200 Reported Crimes 'olice Cost 72% Luvenile ~ r o c e & i n gCost 11% ,ourt Cost 1% 2orrections Cost 16% 18% $370,000,000 486,000 Reported Crimes Police Cost 67% Juvenile Processing Cost 21% Court Cost 1% Corrections Cost 11% Robbery Aggravated Assault Larceny $SO and over 24% $500.000.000 762.400 Reoorted Crimes Police cost 76% Juvenile Processing Cost 8% Court Cost 1% Corrections Cost 15% 7% $140,000,000 118.920 Reported crimes Police Cost 42% Juvenile Processing Cost 12% Court Cost 4% Corrections Cost 42% 9% $1 90,000,000 206.700 Reoorted Crimes police cost 54% Juvenile Processing Cost 8% Court Cost 4% Corrections Cost 34% 1% $29,000,000 22,470 Reported Crimes Police Cost 39% Juvenile Processing Cost 14% Court Cost 5% Corrections Cost 42% Murder and Non-negligent Manslaughter 2% $48,000,000 9,850 Reported Crimes Police Cost 10% Juvenile Processing Cost 1% Court Cost 8% Corrections Cost 81% . Larceny of $50 and - . Table 5.-Total 1965 U.S. Criminal Justice System Costs for lndex Crimes1 ------- 500 762.400 €60 Auto theft --...--------1......................................... 11,300 -- 11,000 All lndex crimes ...--.-.---.--------------------------------------1 2 100 percent of detective force costs and 25 percent of patml force costs and court and corrections costs were allocated to lndex crimes. Based on lndex crimes with the first index crime arrest occurring at age 16 for the indicated crime. on distribution of first arrests matched to distribution of arrests of individuals under 18 given in the 1965 Uniform Crime Reporb. 3 Based charge-them instead as fixed costs of the system. If offenders are charged only with the costs of the detective time spent on the different types of Index crimes, then the cost.per offender arrested is cut to about $1,000. Another important cost is the cost of permitting a person to enter a life of crime. This cost is measured by the - . Costs Attributed to Major Cost.Components total cost to the criminal justice system over the life of the offender for processing him, or the criminal-career cost. The costs accumulate to about $12,000 per indivitlual, despite the relatively low costs per single crime, and demonstrate the value of an investment in preventive programs that would avert criminal careers. Escalation of Criminal Careers. The model can also be used to examine the differences between the types of crimes for which first offenders are arrested and those for which repeaters are arrested. An example of such an examination is shown in table 6. The results are tabulated according to the order of "seriousness" used by the FBI in its procedure of listing only the most "serious" offense in its statistics in cases of simultaneous multiple offenses. A typical distribution of 1,000 first arrests for index offenses was taken. The criminal careers of these 1,000 individuals wFre then simulated by cycling through the model, taking the probabilities of rearrest over time, and the distribution among the Index crimes of each group of rearrested persons, broken down according to the crime for which they were rearrested. The simulation showed an eventual accumulation of 3,010 subsequent arrests. These include a greater proportion of the more serious offenses than the 1,000 original offenses. For example, homicides, rapes, and robberies were several times more prevalent ambng the rearrests than among the first arrests. The less serious Index crimes of larceny and .auto theft, on the other hand, became less prevalent. This analysis, though only exemplary, raises questions about why successive arrests apparently are for more serious crimes. I t may be due to the aging of the individuals, to the development of antisocial attitudes, or possibly to reactions to treatment by the criminal justice system. This analysis suggests the seriousness, in terms of escalating criminal conduct, of the problem of recidivism. A question to be explored is whether the rearrest probabilities increase or decrease and the serious crimes become more or less prevalent for those who are processed further through the system. Any differences may be the re- Table 6.-Average ~ i s t r i b u t i o nof First Arrests and Lifetime Rearrests for Index Crime Offenders I First arrests I Lifetime rearrests Percent change in proportion of total CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEMS T H E NEED FOR BETTER INFORMATION CAPABILITIES The importance of having complete and timely information about crimes and offenders available at the right place and the right time has been demonstrated throughout Willful homicide ........... 2 0.2 34 1.1 this chapter and, indeed, throughout this report. With +450 Forcible rape ............. 6 .6 68 +280 2.3 Robbery .................. 33 3.3 +269 15.2 458 timely information, a police officer could know that he Aggravzted assault ---.---. 32 3.2 +loo 194 6.4 Burglary ................... 252 25.2 1,196 39.7 +w should hold an arrested shoplifter for having committed Larceny of $50 and over .... 518 51.8 719 -50 24.6 Auto thelt ................ 157 15.7 -30 321 10.7 armed robbery elsewhere. With a more detailed back100.0 ground on how certain kinds of offenders respond to correctional treatment, a judge could more intelligently I The distribution of the 1,000 1st arrests is based on the distribution of arrests of individuals under 18 given in the 1965 Uniform Crime Reports. sentence a second offender. With better projections of next y e a h workload, a State budget office would know whether and where to budget for additional parole ofsult of differences among individuals who reach the varificers. ous stages or it may be the result of the treatment itself. Modem information technology now permits a massive Unfortunately, data to examine such basic quesions do assault on these problems at a level never before conceivnot now exist, but the questions are sufficiently important able. Computers have been used to solve related probto warrant an intensive effort to collect the data, and lems in such diverse fields as continental air defense, ultimately, after hypotheses are developed, to conduct production scheduling, airline reservations, and corporate appropriate controlled experiments. management. Modern computer and communications technology permits many users, each sitting in his own DATA NEEDS office, to have immediate remote access to large comAs a result of ,experience with the system model, it. puter-based, central data banks. Each user can add has been possible to identify many specific inadequacies information to a central file to be shared by the others. in the published data concerning crime and the criminal Access can be restricted so that only specified users can justice system. These deficiencies fall under two main get certain information. Criminal justice could benefit dramatically from comheadings. First, much of the published data are incomplete, inconsistent, and inaccurate. For example, differ- puter-based information systems, and development of a ent criminal justice agencies report their operations in network designed specifically for its operations could start inconsistent units: The police report "arrests," the courts immediately. Such systems can aid in the following report "cases," and corrections agencies report "offend- functions : ers." Information from different jurisdictions often has different underlying interpretations. In some jurisdicPolice patrolenabling a police officer to check rapidly tions, stealing from parking meters is burglary, while in tho identification of people and property against a others it is larceny. These problems have long troubled central "wanted" file. criminologists as well as the operating agencies that col- 0 Crime investigation-providing a police officer or detective with supporting information files such as crime lect and use the data. patterns, modus operandi, criminal associates, and perThe second class of deficiencies in existing data inhaps in the future the ability to match latent fingercludes the vast number of instances in which no data prints from a crime scene against a central fingerprint at all are available. W e know much too little about how file. various actions of the criminal justice system affect the Police deployment-altering police deployment in renumber and types of crimes committed by different classes sponse to changing patterns of crime on an hourly, of offenders. I t is necessary to collect data on recidivism daily, seasonal or emergency basis. (rearrest probabilities, reconviction probabilities, etc.) by Sentencing and correctional decisions-providing more type of crime and by offender treatment. I t is important complete history of an offender and his reactions to to know how recidivism wries with how far a person prior correctional actions; statistical estimates of the travels through the criminal processes (discharged on effects of different kinds of treatment on different kinds arrest, prosecution dropped, put on probation, paroled, of offenders. etc.) . This information needs to be correlated with age, Development of correctional programs-analyzing crime type, and other relevant variables. While collectcomplete case records to evaluate the effectiveness of ing and processing such a large akount of data is clearly different programs. a difficult task, it is well within the capabilities of today's Protection of individual rights-assuring that arrest technology and will be considerably aided by the develrecords include court disposition, thereby presenting opment of a national criminal justice information system. a fairer picture to the police and to judges; restricting Offense Percent of total access to certain criminal records after a specified period of good conduct. Federal, State, and local b~dgeting-collectin~uniform statistics on agency operations and workloads, providing a basis for estimating personnel needs and for optimum allocation of men and dollars. 0 Research-providing a collection of anonymous criminal histories to find out how best to interrupt a developing criminal career and to achieve a better understanding of how to 'control crime. Statistical information--data on crimes, on criminal careers, and on the activities of criminal justice agencies. - Table -/.-Users of Files in an I n t e ~ r a t e dNational Criminal Justice Information System I Type of file Personal information A PROGRAM FOR A N INTEGRATED NATIONAL INFORMATION SYSTEM An integrated national information system is needed to serve the combined needs at the National, State, regional and metropolitan or county levels of the police, courts, and correction agencies, and of the public and the research community. Each of these agencies has information needed by others; an information system provides a means for collecting it, analyzing it, and dissemiEach can be kept in close ' nating it to those who need it. communication with the others, and information transferred by voice, by teletype, or computer to computer. Since law enforcement is primarily a local and State function, the overall program must be geared to the circumstances and requirements of local and State agencies; and, wherever practical, the files should be located at these levels. Even the specifications and procedures of the national system must conform to local needs, and should be developed by people familiar with them. Table 7, on the following page, depicts a possible structure for a national integrated criminal justice information system. The system contains three kinds of files: Inquiry file-a centralized list of wanted people and stolen property that a police officer can check for immediate response. 0 Personal information-information about individuals with criminal records. Required response time. I 1 Directory 1 ( Statistics Registry ' I I Minutes .... b u r s ........ Days........... Weeks. Allcriminal National .---.--. Police-..--. justice agencies No file kept.---. ---.-same ..-..Courts and cor-.-rections only. State --.------.. ....same Criminal justice agencies research projects.'Government public information offices. -....same .---. ..--.. 1 Index of record information as to formal contacts with criminal justice agencies. 2Collection of related backgound materials (probation reports, educational records, etc.) kept by some States. AN IMMEDIATE-RESPONSE INQUIRY SYSTEM A police officer frequently needs to know, within a matter of minutes, whether individuals, or vehicles or other property, are wanted within his jurisdiction or elsewhere. Separate statewide inquiry systems could provide immediate information on stolen property and .persons wanted within the State. An automobile recovered with its own license plates could.bechecked against the State in which .it is registered. For other property and for persons, ,such an inquiry would theoretically have to be addressed to every State, requiring each State to implement its own system and calling for complex communications to every other State. A second alternative would be to Manual and computerized. information storage and retrieval systems establish a limited number of regional systems centralizing information within each region. The regions could be interconnected into a national system or co,uld be kept separate, accepting the penalty of losing track of people or property that cross the regional boundaries. A third alternative is to establish a single national repository to which any State may address inquiries, and into which every State places information. A national inquiry file (the National Crime Information Center-NCIC) is now being established by the FBI. This file will contain records of all cars reported stolen for more than 24 hours, all persons wanted for extraditable offenses, stolen guns, and all stolen identifiable property valued at over $1,000. This file will be maintained on a computer, with terminals initially connected to 15 police agencies, and with plans to include all States eventually. Any agency with a terminal can enter a record into the file or inquire whether a person or property in custody is listed in the file. I t will receive an answer seconds later. The utility of a fully interconnected national inquiry file depends on the need for interstate and interregional communications and on the need to provide an inquiry capability for those States that do not establish their own files. If such a need should be established, analyses conducted by the science and technology task force indicate that a single central computer is more economical than interconnecting separate regional computers. This result follows from the fact that computer processing and storage costs are much greater than communications costs. I t is important that the States, in assessing their own needs and developing their own computer facilities, and the FBI in operating the NCIC, seek to develop information that will ~rovidea basis for a sound decision on the needs for and the form of a national inquiry system. HANDLING PERSONAL INFORMATION The most delicate part of any criminal justice information system is the record of previously arrested people and accompanying information about them. Such information is valuable in making prosecution, sentencing, and correctional decisions. But whenever government records contain derogatory personal informqtion, they create serious public policy problems: The record may contain incomplete or incorrect information. 0 The information may fall into the wrong hands and be used to intimidate or embarrass. 0 The information may be retained long after it has lost its usefulness and serves only to harass ex-offenders, or its mere existence may diminish an offender's belief in the possibility of redemption. Heretofore, the inherent inefficiencies of manual files containing millions of names have provided a built-in protection. Accessibility will be greatly enhanced by putting the files in a computer; so that the protection afforded by inefficiency will diminish, and special attention must be directed at protecting privacy. However, the new technology can create both more useful information and greater individual protection. On the basis of the limited examination it was possible to undertake, The Commhion recommends: Personal criminal-record information should be organized as follows: There should be a national law enforcement directory that records an individual's arrests for serious crimes, the disposition of each case, and all subsequent formal contacts with criminal justice agencies related to those arrests. Access should be limited to criminal justice agencies. There should be State law enforcement directories similar to the national directory, but including less serious offenses. States should consider criminal justice registries that could record some ancillary factual information (e.g., education and employment records, probation reports) of individuals listed in their State directories. This information must be protected even more carefully than the information in the directories, and would be accessible only to court or corrections officers. No further background information other than the facts about formal contacts with criminal justice agencies, which are matters of record, should be maintained in the national directory. Any detailed background information would have to come from the individual agencies noted in the directory record. This requirement may pose some added inconvenience in collecting complete histories and in conducting research on criminal careers. However, the potential dangers inherent in a massive central dossier outweigh these disadvantages. The security of the directory, as with all personal information files, must be carefully protected. Techniques such as auditing users, computer programs and operators, and encoding of files and transmissions should be used to assure that the information is used only for legitimate criminal justice requirements. The national directory would be similar to a current FBI service. Today, when a police department sends fingerprints to Washington, they are checked against a file of 16 million fingerprints of previously arrested and fingerprinted individuals. The police department then gets positive identification of the individual, and his criminal record or "rap sheet." The process is conducted through the mail and takes about two weeks. About 1,000 fingerprint clerks at the FBI process about 23,000 such fingerprint records each day. The rap sheet contains a record of all arrests that lead to the submission of fingerprints to the FBI. I t is also supposed to contain the court disposition following each arrest, but this information fails to appear in 35 percent of the cases. A police department has no strong incentive for reporting dispositions after the positive identification has been established. Some system of incentives should be developed to assure that court dispositions are recorded. should be responsible for the collection, analysis, and disIn addition, an individual should be able to learn the con- semination of two basic kinds of data: tents of his record and have access to a procedure to Those characterizing criminal careers, derived from expunge clearly mistaken arrests, as in cases of mistaken carefully drawn samples of anonymous offenders. identity or unfounded charge. The FBI maintains a record until it leans of an inThose on crime and the system's response to it, as redividual's death, or until his 75th birthday has passed and ported by the criminal justice agencies at all levels. he has not been arrested in the previous 10 years. I t may be retained even longer because of the difficulty of cleanIn addition, the Center would serve as a central focus ing out the files. Earlier purging--either destroying the for other statktics.related to the crime problem, such as record or putting it in a secure file to which only the most costs of crime, census data, and victim surveys. It would serious crimes-would warrant access-would not only in- have to work in close coordination with the FBI's Uniform crease efficiency but reduce the stigma of a stale arrest. Crime Reports Section, the Children's Bureau of the A witness at congressional hearings claimed that "the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, the Christian notion of the possibility of redemption is incom- Federal Bureau of Prisons, and other existing agencies prehensible to the computer." By a policy of early purg- 'with continuing responsibility for collecting and reporting of the files, computers permit restoring the notion of ing related statistics. It would combine their informaredemption to the existing manual files. tion into an integrated picture of crime and criminal The primary entry into the directory would continue to justice. be by means of fingerprints, using the present manual A major task of the Center woul'd be to solicit the cotechniques until future automated techniques are devel- operation of criminal justice agencies to assure that they oped. In the future, it may be possible to add latent compile and submit cokplete &d accurate statistics. The fingerprints and repeating offender "profile" entries ca- continuing efforts of the FBI to upgrade police statistical pable of being searched by name, persohal appearance, or reporting have shown how important and difficult this modus operandi. task is. To gain cooperation of local agencies, it would A majority of States today maintain State identification be necessary, first, to establish an understanding of the usebureaus similar to the FBI service. These States would fulness of statistics as an operational and management presumably continue to maintain their bureaus until there tool, and, second, to create strong national orgar&ation was a more rapidly responding national directory. A able to collect, process, analyze, interpet, and disseminate number would choose to continue this service in a form the information, and ready to pay the collection costs. modeled after the proposed national directory, particu- The lessons inherent in the collapse in 1945 of the nalarly in order to maintain criminal records below the tional judicial statistics program-which was manned by threshold of seriousness of the national directory. one person 10 percent of his time-urge that the effort Some States might choose to establish State registries be well supported whenit is undertaken. that record supplementary information, such as references to school history, employment history, juvenile as well as adult offenses, aptitude-test results, etc., to aid SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL RESEARCH in preparing probation reports and in selecting correc- AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM tional treatment. Each State would have to decide for itOn the basis of the work of the Science and Technolself what information it wants to retain, recognizing that as more information is included, the potential danger ogy Task Force described in this chapter and in the report of misuse and the need for limiting access increase. of the task force, the Commission believes that science and technology can make a significant contribution to better understanding of the nature of crime and of the During the Commission's investigations, the inade- operations of the criminal justice system, and to the dequacy of the available data on crime and on the sign and development of valuable technological devices criminal justice system has become very clear. Statistical and systems. The Federal Government should take the initiative in information is needed in order to assess the magnitude of the crime problem in the United States and to measure organizing and sustaining a science and technology rethe effectiveness of programs for prevention, enforcement, search and development program. Whether it be equipand correction. The problems of incompleteness, incon- ment development, field experimentation, data collection, sistency, and unreliability of the current data, as well or analytical studies, the limited budgets of individual as the outstanding data needs,, have been discussed in State and local criminal justice agencies cannot provide chapter 2 and in this chapter. the necessary investment. 'Furthermore, the results will be of nationwide benefit. Thus, the Federal Government The Commission recommends: should support a major science and technology research A National Criminal Justice Statistics Center should be . and development program relating to all areas of criminal established in the Department of Justice. The Center justice. a The program should introduce science and technology to criminal justice. The Federal Government should sponsor research,' development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E) projects at the local and State levels, especially supporting those widely useful projects that .no single agency could support alone. The Government should help criminal justice agencies get the technical support they need to incorporate the results of these projects into their operations. To infuse science and technology directly into day-to-day activities, operations research groups should be established in the larger criminal justice agencies. Finally, to provide the basic fund of knowledge, a major science and technology program should be established in one of the research institutes described in chapters 12 and 13 below. The President's Science Advisory Committee has reviewed and supports these recommendations. RDTBE PROGRAM The Commission recommends: The Federal Government should sponsor a science and technology RDT&E program with three primary components: systems analysis, field experimentation, and equipment-system development. . The systems analysis studies should inclde development of mathematical models of the criminal justice system and appropriate component parts, and collection of the data needed to apply these models to improving operations. The.projects to be undertaken should include: 0 Model of a State criminal justice system. Apprehension studies in a police department. 0 Computer simulation of court pmessing of cases. These studies are only extensions of the initial efforts undertaken by the science and technology task force. As the program develops, new problem areas in which systems analysis can be usefully applied will appear, and some of them may turn out to be more productive than the ones already identified. Field experimentation should be conducted by operating criminal justick agencies in conjunction with individuals or groups competent in experimental research. Many operating innovations are possible, and these should be evaluated in actual use both to test their value and to assess their possible side effects. The experimental projects to be undertaken should include: Controlled experiments examining various police patrol concepts, such as statistical techniques for allocation of patrol forces, various random patrol patterns, saturation patrolling, etc. Laboratory simulation of various police command and control systems and procedures. Statistical analysis relating recidivism to offender characteristics and to correctional treatment possibilities. These areas, again, are only suggestive; many more may be discovered by the criminal justice agencies themselves in their process of self-examination and innovation. A number of basic kinds of equipment should be developed for general use by criminal justice agencies. Some of the promising possibilities include : E l Computer-assisted police command and control facility. Semiautomatic fingerprint system. 0. Inexpensive portable radio for foot patrolmen and for patrolmen operating away from their car radios. Automatic patrol car locator. The RDT&E program would have to be developed in detail by the office administering it. The program would have to be housed in an agency that was sympathetic to research and development, and could attract the highcaliber scientific staff needed to manage the progmm. The program would inevitably require technical guidance of a breadth and quality exceeding that which could be expected of any internal technical staff. A d v i s q committees comprising scientists and criminal justice officials would be needed to review proposals in specific subject areas. In many cases, another government office will be the best choice to manage a specific project; the Army Materiel Command might direct the development of a portable radio, for example. Nonprofit or even profitmaking contractors, as used by the Department of Defense, might furnish broad technical guidance. TECHNICAL SUPPORT AND ESTABLISHMENT OF EQUIPMENT STANDARDS As the Federal Government plays a more important role in aiding criminal justice agencies to share in the products of modern technology, it will become necessary to help them use it effectively. To this end, there will be a need for centralized establishment of technical standards (for radios, computer codes, etc.) and for provision of. technical assistance and guidance. The Commission recommends: A Federal agency should be assigned to coordinate h e establishment of standards for equipment to be used by criminal justice agencies,. and to provide those agencies technical assistance. . .. This organization should be an adjunct to an existing Federal agency already technically strong and familiar with standardization problems. The National Bureau of Standards is one such agency. I t could organize committees of users and manufacturers to agree on equipment and communication standards. I t would be a center with growing competence in criminal justice equipment problems, and would be staffed by scientists and engineers in the most relevant technologies--electronics, computer sciences, operations research, chemistry, etc. The organization would help criminal justice agen- cies draw on local technical resources such as consultants, professional societies, and manufacturers, and would help the agencies to assess the products received. OPERATIONS RESEARCH GROUPS WITHIN CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCIES As an important mechanism for innovation, the large criminal justice agencies, and especially large police departments, should establish small operations research groups with professionally trained scientists, mathematicians, and engineers, including at least one person competent in statistics. The group would analyze the operations, design and evaluate experiments, and provide general technical assistance. Such groups have proved extremely valuable to industry, government, and the military. Certainly each of the 21 police departments, 4 sheriffs' forces, and 12 State police forces with more than 1,000 employees could benefit significantly from such a group. The Commission recommends: The Federal Government should encourage and support the establishment of operations research staffs in large criminal justice agencies. SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM I N A RESEARCH INSTITUTE Probably the most important single mechanism for bringing the resources of science and technology to bear on the problems of crime would be the establishment of a major prestigious science and technology research program within one of the research institutes discussed in chapters 12 and 13. The program would create interdisciplinary teams of mathematicians, computer scientists, electronics engineers, physicists, biologists, and other natural scientists, and would require psychologists, sociologists, economists, and lawyers on these teams. The institute and the program must be significant enough to attract the best scientists available, and to this end, the director of this institute must himself have a background in science and technology or have the respect of scientists. Because it would be difficult to attract such a staff into the Federal Government, the institute should be established by a university, a group of universities, or an independent nonprofit organization, and should be within a major metropolitan area. The institute would have to establish close ties with neighboring criminal justice agencies that would receive the benefit of serving as experimental laboratories for such an institute. The research program might require, in order to bring together the necessary "critical mass" of competent staff, an annual budget which might reach $5 million, funded with at least a 3year lead time to assure continuity. The Commission recommends: A major scientific and technological research program within a research. institute should be created and supported by the Federal Government. Chapter 12 Research-Instrument for Reform The Commission has found and discussed throughout this report many needs of law enforcement and the administration of criminal iustice. But what it has found to be the greatest need is the need to know. America has learned the uses of exploration and discovery and knowledge in shaping and controlling its physical environment, in protecting its health, in furthering its national security, and in countless 'other areas. The startling advances in the physical and biological sciences are products of an intellectual revolution that substituted the painful and plodding quest for knowledge for the comforting acceptance of received notions. The Nation has invested billions of dollars and the best minds at its disposal in this quest for scientific discovery. The returns from this investment are dramatically apparent in the reduction of disease, the development of newweapons, the availability of goods, the rise in living standards, and the conquest of space. But this revolution ,of scientific discovery has largely bypassed the problems of crime and crime control. Writing for the Boston Crime Survey in 1927 Felix Frankfurter observed that the subject was "overlaid with shibboleths and cliches" and that it was essential to "separate the known from the unknown, to divorce fact from assumption, to strip biases of every sort of their authority.". The statement is no less true today. Few domestic social problems more seriously threaten our welfare or exact a greater toll on our resources. But society has relied primarily on traditional answers and has looked almost exclusively to common sense and hunch for needed changes. The Nation spends more than $4 billion annually on the criminal justice system alone. Yet the expenditure for the kinds of descriptive, operational, and evaluative research that are the obvious prerequisites for a rational program of crime control is negligible. Almost every industry makes a significant investment in research each year. Approximately 15 percent of the Defense Department's annual budget is allocated to research. While different fields call for different levels of research, it is worth noting that research commands only a small fraction of 1 percent of the total expenditure for crime control. There is probably no subject of comparable Legal aid research project-University for Studies in Criminal Justice of Chicago Center concern to which the Nation is devoting so many resources and so much effort with so little knowledge of what it is doing. I t is true, of course, that many kinds of knowledge about crime must await better understanding of social behavior. I t is also true that research will never provide the final answers to many of the vexing questions about crime. Decisions as to the activities that should be made criminal, as to the limits there should be on search and seizure, or as to the proper scope of the right to counsel, cannot be made solely on the basis of research data. Those decisions involve weighing the importance of fairness and privacy and freedom-values that cannot be scientifically analyzed. But when research cannot, in itself, provide final answers, it can provide data crucial to making informed policy judgments. There is virtually no subject connected with crime or criminal justice into which further research is unnecessary. The Commission was able to explore many of these subjects in connection with its work, and to develop the data that underlie the recommendations made in this report. Many of its projects sought to open up new areas of knowledge; many drew on the prior work of scholars, governmental agencies, and private organizations. Crime is a continuing and urgent reality with which we must deal as effectively as we can. We cannot await final answers. The alternatives are not whether to act or not, but whether to act wisely or unwisely. Some Commission research has served to mark out paths along which further exploration should proceed. The pilot survey of criminal victims shows a great potential for discovering the extent and the nature of unreported crime. Such surveys should be conducted on a continuing basis, so their usefulness can be tested further. The Commission's studies of police-community relations were as extensive as any previously undertaken, but, of course, this extremely complicated and crucial subject deserves and requires continuing study. The science and technology task force's study of the relationship between police response time and the apprehension of suspects has suggested the value of changing various procedures so as to reduce response time, but it remains for the police to apply this analysis to their specific situations, to experiment with the suggested changes and to discover what happens in practice. Naturally, in the course of its studies the Commission discovered many areas it had neither the time nor the resources to explore, al*ough it was clear that there was a vital need that they be explored. For example, the effects on law enforcement and crime of legal restrictions on such police practices as interrogation and search and seizure are not known; ways of testing those effects accu1;ately must be developed. There is no present technique for measuring the deterrent effects on criminal activity of the imposition, removal or change of sanctions; such a technique is badly needed. I t would obviously be futile to attempt to catalog all the kinds of research that are needed. We do not even know all the questions that need to be asked. But we do know many of them and we also know that planning and organizing the search for knowledge is a matter of highest importance. PLANNING AND ORGANIZING RESEARCH Research is many kinds of activity. I t is gathering and analyzing facts. I t is conducting and evaluating operational experiments. I t is devising methods for testing the effects of change. I t is searching for the motivations of human behavior. Obviously there is a need here for a wide variety of talents. Sociologists, lawyers, economists, psychiatrists, psychologists, physical scientists, engineers, statisticians, mathematicians-all these and more are needed. There is likewise opportunity for a wide variety of organizations and institutions. Too little is known about the various uses and limitations of different methods of organizing for research to permit the prescrip- tion of any one mold for future research efforts. Indeed it is essential that such efforts take many different forms. RESEARCH BY OPERATING AGENCIES There is no activity, technique, program, or administrative structure in the criminal justice system that is so perfect it does not need to be systematically scrutinized, evaluated, and experimented with. Police patrol and police investigation, personnel structures, communication systems and information systems, community relations programs and internal investigation programs; court business methods and court organization, plea bargaining and ways of providing defense counsel, the selection of prosecutors and the training of judges; prison industry pro' grams and prison design, halfway houses and juvenile training schools, parole decisions and parole techniques are a few of the hundreds of subjects that should be studied. Operating agencies should obviously concern themselves with this kind of research. But it is clear that the criminal justice system does not have the means to conduct research entirely on its own. Few people working in any part of the system at the present time have the scholarly training to use the sophisticated methods of gathering and analyzing facts, inventing experiments, and using controls that research requires. The system's administrators must call upon the universities, foundations, social service agencies, and industrial corporations for help-must open their doors and reveal their secrets. Chapter 1 mentioned the inertia of the criminal justice system, its slowness to make even those changes that everyone agrees are necessary. Perhaps the most damaging Participant-obseruer meets with youth group on Chicago's North Side. expression of that inertia has been the failure of most police, court, and correctional officials to recognize how little they know and how important to America it is for them to know more. Doubtless many of them have been so busy merely keeping abreast of their day-to-day work that they have had no time for contemplation and study. Doubtless some, who are aware of the need, have looked at the system's limited resources and have concluded that trying to fill that need was hopeless. But beyond these real and formidable obstacles there is in the criminal justice system a reluctance to face hard facts, a resistance to innovation, a suspicion of "outsiders," a fear of the kind of criticism that objective appraisal may lead to that, until they are overcome, will make significant programs of research difficult, if not impossi~ble, to plan and organize. The Commission is well aware that no recommendation it can make will overcome reluctance, resistance, suspicion, and fear; it is well aware of how little mere adjuration and exhortation are likely to accomplish; it is well aware that many mayors, Governors and' legislators, to whom the system is responsible and to whom it must look for leadership and funds, have been no more eager to face this problem than police, courts, or correctional officials have been; it is well aware that the scholarly community has been slow to interest itself in the problems of crime and criminal justice, and to offer its skills and services. I t can only note that some of the operating agencies that have recognized their responsibility for research have found ways of improving their effectiveness. All too few have accepted this responsibility. The Commission recommends: Criminal justice agencies such as State court and correctional systems and large police departments should develop their own research units, staffed by specialists and drawing on the advice and assistance of leading scholars and experts in relevant fields. I N D E P E N D E N T RESEARCH Of course, there is no sharp line between the kind of research that operating agencies can do, and the kind that is more appropriately the responsibility of independent researchers. Often the line is blurred, as when a researcher uses a police department ,or a court or a prison as a subject for a research study, and what is learned is of direct benefit to the agency. The Vera Institute's bail study in the New York City courts is an excellent example. O n the other hand, many of the problems of crime and crime control require research not directly related to day-to-day operations of the criminal justice system. This is 'obviously true of such subjects as the relationship between crime and poverty, the impact of organized crime on the economy, the scope of unreported crimes, or the nature and extent of gambling, to offer but four of a multitude of possible examples. Whatever the nature of the inquiry, those outside the system generally have a greater freedom to question long accepted assumptions, to explore radically new modes of action, and to conduct long-range research which might lead to basic alterations in the structure and functioning of operating institutions. The independent research which has been done in the past has been centered in law schools and sociology departments of universities. Much of it has been the work of professors working alone or with one or a few graduate students. This form of research has produced significant contributions to our learning and will continue to be a major source of new data and new ideas, but there are large areas where it is inadequate. Since the complexities of crime cut across many disciplines, and many projects require a group of people working together, it is important that there, be some collaborative, organized research projects and centers. Individual scholars can add to our knowledge of the causes of various kinds of criminal behavior. But to develop a comprehensive plan for combating organized crime, for example, it would be helpful to bring together economists, sociologists, and lawyers. I n recent years a few departments or centers specifically for the study of crime and criminal justice have developed a t universities. Such centers bring together persons from a number of relevant fields for collaborative research. One promising example is the Center for Studies in Criminal Justice at the University of Chicago, recently funded by the Ford Foundation. Its projects draw on the work of scholars from law, sociology, psy- chiatry, and other fields. Its advisory committee includes police officials, judges, and correctional officials. Its projects include studies of deterrence, alternative methods of treatment of offenders, legal aid for jail inmates and slum dwellers, and compensation for victims of crimes of violence. Other criminal research centers include those at the University of California, Georgetown University, and the,University of Pennsylvania. Some criminal research activity has developed outside of the university framework. The Vera Institute has launched a broadly conceived research program in New York City, which includes studies of police questioning, night courts, and drunkenness. The American Bar Foundation has completed several programs of research into the administration of criminal justice, and has begun others. The California Institute for the Study of Crime and Delinquency works closely with correctional agencies in the State but was designed to be "free from both the constraints 'of political government and institutions of higher learning," and to "bridge the gap between the interests of crime control administrators and those of academic researchers." The National Council on Crime and Delinquency has sponsored significant amounts of research, in addition to disseminating work of others. The Commission believes that institutions for organized research in this field are of great significance and that more private and governmental financial support should be provided for this purpose, though not to the exclusion of other efforts. T h e Commission recommends: Substantial public and private funds should be provided for a number of criminal research institutes in various parts of the country. Some of the institutes might be expansions of existing research centers. They should be sufficiently wellfinanced so they can attract highly qualified persons from the social and natural sciences, the law, business administration and psychiatry, to work together and with criminal justice agencies. Some of their work should be directed at practical problems facing operating agencies and major policy issues facing legislators. I n addition, there should be opportunity for broader inquiry, including challenges to the basic assumptions of any part of the present system of justice. They could study such especially puzzling foims of criminal activity as white collar crime, professional crime and organized crime. They could study the need for and the effects of controversial police procedures. While these institutes should not be controlled or dominated by the Federal Government, they could play an important role in providing ideas and data to the Department of Justice in connection with State and local aid programs described in chapter 13, and in evaluating innovative proposals suggested for Federal support. Most of these institutes should be at universities since it seems likely, at least in the foreseeable future, that the leading scholars in this field would prefer to work in a university setting. The ability to draw on faculty and Patrol observation-American Bar Foundation Survey students of law, architecture, medical, and business schools, and social and physical science departments would provide a broad base for the institute's work. A university-based institute would be in a favorable position to train the research personnel that criminal justice agencies need so badly. And it could, through special seminars or degree courses, provide administrators and specialists from the agencies with a broader understanding of the whole problem of crime and its control and the advantages to be gained from research. Through its ties to the university, the institute would promote the infusion of the results and attitudes of research into the professional training of lawyers, policemen, and correctional workers. The Commission finds persuasive the suggestion that has been made to it that one of these institutes should be independent of any single university and should not rely on Federal financial support except as "seed money." When the establishment of an institute of criminology in New York City was under study, the bar association committee that considered the matter concluded: T h e very idea of such a criminology center or institute, if it is t o justify its reason for being, is that it be not subordinated to the. professional, vocational, or even educational, objectives of institutions or organizations seeking or serving other and narrower or broader goals in the community. I t is for that reason that the Committee found itself i n complete agreement with its reporter that the kind of criminological center or institute contemplated should, as a matter of strong preference, not be associated wit'h any particular university, professional school, governmental or private organization devoted to other purposes, or committed t o any narrow professional purpose or particular evil or amelioration in the administration of the criminal law. Breitel, Foreword to Radzinowicz, T h e Need for Criminology, p. vii (1965). Such an institute could be set up jointly by a number of universities, as was the Brookhaven National Laboratory. Its continuing financing could be drawn from a number of foundations and, particularly, from business corporations. Other forms of independent institutes are possible. For example, an institute that had the application of science and technology to criminal administration as one of its primary concerns might be established in affiliation with one of the present, nonprofit scientific corporations that undertake military research for the Government. The Commission recognizes that in view of the dearth of skilled and interested researchers in this field, such institutes cannot be set up overnight. However, it urges that immediate steps be taken to set u p one or two without delay and that as soon as possible no less than four be established in different parts of the country. A substantial part of the funding of these institutes should come from private sources. But whatever form these institutes take, and ideally they should take a variety of different forms, major support by the Federal Government would be essential, a t least in the beginning. Chapter 13 proposes such support as part of the overall Federal program. For the institutes to attract the best people and to be effective in their work it is essential that Federal funds be provided on a basis that does not impair the independent administration of the research program. Of course, even if several institutes were set up, their work should constitute only part of the research activity in this field. Work by individual scholars, by existing and new privately financed centers, will still be necessary, and adequate financing for these efforts is no less essential than for the institutes. The Commission recommends: Universities, foundations, and other private groups should expand their efforts in the field of criminal research. Federal, State, and local governments should make increased funds available for the benefit of individual's or groups with promising research programs and the ability to execute them. NATIONAL FOUNDATION FOR CRIMINAL RESEARCH The Commission believes it essential that some national body act as a focus for research efforts in the field of crime and its control, stimulating vitally needed projects, providing more effective communication between those doing research, and disseminating what is learned. Thus, where a police department experiments with important new techniques, someone should be concerned that the effects of these techniques are scientifically evaluated, and that other police departments find out what is learned. If a city court judge is considering methods for reducing delay, there should be some place he can check to see what has been tried elsewhere and with what success. If whole areas of crucial importance such as drug abuse, police misconduct, or white-collar crime continue to be shrouded in darkness, someone should have responsibility for seeing that money and talent are mustered to seek data and make proposals. The need for stimulation, coordination, and disscmination is now met only in a limited, fragmentary, and often haphazard way. In view of the enormous increase in research activity and the variety of research organizations envisaged in this report, it seems desirable that there be a Federal agency with overall responsibility for research. This agency should not displace private and governmental agencies seeking to perform this function, but by collaborating with them, should seek to insure as broad and effective a program of research and dissemination as possible. I t should serve as a clearinghouse of research and information for the benefit of Federal, State, and local agencies and private institutions. While there are some obvious advantages to having this agency in the Department of Justice, the Commission believes that the long-range goal should be to establish an independent agency-a National Foundation for Criminal Research. Like the National Science Foundation, it should be financed by an annual appropriation from Congress. Its independent status would insure its freedom from the pressures and immediate needs of any Federal agency responsible for criminal administration. Such independence would also make it more attractive to leading scholars in the field, on whom its success would depend. T h e Commission recommends: A National Foundation for Criminal Research should be established as an independent agency. The Commission recognizes that to establish a National Foundation for Criminal Rescarch at the same time that the new aid program proposed in chapter 13 is being developed, would present a serious risk of confusion and competition for already scarce reseal-ch personnel. I t is essential that the new Justice Department program embody a major research component, if it is not simply to perpetuate present failures in many areas. This is particularly important at the outset when difficult decisions must be made about what meets the standards justifying Federal aid. There is too little research now being done in this field and very few skilled researchers to do it. Furthermore, the establish~ncntof a National Foundation for Criminal Rescarch presents organization and funding problems which the Colnmission has not fully csplored. Therefore, it may be desirable to defer the establishment of such a foundation until the proposed new Justice Department agency is established. I n that event, one of the early responsibilities of this agency should be to develop detailed plans for an independent foundation and to work toward its establishment. "Together we must chart a national strategy against crime" PRESIDENT JOHNSON ADDRESSING FIRST MEETING OF STATE CRIMINAL JUSTICE PLANNING COMMITTEES, OCTOBER 1966 Chapter 73 A National Strategy AMERICA CAN CONTROL CRIME. This report has tried to say how. I t has shown that crime flourishes where the conditions of life are the worst, and that therefore the foundation of a national strategy against crime is an unremitting national effort for social justice. Reducing poverty, discrimination, ignorance, disease and urban blight, and the anger, cynicism or despair those conditions can inspire, is one great step toward reducing crime. I t is not the task, indeed it is not within the competence, of a Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice to make detailed proposals about housing or education or civil rights, unemployment, or welfare or health. However, it is the Commission's clear and urgent duty to stress that forceful action in these fields is essential to crime prevention, and to adjure the officials of every agency of criminal justice-policemen, prosecutors, judges, correctional authorities-to associate themselves with and labor for the success of programs that will improve the quality of American life. This 'report has shown that most criminal careers begin in youth, and that therefore programs that will reduce juvenile delinquency and keep delinquents and youthful offenders from settling into lives of crime are indispensable parts of a national strategy. I t has shown that the formal criminal process, arrest to trial to punishment, seldom protects the con~munityfrom offenders of certain kinds and that therefore, the criminal justice system and the con~n~unity must jointly seek alternative ways of treating them. I t has shown that treatment in the community might also return to constructive life many offenders who quite appropriately have been subjected to formal process. This report has pointed out that legislatures and, by extension, the public, despite their well-founded alarm about crime, have not provided the wherewithal for the criminal justice system to -do what it could and should do. It has identified the system's major needs as better qualified, better trained manpower; more modern equipment and management; closer cooperation among its functional parts and among its many and.varied jurisdictions; and, of course, th'e money without which farreaching and enduring improvements are impossible. Finally, this report has emphasized again and again that improved law enforcement and criminal administration is more than a matter of giving additional resources to police departments, courts, and correctional systems. Resources are not ends. They are means, the means through which the agencies of criminal justice can seek solutions to the problems of preventing and controlling crime. Many of those solutions have not yet been found. We need to know much more about crime. A national strategy against crime must be in large part a strategy bf search. WHAT STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS CAN D O Almost every recommendation in this report is a recommendation to State or local governments, the governments that by and large administer criminal justice in America. A special difficulty of writing the report has been finding terms general enough to describe criminal administration in 50 States and thousands of local communities, and at the same time specific enough to be helpful. The Commission is acutely aware that the report does not discuss many distinctive local conditions and problems, that its descriptions often are quite broad, that no one of its recommendations applies with equal force to every locality, that, indeed, some of its recommendations do not apply at all to some localities. O n the whole the report concentrates on cities, for that is where crime is most prevalent, most feared, and most difficult to control. On the whole the report dwells on the criminal justice system's deficiencies and failures, since prescribing remedies was what the Commission was organized to do. Some States and cities are doing much to improve criminal administration; their work is the basis for many of the report's recomn~endations. Finally, because the report is a national report, it is not and cannot be a detailed manual of instructions that police departments, courts and correctional systems need only to follow step by step in order to solve their problems. I t is of necessity a 'general guide that suggests lines along which local agencies can act. PLANNING-THE FIRST STEP A State or local government that undertakes to improve its criminal administration should begin by constructing, if it has not already done so, formal machinery for planning. Significant reform is not to be achieved overnight by a stroke of a pen; it is the product of thought and preparation. No experienced and responsible State or city official needs to be told that. The Commission's point is not the elementary one that each individual action against crime should be planned, but that all of a State's or a city's actions against crime should be planned together, by a single body. The police, the courts, the correctional system and the noncriminal agencies of the community must plan their actions against crime jointly if they are to make real headway. The relationships among the parts of the criminal justice system and between the system and the community's other institutions, governmental and nongovernmental, are so intimate and intricate that a change anywhere may be felt everywhere. Putting into effect the Commission's recommendation for three entry "tracks" in police departments could involve the rewriting of civil service regulations, the revision of standard police field procedures, the adjustment of city budgets, possibly the passage of enabling legislation. A reform like organizing a Youth Services Bureau to which the police and the juvenile courts, and parents and school officials as well, could refer young people will require an enormous amount of planning. Such a bureau will have to work closely with the community's other youth-serving agencies. I t will affect the caseloads of juvenile courts, probation services and detention facilities. I t will raise legal issues of protecting the rights of the young people referred to it. I t could be attached to a local or State government in a variety of ways. I t could offer many different kinds of service. I t could be staffed by many different kinds of people. I t could be financed in many different ways. Most of the recommendations in this report raise similar problems. Later in this chapter a large-scale program of Federal support for State and local agencies is proposed. If this program is adopted, States and cities will need plans in order to secure their share of Federal funds. Furthermore, concerted and systematic planning is not only a necessary prelude to action. It is a spur to action. The best way to interest the community in the problems of crime is to engage members of it in planning. The best way to mobilize the community against crime is to lay before it a set of practical and coherent plans. This report often has had occasion to use the word "isolation" to describe certain aspects of the relationship between the criminal justice system and the community. State and city planning agencies could do much to end that isolation. The Commission recommends: I n every State and every city, an agency, or one or more officials, should be specifically responsible for planning improvements in crime prevention and control and encouraging their implementation. It is impossible, of course, to prescribe in a national report the precise forms that State or city planning agencies should take. No two States have identical constitutions or penal codes or crime problems. State-city re- lationships vary from State to State, and often within States according to the size of cities. County governments have more or less power, depending on the State. Municipal government takes many forms. However, there are certain principles that are universally applicable. First, much of the,planning for action against crime will have to be done at the State level. Every State operates a court system and a corrections system, and has responsibility for certain aspects' of law enforcement. State legislatures, as a rule, control local finances. The States are in the best position to encourage or require the coordination or pooling of activities that is so vitally necessary in metropolitan areas and among rural counties. Many States have units, some independent and some a part of the Governor's office, that are actively engaged in planning in the field of juvenile delinquency. I n addition, a number of Governors have responded to the President's suggestion in March 1966, that they establish State planning committees to maintain contact with this Commission during its life and with other interested Federal agencies, to appraise the needs of their State criminal systems, and to put into effect those proposals of the Commission that they find to be worthwhile. The Commission urges all Governors to establish similar committees. Second, much of the planning will have to be done a t the municipal level. The problems of the police and, to a certain extent, of the jails and the lower courts are typically city problems. Welfare, education, housing, fire prevention, recreation, sanitation, urban renewal, and a multitude of other functions that are closely connected with crime and criminal justice are also the responsibility of cities. In some cities members of the mayor's or the city manager's staff, or advisory or interdepartmental committees, coordinate the city's anticrime activities; in most cities there is as yet little planning or coordination. Third, close collaboration between State and city planning units is obviously essential. Representatives of a State's major cities should serve on the State body, and staff members of the State body should be available to the city bodies for information and advice. Money, manpower, and expertise are in too short supply to be squandered in activities that duplicate or overlap each other and, conversely, when there is no collaboration there is always a risk that some important field of action will be overlooked. Fourth, however much the structure and composition of planning units vary from place to place, all units should include both officials of the criminal justice system and citizens from other professions. Plans to improve criminal administration will be impossible to put into effect if those responsible for criminal administration do not help to make them. O n the other hand, as this report has repeatedly stressed, crime prevention is the task of the community as a whole and, as it has also stressed, all parts of the criminal justice system can benefit from the special knowledge and points of view of those outside it. Business and civic leaders, lawyers, school and welfare officials, persons familiar with the problems of slum dwellers, and members of the academic community are among those who might be members of planning boards, or who might work with such boards as advisers or consultants. Fifth and finally, planning boards must have sufficient authority and prestige, and staffs large enough and able enough, to permit them to furnish strong and imaginative leadership in making plans and seeing them through. The first thing any planning unit will have to do is to gather and analyze facts: Statistics about crime and the costs and caseloads of the criminal justice system; knowledge about the programs and procedures being used in its own jurisdiction, and about those that have proved successful elsewhere; data about the social conditions that appear to be linked with crime; information about potentially helpful individuals and organizations in the community. I n few States or cities has information of these kinds been compiled systematically. Gathering facts will be an invaluable process for any planning body, not only because of the importance of the facts themselves, but also because they will have to be gathered from people and organizations experienced in crime prevention and criminal administration : Judges, correctional officials, police officials, prosecutors, defense counsel, youth workers, universities, foundations, civic organizations, service clubs, neighborhood groups. Those people and organizations can be combined into a network of support for the changes the planning body will propose. Such a network will be able to do much to overcome resistance to change, or fear of it, inside and outside the criminal justice system, by showing how changes can be made carefully and practically. O n the basis of the facts it gathers, the planning body will be able to appraise objectively and frankly the needs of its State or city and the resources that ark available for meeting those needs. I t would ask, for example, whether in its jurisdiction police training is adequate; whether the lower and juvenile courts are failing in any of the ways cited by the Commission; whether the correctional system is beginning to make fundamental improvements of the sort the Commission has found are widely needed. I t will discover needs that can be met rapidly by putting into effect programs that have succeeded in other places; for example, bail reform projects, systems for the assignment of defense counsel to indigents, police standards commissions, rehabilitation programs in jails, sentencing institutes for judges. An excellent model of how much a planning body can do is the work of the President's Commission on Crime in the District of Columbia, which undertook a comprehensive study of the criminal justice system and other agencies concerned with crime and delinquency in the District, and made detailed recommendations for change. The one caution about planning bodies the Commission feels it must make is that they not serve as an excuse for postponing changes that can be made immediately. For example, most police departments could immediately add legal advisers to their staffs, or launch police-community relations programs. I n many cities there is no question about whether more prosecutors and probation officers are needed in the lower courts; they clearly are and they should be provided at once. Sentencing councils could be organized with no more effort than it would take for a number of judges to arrange to meet regularly. Other recommendations that one jurisdiction or another could put into effect at once, without elaborate planning, will be found in the pages of this report. Simple changes that can be made immediately should be, not only because justice demands it, but because making them will contribute to creating a climate in which c&nplicated, longrange reform will be feasible. MAJOR LINES FOR STATE AND LOCAL ACTION MONEY New York State and local oficials plan the application of technology to criminal justice information needs. The most urgent need of the agencies of criminal justice in the States and cities is money with which to finance the multitude of improvements they must make. As is set forth in the next section of this chapter, the Commission believes that Federal financial support of improved criminal administration in the States and cities is necessary and appropriate. But even more essential is an increase in State support. Plans for change must include realistic estimates of financial requirements and persuasive showings of the gains that can be achieved by spending more on criminal administration. A central task of planning bodies and the network of agencies and individuals working with them will be to mobilize support, within legislatures and by the public, for spending money on innovation and reform. The collaboration of police, prosecutors, correctional officials, and others involved in the agencies of justice is crucial in this, for they know best how vital the need for greater resources is, and how little is accomplished by identifying scapegoats or resorting to simplistic answers as solutions to the complicated problems of crime and criminal justice. PERSONNEL The Commission has found that many of the agencies of justice are understaffed. Giving them the added manpower they need is a matter of high priority for protection of public safety and of the rights of individuals accused of crime. But even more essential is a dramatic improvement in the quality of personnel throughout the system. Establishment of standard-setting bodies, such as police standards commissions that exist in several States, is one approach to this problem. Better and more numerous training programs are another. State and city planning groups must consider to what extent each operating agency can and should provide its own training and to what extent metropolitan, statewide, or regional programs should be developed instead. If the agencies of justice are to recruit and retain the able, well-educated people they badly need, they will have to offer them higher pay and challenging and satisfying work. For example, it is clear to the Commission that until the single recruitment and promotion "track" that now prevails in all police forces is abandoned, upgrading of the police will be extremely difficult. Thus, one of the first and most difficult tasks of planning bodies will be to consider major changes in the personnel structures of the agencies of justice. PROGRAMS TO MEET N E W NEEDS This report has described how modern urban life has burdened the criminal justice system with a range of almost entirely new problems. I t has attempted to suggest promising ways of dealing with them. For example, it outlines a model for future development in corrections that predicates treatment on a new kind of facility: A small institution, located in the community it serves, that can be used flexibly for short-term incarceration and as a base for intensive community treatment. I t has proposed police communications centers that take advantage of modern technology. It has described how necessary it is, in the interest of preventing delinquency, for the community to reassess the current practices of schools, welfare departments, and housing officials, particularly in poor neighborhoods. It has proposed, as a new alternative to criminal disposition for less serious juvenile offenders, Youth Services Bureaus that would provide them with a variety of treatment services and keep them from being grouped with serious criminals. It has proposed greatly strengthened community relations programs to improve respect for law and increase police effectiveness in the highest crime neighborhoods of America's cities. In addition, broader methods of meeting problems presented by the increasing complexity and anonymity of life in large urban areas are obviously important. Thus, some cities may wish to consider developing procedures or agencies-of which the ombudsman, which has proved useful in a number of other countries, only one possible model-to assist citizens in understanding and dealing with the many official agencies that affect their lives. These are only a few important examples of the many new services the Commission recommends that State and local planning bodies develop. I n many instances establishing new programs will be costly. The Commission is therefore recommending that the emphasis of proposed Federal financial aid be placed on innovation. The Commission further recommends that State and local governments carefully consider the feasibility and desirability of devoting to new programs increasing proportions of the funds allocated to crime control. ORGANIZATION A N D PROCEDURES OF AGENCIES OF JUSTICE An important matter for planning units and operating agencies to consider is how the police, the courts, and corrections can improve their organization and their operations. Since there are throughout the Nation many examples to draw on, and since legislative action often will not be required, early and substantial improvements can be made. Such of the Commission's proposals as those for regularizing the procedures in pretrial disposition of cases and in sentencing; for providing clearer guidance by police chiefs to field officers on such matters as the making of arrests in domestic disputes, drunkenness and civil disturbaxice situations; and for developing a "collaborative" regime within prisons, can be considered almost at once, and acted upon without legislative action and, in many instances, without significant increases in spending. The success of such changes in the States or cities where they have been made should greatly help the agencies in States and cities where they have not been made to act promptly. Planning bodies and other State and local groups may find themselves chiefly providing support, encouragement and continuing pressure for change. In some cases it may be desirable for State or local agencies to obtain suggestions from recognized professional or governmental groups such as the International Association of Chiefs of Police or the Bureau of Prisons as one means of identifying specific needs and possible ways of meeting them. L A W REFORM While many improvements in the system of criminal justice do not require legislative action other than the appropriation of funds, others do require new laws or changes in existing laws. Proposals for court reorganization may even require constitutional change. Therefore, at an early stage in their work, planning bodies should appraise the needs for legislative change. Legislative changes could include such diverse actions as enacting Federal and local prison officials plan ~ e fwaci1itic;s. new gun control laws; amending existing laws to aid in organized crime prosecutions; changing legal disabilities of former prisoners; and enacting controls over dangerous drugs that are uniform with Federal law. More general and fundamental reevaluation is also called for. A number of State legislatures, including those in Illinois, California, and New York, have recently completed or are now engaged in major revisions of their criminal codes. For States that have not yet addressed this problem, the carefully formulated 'provisions of the -4merican Law Institute's Model Penal Code serve as a valuable starting point. I n many places there are bar associations and other groups with continuing interest in law revision ; clearly such groups should be involved in the planning process. Governors and State legislatures should also give strong consideration to appointing law revision commissionscomparable to that established by the Congress for review of all Federal criminal statutes. WHAT T H E FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN D O Although day-by-day criminal administration is primarily a State and local responsibility, the Federal Government's contribution to the national effort against crime is crucial. The Federal Government carries much of the load of financing and administering the great social programs that are America's best hope of preventing crime and delinquency, and various of its branches concern themselves actively with such specific criminal problems as preventing juvenile delinquency, and treating drug addiction and alcoholism. The Federal Government has the direct responsibility for enforcing major criminal statutes against, among other things, kidnapping, bank robbery, racketeering, smuggling, counterfeiting, drug abuse and tax evasion. I t has a number of law enforcement agencies, a system of criminal courts and a large correctional establishment. Some of the Commission's recommendations, notably those concerning organized crime, drug abuse, firearms control and the pooling of correctional facilities and of police radio frequencies, are addressed in part to thc Federal Government. The Federal Government has for many years provided information, advice and training to State and local law enforcement agencies. These services have been extremely important. I n many towns and counties, for example, the Federal Bureau of Investigation's on-site training programs for police officers and sheriffs are the only systematic training programs available. The Department of Justice, under the Law Enforcement Assistance Act of 1965, has begun to give State and city agencies financial grants for research, for planning, and for demonstration projects. The Commission wants not only to endorse warn~ly Federal participation in the effort to reduce delinquency and crime, but to urge that it be intensified and accelerated. I t believes further that the Federal Government can make a dramatic new contribution to the national effort against crime by greatly expanding its support of the agencies of justice in the States and in the cities. FEDERAL PREVENTION PROGRAMS The Federal Government is already doing much in thc field of delinquency prevention. An Office of Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Development, which funds research and demonstration projccts by both governmental and nongovernmental State and local agencies, is an important part of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. The office is supporting projects, to give only a few examples, aimed at providing job training and opportunities to delinquents: enabling school dropouts to continue their education; controlling the behavior of youthful gangs; involving young people in community action; devising alternatives to juvenile court referral and finding ways to give delinquents the support and counseling they do not get from their families. The same Department's Children's Bureau has for years given technical aid to police and juvenile court personnel. The Vocational Rehabilitation Administration in the Department has recently developed job training programs specifically designed for delinquent young people. The Commission is convinced that effort; like these are of great immediate, is a most important instance. Careful experimentation with and evaluation of police patrol methods, for exarnple, or. delinquency prevention programs, means assembling and organizing teams of specialists. They can best be marshaled with the help of the Federal Government. I t is also important to make available the sorts of information that every jurisdiction in the Nation needs access to every day: wanted person and stolen property lists, Furthermore, the and fingerprint files, for example. Federal Government can do much to stimulate pooling of resources and services among local jurisdictions. Third, most local communities today are hard-pressed just to improve their agencies of justice and other facilities at a rate that will meet increases in population and in crime. They cannot spare funds for experimental or innovative programs or plan beyond the emergencies of the day. Federal collaboration can give State and local agencies an opportunity to gain on crime rather than barely stay abreast of it, by making funds, research, and technical assistance available and thereby encouraging changes that in time may make criminal administration more effective and more fair. The Federal program the Commission visualizes is a large one. During the past fiscal year the Federal Government spent a total of about $20 million on research AN EXPANDED FEDERAL EFFORT into crime and delinquency, and another $7 million, In the field of law enforcement and administration of under the Law Enforcement Assistance Act, on research justice the Federal contribution is still quite small, partic- and demonstration projects by local agencies of justice. ularly in respect to the support it gives the States and The Commission is not in a position to weigh against cities, which bear most of the load of criminal administra- each other all the demands for funds that are made upon tion. The present level of Federal support provides only the Federal Government. And so it cannot recommend a tiny portion of the resources the States and cities need the expenditure of a specific number of dollars a year on to put into effect the changes this report recommends. the program it proposes. However, it does see the proThe Commission has considered carefully whether or not gram as one on which several hundred million dollars annually could be profitably spent over the next decade. If the Federal Government should provide more support this report has not conveyed the message that sweeping for such programs. I t has concluded that the Federal and costly changes in criminal administration must be Government should. In reaching this conclusion it has made throughout the country in order to effect a signifibeen persuaded, first, by the fact that crime is a national, cant reduction in crime, then it has not expressed what the as wcll as a State and local, phenomenon; it often does not Commission strongly believes. respect geographical boundaries. The FBI has demonThe Commission's final conclusion about a Federal strated the high mobility of many criminals. Failure of anticrime program is that the major responsibility for the criminal justice institutions in one State may endanger administering it should lie with the Department of Justice, the citizens of others. The Federal Government has and that the official who administers it for the Attorney already taken much responsibility in such fields as educa- General should be a Presidential appointee, with all the tion and welfare, employment and job training, housing status and prestige that inheres in such an office. In the and mental health, which bear directly on crime and its Department of Justice alone among Federal agencies prevention. As Preside~tJohnson stated in his 1966 there is a large existing pool of practical knowledge about the police, the courts and the correctional system. The Crime Message to Congre~s: Federal Bureau of Prisons and the Federal Bureau of Crime does not observe ncat, jzirisdictional lines between Investigation, each of which is already expanding its own city, State, and Federal Governments. . . . T o improve support of State and local agencies, are parts of the in one field we must improve in all. T o improve in one Department of Justice. The Department of Justice has part of the country w e must improve in all parts. a Criminal Division, one of whose most important sections is concerned with organized crime and racketeering. Second, simply in terms of economy of effort and of I t has the recently established Office of Criminal Justice, feasibility, there are important needs that individual which has concentrated on criminal reform. Many of jurisdictions cannot or should not meet alone. Research the research and demonstration portions of the Com- and even greater potential, value, and urges that they be strengthened. Other Federal programs of greater scope work against delinquency and crime by improving education and employment prospects for the poor and attacking slum conditions, associated with crime. Such work and job training programs as the Neighborhood Youth Corps, the Job Corps, the Youth Opportunity Centers, and Manpower Development and Training Act programs provide training, counseling, and work opportunities essential to break the pattern of unemployability that underlies SO much of crime today. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act programs and the Head Start work with preschool children are aimed at readying disadvantaged children for school, improving the quality of slum education and preventing dropping out. Community action programs and the new Model Cities Program are concerned with strengthening the social and physical structure of inner cities, and thus ultimately with delinquency and crime prevention. As chapter 1 of this report has pointed out, a community's most enduring- protection against crime is to right the wrongs and cure the illnesses that tempt men to harm their neighbors. mission's program are already authorized under the Law Enforcement Assistance Act, which is administered by the Department of Justice. If it is given the money and the men it will need, the Department of Justice can take the lead in the Nation's efforts against crime. I n proposing a major Federal program against crime, the Commission is mindful of the special importance of avoiding any invasion of State and local responsibility for law enforcement and criminal justice, and its recommendation is based on its judgment that Federal support and collaboration of the sort outlined below are consistent with scrupulous respect for-and indeed strengthening of-that responsibility. T H E COMMISSION'S PROGRAM T h e program of Federal support that the Commisrecommends would meet eight major needs: State andlocal planning. Education and training of criminal justice personnel. Surveys and advisory services concerning organization and operation of criminal justice agencies. Development of coordinated national information systems. Development of a limited number of demonstration programs in agencies of justice. Scientific and technological research and development. Institutes for research and training personnel. Grants-in-aid for operational innovations. STATE AND LOCAL PLANNING The Commission believes that the process of State and local planning outlined in the preceding section of this chapter should be a prerequisite for the receipt of Federal support for action programs. I t believes further that such planning should itself receive Federal support, and it recommends that planning grants be made available for this purpose. The Department of Justice has already made grants of up to $25,000 to a number of State planning committees formed during the past year. I t is clear that planning support in considerably larger amounts will be necessary if States and cities are to conduct a careful assessment of their needs and of wavs to meet them. EDUCATION A N D TRAINING This report has emphasized many times the critical importance of improved education and training in making the agencies of criminal justice fairer and more effective. The Federal Government is already involved to a limited degree in providing or supporting education and training for some criminal justice personnel. The FBI provides direct training of police officers at its academy in Washington and in the field. The Department of Justice's new Law Enforcement Assistance program has supported police curriculum development and training demonstration projects; the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare has done some research on education and training in the fields of juvenile corrections, mental health and delinquency prevention; and the Department of Labor has recently initiated in a few large cities programs under the Manpower Development and Training Act to help prepare young men from slum areas for police work. The Commission believes that Federal financial support to provide training and education for State and local criminal justice personnel should be substantially increased. Such support might take several forms. I n the field of medicine forgivable loans have been used to help defray the costs of college education and to provide an incentive for further work in the field. Another plan would be to subsidize salary payments to personnel on leave for training or longer study programs, or to their interim replacements. Curriculum development programs like those conducted by the National Science Foundation are also much needed if those from different parts of the criminal justice system are to be jointly instructed in such subjects as, for example, the treatment of juveniles or the problems of parolees. A seminar for police chiefs, sponsored by the Office of Law Enforcement Assistance and held at the Harvard Business School in the summer of 1966, exposed the chiefs to the methods and insights of modem business administration in a way that they felt was invaluable, and created new interest in the managerial problems of the police among professors at the school. Such advanced programs hold great promise for breaking down the isolation in which many criminal justice agencies now operate. Some examples of badly needed and promising programs for education and training are: Police State police standards commission programs to establish minimum recruitment and training standards, and to provide training, particularly through the establishment of regional academies or programs for mediumand small-size communities. Graduate training in law and business administration for .police executives through degree courses or special institutes. Curriculum development and training for instructors in police academies and police training programs. Special training programs in such critical problems as organized crime, riot control,, police-community relations, correctional supervision of offenders being treated in the community; the use by police and juvenile court intake personnel of social agencies in the community. Programs to encourage college education for police in liberal arts and sciences, including scholarship and loan support, and curriculum development to guide . college. police-science programs away from narrow vocational concentration. , Administration of Justice i 3 Special programs to educate and train judges, prosecutors, and defense counsel for indigents. Orientation in correctional and noncriminal dispositions for prosecutors and judges. a Training for court administrators. a such cases, the studies might be a forerunner to more substantial grant-in-aid support. INFORMATION SYSTEMS Another way in which the Federal Government can collaborate with State and local criminal justice systems is by helping to improve the collection and transmission of Corrections information needed by the police, courts, and corrections Education and training of rehabilitative personnel, agencies in their day-to-day work. The FBI already including teachers, counsellors, and mental health makes much important data available to local police personnel. agencies from its fingerprint files. The National Crime Training custodial personnel for rehabilitative roles. Information Center, now being developed by the FBI, Education and orientation of personnel for research will provide instantaneous response to computer inquiry and evaluation in experimental treatment methods. by local agencies for information on stolen automobiles, wanted persons, certain identifiable types of stolen propAs these examples indicate, it is proposed that Federal aid in this area would be directed toward meeting special erty, and the like. In addition to this "hot" information, data on offendneeds: Training new types of personnel, developing proers needed by prosecutors, courts and correctional authorgrams if none now exist, and encouraging the acquisiities should be collected and made centrally available. tion of advanced skills. As is further discussed in chapter 11 on science and technology, the goal should be to develop an index SURVEYS OF ORGANIZATION A N D OPERATIONS drawn from the records of the criminal justice agencies Many criminal justice agencies willing to consider mak- across the country. With such an index a sentencing ing changes are not sure what their needs are or how their judge, for example, could learn where information might practices compare to the best practice of the field. They be found bearing on an offender's response to treatment need experienced advice about how to put changes into in other jurisdictions. Disclosure of the information itself effect. State and local officials whom the Commission has would remain, as at present, entirely within the discreconsulted have pointed out that ineffectual administra- tion and control of the individual agency that held it. tion can negate otherwise promising attempts to increase This would help avoid the dangers of developing national effectiveness against crime, and have urged that the Fed"dossiers," but would greatly speed collection of data for eral program help with this problem. making decisions on disposition of cases-a major source Management studies already have a long history in law of present delays and injustice. enforcement. Organizations like the IACP and the PubAt the State and local levels, enforcement activities lic Administration Service have conducted them since the against organized crime groups are for the most part 1920's. The Children's Bureau has provided specialized assistance to many of the Nation's juvenile courts. In nonexistent or primitive, as chapter 7 of this report has corrections, the Bureau of Prisons provides increasingly shown. A principal need in this field is an effective sysextensive consulting services to local authorities, having tem for receiving, analyzing, storing, and disseminating recently set up a special office to do so. The Justicr De- intelligence information. Many of organized crime's partment's new Office of Criminal Justice has been able, activities are national in scope, and even its small operawith a relatively small amount of explanation and advice, tions usually spill across city, county, and State lines. If to help stimulate local bail reform efforts. These valuable investigators and prosecutors in separate jurisdictions are services have touched but a few of the thousands of to make any headway at all against organized crime, they agencies that could benefit by surveys and expert advice. must work together; especially they must share informaThe Commission does not believe that the Federal Gov- tion. There should be within the Department of Justice ernment itself should provide the staff to conduct studies a computerized, central organized crime intelligence sysor advise the very large number of local agencies that tem that handles information from all over the country. might wish such services. Federal assistance should be This system should be the center of a federally supported aimed instead at developing State or regional bodies with network of State and regional intelligence systems, such the skills to perform these services. In addition, the Fed- as those now being developed in New York and in the eral Government could contract with private groups to New England States. conduct surveys and studies. Advice and studies by exI n addition to informat:on needed for operations, there pert groups could become a valuable adjunct to the con- should be available on a centralized basis statistical infortinuing work of State and local planning bodies. For mation on the criminal justice system itself. This is example, they could assist police agencies that desire to needed for assessing requirements and effectiveness. reorganize their community relations programs, or cor- The FBI's Uniform Crime Reports service should be rectional agewies zeeking to establish halfway houses. In closely coordinated with this program, which also would include court, probation, prison, and parole statistics on such information as numbers and dispositions of cases, time intervals, and costs. Complementing such data would be special intensive surveys--of crime victims or insurance claims, for example-designed to ascertain more accurately the patterns of crime. There are at present no centralized crime statistics apart from the UCR, although for many years it has been generally agreed in the' field that the absence of information on all aspects of the criminal system has seriously impeded important research. Correlation of conlprehensive statistics with surveys and other new methods for analyzing facts about crime is important not only to develop a national picture of crime's seriousness, but to provide a gauge by which police and other agencies can accurately determine the effect of their efforts on the amount of crime. The victimization survey undertaken by the Commission has shown the feasibility and usefulness of such surveys, in combination with UCR data, as the basis for statistical indices as comprehensive as those prepared by the Federal Government in the labor and agricultural fields. The Federal administering agency should be authorized to finance in a few -places major demonstration projects designed to show all cities and States how much major changes can improve the system of criminal justice. For example, support could be provided to a police force that was prepared, on the basis of an organization study, to make fundamental personnel, management, and operational changes; or to a State or city wishing to plan for entirely new combinations of service between communitybased correctional institutions and noncriminal agencies. The demonstration project authorization should also bc broad enough to support cooperative programs under which various jurisdictions share needed services, such as police dispatching or short-term detention facilities. or even totally pooled police services. In the earlier stages of the Federal program, these few major projects could serve as the primary laboratories for research and training, and the cxperience gained through them would provide a reference point for much of the work done by States and local communities under operational grants-in-aid. Thus, there should be special authorization for the systematic dissemination of the results of demonstration proiects and for bringing State and local officials from other areas together to see model programs in operation. SCIENCE A N D TECHNOLOGY Chapter 11 of this report has shown that the skills and techniques of science and technology, which have so radically altered much of modern life, have been largely untapped by the criminal justice system. One extremely useful approach to innovation is the questioning, analyti- cal, experimental approach of science. Systems analysis, which has contributed significantly to such large-scale government programs as national defense and mass transportation, can be used to study criminal justice operations and to help agency officials choose promising courses of action. Modern technology can make many specific contributions to criminal administration. The most significant will come from the use of computers to collect and analyze the masses of data the system needs to understand the crime control process. Other important contributions may come, for example, from : . . Flexible radio networks and portable two-way radios for patrol officers; Computer assisted command-and-control systems for rapid and efficient:dispatching of patrol forces; Advanced fingerprint recognition systems; Innovations for the police patrol car such as mobile teletypewriters, tape recorders for recording questioning, and automatic car position locators; 0 Alarms and surveillance systems for homes, businesses and prisons; 0 Criminalistics techniques such as voice prints, neutron activation analysis and other modern laboratory instrumentation. The Federal Government must take the lead in the effort to focus the capabilities of science and technology on the criminal justice system. It can sponsor and support a continuing research and development program on a scale greater than any individual agency could undertake alone. Such a program will benefit all agencies. I t should stimulate the industrial development, at reasonable prices, of the kinds of equipment all agencies need. A useful technique might be to guarantee the.sale of first production runs. I t should provide funds that will enable criminal justice agencies to hire technically trained people and to establish internal operations research units. I t should support scientific research into criminal administration that uses the agencies as real-life laboratories. RESEARCH The.need for research of all kinds has been discussed in chapter 12. There should be Federal support for specific research projects by individual scholars, and by universities or research organizations. In many instances such projects should be carried out in conjunction with large police departments, correctional institutions, or other operating agencies. In addition to such project grants, the Commission believes the Federal Government should provide support for a number of institutes specifically dedicated to research into crime and criminal justice. Such institutes would bring together top scholars from the social and natural sciences, law, social work, business administration and psychiatry, and would be able to deal with the criminal justice system, from prevention to corrections, as a whole. Presumably most of these research institutes would be located at universities, although, as noted in chapter 12, one or more might be independent. These institutes would serve as the foundation for the other parts of the Federal program described here, both in the substance of the research they undertook and in the availability of their staff members as top-level consultants. They could provide training, through special seminars or degree courses, for senior administrators and specialist personnel. They could undertake studies of the effectiveness of various education and training programs. They could provide much of the data needed to conduct organization and operations studies, and seek and test new techniques for implementation. They could take major responsibility for analyzing data developed by the national information systems and they would propose and evaluate important new demonstration programs and provide consulting services. GRANT-IN-AID S U P P O R T FOR N E W PROGRAMS I n addition to the forms of support described above, a major part of the Federal program should be grants-inaid for a broad range of innovative State and local programs. The standards of this part of.the program should preclude continuing support for such normal operational expenses as those for basic personnel compensation, routine equipment like police cars, or replacement of physical facilities like jails and courthouses. Support would instead be given to major innovations in operations, including especially the coordination of services among the parts of the system of criminal administration and among agencies in different jurisdictions. The possibilities for such programs are as wide as the range of innovations State and local authorities propose to undertake. They might include: 0 New police operations such as the storefront Community Service Officer program ; sophisticated communications equipment; and regional laboratory facilities. 0 Construction and operation of new corrections facilities to serve as a nucleus for community-based programs. 0 Temporary salary support for new specialized personnel, such as computer experts, court management specialists, and classification or treatment experts for correctional facilities. The Commission is confident that this eight-point program, if fully implemented, will do much to bringcrime under control. WHAT CITIZENS AND THEIR ORGANIZATIONS CAN D O Given enough time and money, specialists can do dramatic things. They can prolong human life. They can make deserts bloom. They can split the atom. They can put men on. the moon. However, specialists alone cannot control crime. Crime is a social problem that is interwoven with almost every aspect of American life; controlling it involves changing the way schools are run and classes are taught, the way cities are planned and houses are built, the way businesses are managed and workers are hired. Crime is a kind of human behavior; controlling it means changing the minds and hearts of men. Controlling crime is the business of every American institution. Controlling crime is the business of every American. HOW INDIVIDUALS CAN HELP TO REDUCE CRIME That every American should cooperate fully with officers of justice is obvious. The police cannot solve crimes that are not reported to them; the courts cannot administer justice fairly and surely if citizens will not serve as witnesses and jurors. I n an earlier society the peace was kept, for the most part, not by officials but by the whole community. Constables were citizens who served their community in turn and magistrates were local squires. That society no longer exists except, perhaps, in a few remote rural areas. But the complexity and anonymity of modern urban life, the existence of professional police forces and other institutions whose official duty it is to deal with crime, must not disguise the need-far greater today than in the village societies of the past-for citizens to report all crimes or suspicious incidents immediately; to cooperate with police investigations of crime; in short, to "get involved." The Chicago Police Department has had much success , with "Operation Crime-Stop," a formal campaign to involve citizens. A special police emergency number that connects callers directly to a dispatcher has been established and widely publicized. Citizens are urged to report suspicious occurrences and are given official commendation when they do report or help the police in ,other ways. Washington, D.C., and several other cities have similar programs. I n some cities taxi drivers and other citizens with radios in their vehicles are organized to assist the police by transmitting information useful in wnrehending offenders. Under some State statutes active concealment of a felony is itself an offense as it was at common law. Even if there are no special programs or penalties, every citizen should recognize that he is duty bound to assist the police. People can do much to insure their own safety and that of their families and be!onxings by reducing the opportunities for crime. Many crimes would not occur if individuals had proper locks on their doors and windows and enough lighting to discourage prowlers, and if they took such simple preventive action as not letting newspapers or milk bottles accumulate as a sign that a house is unoccupied. Keys left in the ignition or an unlocked ignition account for more than 42 percent of the cai-s that are stolen. The citizen's responsibility runs far deeper than cooperating with officials and guarding against crime, of course. Much more important is a proper respect for the law and for its official representatives. People who sneer at policemen; people who "cut corners" in their tax returns; landlords who violate housing codes; parents who set bad examples by their own disrespect for the law, or who wink at their children's minor offenses, contribute to crime. Delinquents-and adult criminals as well--often try to justify their actions by saying that the only difference between them and "respectable citizens" is that they were unlucky enough to be caught. PARTICIPATION BY INDUSTRY, RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS, AND OTHER PRIVATE GROUPS As members of groups and organizations outside the official agencies of justice, citizens can play even a greater part than they can as individuals in helping to reduce crime. Private businesses, welfare agencies and foundations, civic organizations, and universities can contribute much toward impelling official agencies to reform themselves and toward helping them do it. There are some impressive examples of what such groups can do when they turn their attention to crime. I n Chicago and New York the YMCA and other agencies supported by contributions pioneered the concept of "detached workers'' for juvenile gangs. Research projects conducted by the Vera Institute of Justice in New York sparked the bail reform movement, and the Institute is now exploring new ways of handling drunks. Law schools and bar associations have led the development of legal aid and defender programs. Church groups in St. Louis and Chicago opened the first halfway houses for released prisoners. The student service organization at Harvard University was one of the first groups to run regular programs to teach prison inmates. Such projects indicate that private groups have a growing interest and involvement in crime problems, but' they still do far less about crime than about such matters as health, education or recreation. BUSINESS, INDUSTRY, AND LABOR U N I O N S Business and industry are in a particularly favorable ~ositionto help the criminal justice system. They have the financial and technical resources that are essential both for developing new equipment to modernize law en-! forcement and justice, and for devising means to .protect against crime. The jobs they can provide can do much to prevent delinquency and reintegrate offenders into society. The 'Commission's task force on science and technology explored a number of the important ways in which industry might apply technological innovations to protecting lives and property from crime. I t discussed with the automobile industry, for example, such new ways to combat auto theft as ignitions that buzz when a key is left in a turned-off lock, or expel the key; special shield- General Electric computer programing course for Atlanta mmates ing around ignition cables to prevent "jumping"; and steering column or transmission locks. Automobile manufacturers have already assured the Commission that they will incorporate such devices in future models. The same sort of effort is needed on such problems as making alarm systems less expensive and less susceptible to false alarms. Alteration of telephone equipment to permit free dialing to the police from public telephones, adoption of a uniform police number, and development of equipment that would automatically record the location from which the call is made are other examples of how private business could contribute to reducing crime. There are several noteworthy recent examples of successful programs in which business, industry and organized labor have collaborated with correctional authorities. For example, a t the Federal penitentiary at Danbury, Conn., the Dictograph Corp. trains in the penitentiary and then employs, on work release or parole, microsoldering technicians for hearing aid manufacture; IBM trains key punch operators, programers and systems analysts, hiring some itself while others are employed elsewhere; and the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union has established a program to train sewing machine repairmen on machines furnished by several local companies, and provides a card to graduates enabling them to find employment upon release. The experience of the Bureau of Prisons with thesc programs indicates that there is a vast, largely untapped willingness on the part of business and labor to cooperate in employment programs in corrections. This bodes well for the success of the growing number of work-release programs in various States, and represents an enco~rraging change from industry's and labor's traditional hostility toward prison industries, expressed in restrictive State and Federal laws on prison industry activities. If employers overcome their reluctance to hire and unions to admit persons with arrest or conviction records, and if irrational prohibitions on licensing such persons for occupations and trades are removed, correctional agencies will have much more chance to succeed in their task. The cooperation of business and labor is also essential to make jobs available to young people from slum areas and to help give them the skills and attitudes necessary Roman Catholic protectory for delinquent boys, Lincolndale, N.Y. for successful integration into working life. Several companies have run programs for the Job Corps; many more have provided jobs through the Neighborhood Youth Corps and the Youth Opportunity Centers, programs of the Department of Labor. But here, as with employment of offenders, much more can be done through less formal, entirely private initiative. Chambers of commerce, labor union locals, and service clubs are logical bases for community programs to advise young people about employment and place them in jobs. Individual employers, too, can contribute substantially to crime prevention through special programs to train and hire young people who have had some trouble with the law. There are obvious risks, though many can be offset through bonding-arranged perhaps with Government guarantees. However much recruitment, training, and employment programs for delinquents and ex-convicts may cost, the price cannot possibly be as great as that paid for the almost total failure, up to now, to bring criminals and potential criminals back into the working world. PRIVATE AGENCIES A N D FOUNDATIONS Private social service agencies and foundations, concerned with counseling, health and welfare aid, have long carried major responsibility for delinquency prevention. ~rofessionalassociations such as the International Association of Chiefs of Police, 'the National Council on Crime and Delinquency, the ABA and local bar. associations, the American Law Institute, a r d others have led for many years the attempt to raise standards and rationalize the criminal justice system. In recent years a number of private organizations like the Ford Foundation have supported research and demonstration projects in various parts of the criminal area, bridging the gap between agencies active in the field and those that concentrate on planning and standard setting. Work of all these sorts is vitally necessary for comprehensive progress in reducing crime. Private groups can identify needs and problems that have not been officially recognized and undertake programs that would be too experimental or controversial for public agencies. There are, of course, distinct discouragements to work by private social agencies in the criminal area. Usually progress is very difficult to achieve. Those who need to be helped are often hostile, sometimes dangerous, and seldom promise to be truly outstanding citizens even if rehabilitated. I t is not surprising, then, that most private agencies, with very limited resources, have concentrated on serving persons whose problems are less intractable than those of the delinquent or criminal. But the extent to which official agencies, even some antipoverty programs, continue to shun people with criminal records emphasizes the importance of attention to the criminal area by private agencies that can better afford than official ones to risk the failures that are a necessary consequence of experimental work. RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS The important contribution churches, synagogues, and other religious institutions can make to crime prevention is evident. They are leading exponents and guardians of the community's moral and ethical standards. They have the ability to understand and teach in their largest principles of honesty and honor, of comcontext the passion arld charity, of respect and reverence that underlie not only the Nation's laws blit its entire being. They have the power to move men's spirits and sway their minds. They have the power, too, to do many practical things. Many religious institutions have. Inner-city churches have done valuable work with youth gangs and released offenders. A particularly noteworthy contribution has been made by the Faith Opportunities Project of the Chicago Conference on Religion and Race. This project, partially financed by the Office of Economic Opportunity, makes a point of finding deserting fathers, particularly those who have desertdd because they are unemployed, finding them jobs, and returning them to their families. During one 6-month period 2,500 families were reunited, m d 89 percent of them remained that way for at least 90 days. COMMUNITY AND PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS The most dramatic example in the country of a citizens' group that has addressed itself forcefully and successfully to the problems of crime and criminal justice is the AntiCrime Crusade in Indianapolis. I n 1962, the day after a 90-year-old woman had been hit on the head and robbed on the street, 30 Indianapolis women, representing a cross section of the community, met to devise ways of making the streets safer. The organization, which has no dues, no membership cards, no minutes and no bylaws, now involver, some 50,000 women, in 14 divisiohs. I t has stimulated the city to improve street lighting. It tion is now publishing a series of volumes reflecting an intensive 10-year study of law enforcement and criminal justice in three States, most of it completely new and of great importance. COLLEGES A N D UNIVERSITIES W o m e n of Anti-Crime Crusade in Indianapolis work with police. Higher education has played an uneven part in criminal justice. A few law schools have engaged for years in research, and in representation of indigent defenders; their professors have been responsible for a major share of modern criminal legislation and much of the informed criticism of the criminal process. O n the other hand, until recently little emphasis was given to preparing students to practice criminal law. Universities like the University of California at Berkeley and Michigan State University have had police science departments for several decades, but they have existed too much in isolation from the rest of the academic community. The same thing is to a large extent true of teaching and research in the corrections field. All operating agencies of justice urgently need the close contact with academic thought that could be achieved through use of faculty consultants; seminars and institutes to analyze current problems and innovations; advanced training programs for judges, police administrators, and correctional officers; and more operational research projects and surveys conducted in conjunction with agencies of justice. has secured jobs for young people, helped school dropouts return to school, involved thousands of adolescents in volunteer work for social service agencies and clinics. I t has organized campaigns for cleaning up the slums. I t has sponsored police recruits. I t has observed the operation of the courts and publicized their shortcomings. I t has helped parole officers with their work. I t has campaigned for pay raises for policemen and formed block clubs to improve slum neighborhoods. This list is only a random selection of the crusade's activities, and only an CONCLUSION indication of what concerned citizens can do. Every group in a community can do something about At its end, as at its beginning, this report on crime and crime or criminal justice. PTA's and other school groups, for example, could concentrate on the school's role in de- criminal iustice in America must insist that there are no linquency prevention and reintegration of offenders; vol- easy answers. The complexity and the magnitude of unteer parents could promote closer contact with slum the task of controlling crime and improving criminal parents, lead field trips and other activities to compensate justice is indicated by the more than 200 specific recomfor culturally deprived backgrounds, tutor in remedial ~nendationsfor actidn, and the many hundreds of sugwork, and serve as teacher aides. Suburban groups might , gestions for actiGn, that this report contains. These pair with those in the inner city for such projects. Hospi- recommendations and suggestions are addressed to cities, tals could join together to institute narcotics programs and to States, to the Federal Government; to individual cititreatment centers for drunkenness offenders. Business- zens and their organizations; to policemen, to prosecu- ' men's groups would be well suited to conducting employ- tors, to judges, to correctional authorities, and to the aycncies for which these officials work. Taken together ment programs. Neighborhood clubs and settlement houses have set up recreation programs and a wide range these recommendat;ons and suggestions express t h e ~ o m of other services. All of these efforts must be greatly mission's deep conviction that-if America is to meet the strengthened, an endeavor that will require increased challenge of 'crimc it must do more, far more, than it is financial support by government and private foundations. doing now. I t must welcome new ideas and risk new Bar associations and other professional groups have an actions. I t must spend time and money. I t must resist important role in encouraging legislatures and official those who point to scapegoats, who use facile slogans agencies to implement changes such as those recom- about crime by habit or for sclfish ends. I t must recogmended by this report. A special bar association group nize that the government of a free society is obliged to in Illinois, for example, drew up that State's pioneering . act not only effectively but fairly. I t must seek knowlnew criminal code. The IACP has been active in pro- edac and admit mistakes. Controlling crime in America is an endeavor that will moting police standards and training councils. The National Council of Juvenile Court Judges has promoted be slow and hard and costly. But America can control reforms in juvenile justice. The American Bar Founda- crime if it will. u Table of Recommendations CRIME IN AMERICA--CHAPTER 2 The Commission's study of the nature, volume, and trends of crime in America reveals at many points the need to develop additional and improved information and understanding about crime. T o assist each city administration and agency of justice in insuring that its citizens are being informed of the full rate of crime in their community, the Commission recommends that cities and police departments that have not already done so adopt centralized procedures for handling reports of crime from citizens and establish the staff controls necessary to make such procedures effective. T o promote a clearer public understanding of the differences between crimes of violence and property crimes, the Commission recommends that the trend in the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports toward separate treatment of these crime categories be carried further and that the present Index of reported crime be broken into wholly two separate parts. Adopt centralized procedures in each city for handling crime reports from citizens, with controls to make those procedures effective Separate the present Index of reported crime into 2 wholly separate parts, 1 for crimes of violence and 1 for crimes against property 27 31 JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND YOUTH CRIME--CHAPTER 3 The most effective way to prevent crime is to assure all citizens full opportunity to participate in the benefits and responsibilities of society. Especially in inner cities, achievement of this goal will require extensive overhauling and strengthening of the social institutions influential in making young people strong members of the community-schools, employment, the family, religious institutions, housing, welfare, and others. Careful planning and evaluation and enormous increases in money and personnel are needed to expand existing programs of promise and to develop additional approaches. Such efforts are especially crucial for those youths, now too often overlooked, who have already demonstrated delinquent tendencies. The community must not wait until such tendencies manifest themselves in serious criminal acts. Measures short of formal adjudication can help such youths find their way to appropriate assistance programs, and minimize the reinforcing and stigmatizing rffects of full criminal treatment. For this purpose Youth Services Bureaus should be established to coordinate and provide needed programs. The bureaus should accept both delinquents and nondelinquent. but devote special resources to intensive treatment of delinquents. The formal juvenile justice system should concentrate on those cases in which a need for coercive court authority has been demonstrated. Proceedings in these more serious cases must be characterized by safeguards commonly accepted as necessary to protect persons subject to coercive state authority, including counsel, confrontation of conlplainants, and exclusion of improper e.vidence. At - all stages in the juvenile justice system, there is need for greater clarification and regularization in the exercise of discretion. Detention pending court determination, for example, must be based on clkarly articulated standards and reduced to a minimum. The police in their dealings with juveniles should attempt to divert cases from the criminal process wherever appropriate and without coercive stationhouse adjustment procedures. I n exercising discretion the police should also observe the most scrupulous standards of procedural fairness and personal impartiality. Housing and Recreation Expand efforts to improve housing and recreation 6 6 Families Develop methods to provide minimum income -.. -- --- -- -- 66 293 294 TABLE OF RECOMMENDATIONS Revise welfare re,plations so they contribute to keeping family together Insure availability of family planning assistance Expand counseling and therapy Provide assistance in problems of domestic management and child care Develop activities that involve the whole family together 66 66 66 66 66 Involving Youths in Community Life Involve youths in community activities Employ young people as subprofessional aids Establish Youth Services Bureaus to provide and coordinate programs for delinquents and nondelinquents-69 Increase involvement of religious institutions, private social agencies, other groups in youth programs Provide residential centers 69 69 Schools Provide financial support for needed personnel and facilities Improve the quality of teachers and facilitiesReduce racial and economic segregation Compensate for inadequate preschool preparation Develop better means for dealing with behavior problems Use instructional material more relevant to inner city life Encourage students capable of higher education to pursue their education Revise programs for students not going to college _ Expand job placement by s c h o ~ l s ~ ~ - Increase contacts between the school and the community 73 73 73 74 74 4 74 74 74 74 7 69 69 Employment Prepare youth more adequately for employment Provide easily accessible employment information Eliminate irrational barriers to employment Create new job opportunities 77 77 77 77 The Juvenile Justice System Formulate police department guidelines for handling of juveniles Train police officers in handling of adolescents Limit police custody of juveniles to instances where there is objective specific suspicion Maintain confidential records of all frisks and extended interrogations of juveniles Limit stationhouse adjustment of cases by police Provide alternatives to adjudication through Youth Services Bureau Increase referrals.to community agenciesEmploy voluntary preliminaty conference at intake Adopt consent decree as alternative to adjudication Narrow juvenile court jurisdiction over noncriminal matters Restrict prehearing detention and provide separate detention facilities for juveniles Provide particularized notice in advance of hearings Provide counsel wherever coercive action is possible Divide court hearings into adjudicatory and dispositional proceedings 79 79 79 79 83 83 83 84 84 85 87 87 87 87 POLICE-CHAPTER Widespread improvement in the strength and caliber of police manpower, supported by a radical revision of personnel practices, are the basic essentials for achieving more effective and fairer law enforcement. Educational 4 requirements should be raised to college levels and training programs improved. Recruitment and promotion should be modernized to reflect education, personality, and assessment of performance. The traditional, mono- 295 TABLE OF RECOMMENDATIONS s ~ ~ l m ~ i a 311d i o n disriplinr, a11 ail11 at 1naki11gt11c- polices 111o1.c.(.fTccti\x~in Iligh-cr.in~(-a r t ~ ~ s I. n ( ~ ~ ~ - ac>fTty.ti\.c*sv~l I I ~ W also rcyuirtbs that la\v r n f o r r t m t ~ ~ i it ~ ~ ~ p r o v itsc * f,~cilitit>sa nd t r ( ~ h t i i q ~ ~ofc s n i a n ; ~ g c ~ ~ ~pi c~~~~~~ t i c ~ ~ l a r l ~ that it utilix I I I ~ ~ \ L ( nlotxT i ~ f l i c i ( * ~I ~ I I (t Xl ~I ~~YI I,~ , ( * ec1111~~iunications anti rcw)rrls, .rrld forrn~il.~tt~ I I I ~ I I ( c~' ~ l ) l i c . i t ~ ~ o l i cxuidrli~lc~s y g o \ . c w i i r ~;lrcsas ~ of 1)olic.c. cliscl.c~tio~~. '1'11t~ ~ m o l i nof~ scnicc.c and fllnc.tions 1)). I)olic,c.for.c.c.s i l l t-;1(.11 ~ ~ ~ c ~ t r o p o l i:1r-cX:1 t a n ~ : I I I i~~il)lv\c, t,ffic.icy~c.):, ~ n t l c~lTccti\cSnt.ss. Community Relations Personnel P~obideState assistante for managrlncnt sur\cy\ _- - Employ legal ad\ isrrs St~enqthcncentral stafl control e l larqclr departn~rnts_ Crrate a d ~ ~ ~ i n i s t r a t t~oards ivc of Lt.y lankirlq p e r ~ o n ~ l in - --I13 - - - - - ---I -1 - - -- 15 -- 1 I 0 Establirh strong internal in\cstiyation units ni all d t p x tmcnts to maintain pollee intcg~~ t y Eupwirncmt wltti tram policiny cornbininq patrol and investigative d u t l e ~ Adopt poliq limiting uw of firearms by officcrs 114 14 - -1 18 --I I9 Pooling of Resources and Services Pro\ ide a r r a l ~ i d rromrnunications and records coordination " Pool and coordinate crime laboratories Assist smaller departments in major investigations Explore pooling or consolidation of law enforcement in all counties o r metropolitan areas 120 122 - _ - - 122 1 23 _.__ 296 TABLE OF RECOMMENDATIONS COURTS-CHAPTER A number of important reforms are necessary to enable courts to operate with the dignity and effectiveness many now lack. Substantial changes in the processing of criminal cases and increases in the number and caliber of judges, lawyers and administrators are essential to fairer and more effective justice. To rationalize procedures in the crucial and often neglected pretrial stage, bail practices must be reformed; guilty plea negotiation regularized; and discovery expanded. Early diversion of appropriate cases to noncriminal treatment should be encouraged. Sentencing reforms-such as revision of criminal codes, improved fact-gathering, sentencing councils and institutes for judges-are needed to promote consistent and informed decisions. The right of defendants to counsel must be extended and defense counsel's role broadened. Improvements must be made in the methods used to select, compensate, 5 and educate counsel. Better procedures are needed to remove judges from political influence and supervise their performance. Several Commission recommendations are aimed at strengthening prosecutors' offices, and encouraging better- formation of policy guidelines and procedures for the exercise of discretion. State governments should take a more vigorous role in coordinating local prosecution through stronger State attorneys general and the creation of State councils of prosecutors. Court structures should be reformed to unify felony and misdemeanor courts, overhaul or abolish the justice of the peace system, and provide firm, central administrative responsibility within the courts. The procedures used by the courts to monitor and schedule their work should be modernized and professional talent brought to the administration of courts. The Lower Courts Unify felony and misdemeanor courtsIncrease judicial manpower and modernize physical facilities Provide prosecutors, defense counsel, and probation officers in courts now lacking them Abolish or overhaul State justice of the peace and U.S. commissioner systems 129 129 129 130 Initial Stages of a Criminal Case Establish bail projects Enact comprehensive State bail reform legislation Establish station house release and summons procedures Improve decisions on which defendants should and which should not be charged Insure fair and visible negotiated guilty pleas Develop and share dispositional information early in case 132 132 133 134 136 137 Court Proceedings Establish standards for publicity in criminal cases 138 Expand pretrial discovery by defense and prosecution 138 Provide single, simple State postconviction procedure 140 Extend prosecution's right to appeal from pretrial rulings suppressing evidence or c o n f e s s i o n s 1 4 0 Enact general witness immunity statutes and coordinate immunity grants under them 141 Eliminate special standards of proof in perjury cases 141 Sentencing Policies and Procedures Revise sentenking provisions of penal codes Consider whether to retain capital punishment Establish probation services in all courts for presentence investigation of every offender Permit defense counsel broader access to presentence reports___---Expand sentencing institutes and conferences Abolish jury sentencing in noncapital cases. Institute procedures for promoting just and uniform s e n t e n c i n g Officers of Justice Improve selection of judges through better screening Provide judicial tenure of at least 10 years Expand programs for training judges 143 143 144 145 145 145 146 146 147 147 TABLE OF RECOMMENDATIONS Establish commissions on judicial conduct with power to discipline or require retirement Institute salary and selection reforms for prosecutors _ Coordinate local prosecutors through State attorneys general and prosecutor's councils Establish programs for training prosecutors Extend early provision of counsel for indigents Institute State-financed, coordinated assigned counsel or defender systems Expand training programs for defense counsel 297 147 148 149 148 150 151 151 Court Scheduling, Management, and Organization Create single, unified State court systems Centralize administrative responsibility Institute timetable for completion of criminal cases Utilize experts in business management and business machine systems Improve facilities and compensation for witnesses and jurors .. CORRECTIONS-CHAPTER The wholesale strengthening of community treatment of offenders and much greater commitment of resources to their rehabilitation are the main lines where action is needed to make correctional treatment more effective in reducing recidivism. Correctional programs of the future should be built around snlall centers, located in the communities they serve. These would be bettcr suited than present facilities for flexible treatment, combining the short-term commitment sufficient for most offenders with a variety of partial release or community corrections programs in which job training, educational, and counseling services would be provided or coordinated by the center's staff. Careful screening and classification of offenders is essential so that handling can be individualized to suit the needs in each case. So, too, is greater emphasis on 157 157 156 156 157 6 evaluation of the effect of various programs on different offenders. Much can be done to advance corrections toward such goals with existing facilities, but large increases in skilled diagnostic, rehabilitation, and research personnel are needed immediately. A new regime should be inaugurated in institutions to involve all staff, and encourage inmates to collaborate as much as possible, in rehabilitation. Prison industries must give more meaningful work experience. Counseling, education, and vocational training programs for inmates must be strengthened. Greater use should be made of release for work and education, of halfway houses, and of similar programs to ease the offender's reintegration in society. Community-Based Corrections Make parole and probation supervision available for all offenders Provide for mandatory supervision of released offenders not paroled Increase number of probation and parole officers Use volunteers and subprofessional aides Develop new methods to reintegrate offenders by mobilizing community institutions Make funds available to purchase services otherwise unobtainable for offenders Vary caseload size and treatment according to offender needs Develop more intensive community treatment programs as alternative to institutionalization 166 166 167 168 169 170 170 171 Correctional Institutions Establish with State and Federal funds small-unit institutions in cities for community-oriented t r e a t m e n t 1 7 3 174 Operate institutions with joint responsibility of staff and inmates for rehabilitation 175 Upgrade education and vocational training for inmates 175 Establish State programs to recruit and train instructors 176 Improve prison industries through joint State programs and Federal assistance 177 Expand graduated release and furlough programs 178 Integrate local jails and misdemeanant institutions with State corrections 179 Provide separate detention facilities for juveniles House and handle persons awaiting trial separately from convicts Provide separate treatment to special offender groups, through pooling or sharing among jurisdictions 179 180 Correctional Decisionmaking Strengthen diagnostic and screening resources Appoint parole boards solely on basis of merit, providing training and requiring full-time service Develop standards and procedures to insure fairness to offenders in decisions affecting them 180 181 181 Research and Training Improve university research and training in corrections 185 ORGANIZED CRIME--CHAPTER 7 Success in combating organized crime will require a greater commitment of resources and imagination at all levels of government, directed toward investigation and prosecution and also toward attacking criminal syndicates through regulatory laws. A coordinated network of investigative and prosecutive units is needed, provided with legal tools necessary for gathering evidence-includ- ing investigating grand juries and the power to grant witnesses immunity. Investigation must be carried out with a broader focus than merely the prosecution of individual cases; research for building longer range plans should draw on sociologists, economists, and experts from other disciplines. Proof of Criminal Violations Impanel annual investigative grand juries Provide right of appeal for grand juries to obtain special investigators and prosecutors Enact general witness immunity statutes and coordinate immunity grants Eliminate special standards of proof in perjury cases Clarify law regarding wiretapping and eavesdropping Provide power to impose extended sentences on organized crime leaders Extend prosecution's right to appeal from pretrial rulings suppressing evidence or confessions Establish Federal residential facilities to protect witnesses 200 200 20 1 20 1 203 203 203 204 Investigation and Prosecution Units 204 204 204 206 206 206 206 206 207 207 Form organized crime intelligence units in offices of State attorneys general and local police departments AssiLgnspecial prosecutorial manpower to organized crime cases Create computerized central Federal intelligence office Expand staff of Organized Crime and Racketeering (OCR) Section in U.S. Justice Department Give OCR Section authority over U.S. attorneys on organized crime cases Furnish Federal technical assistance and training to local jurisdictions Provide Federal assistance for development of State and regional intelligence systems Encourage research Create permanent joint congressional committee on organized crime Establish permanent State and citizens crime commissions Noncriminal Controls Use existing regulatory authority against businesses controlled by organized crime Encourage private business groups to prevent and uncover criminal business t a c Increase news coverage on organized crime Brief local government officials regularly on organized crime t i c s 2 208 0 8 208 208 TABLE OF RECOMMENDATIONS 299 NARCOTICS AND DRUG ABUSE---CHAPTER 8 The growing problem of narcotics and drug abuse in this country must be attacked by strengthening all approaches: Law enforcement, rehabilitation and treatment of drug users, and public education on the dangers involved. This is partly a matter of increased resources, such as for customs control; for the Bureau of Narcotics (especially to strengthen its long-range intelligence) ;and for expansion of treatment. There is also need for intensified research, and for careful implementation, evaluation, and coordination of the many new and promising programs for control. Enforcement Increase staffs of Bureaus of Customs and NarcoticsAdopt State drug abuse control legislation Amend Federal drug abuse control law to strengthen recordkeeping provisions Revise sentencing laws to give adequate flexibility 220 220 22 1 223 Research and Education Undertake research with respect to regulation of drugs Conduct research at National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) on marihuana use - -Develop educational materials at N I M H . - -- Present efforts to find alternatives to treatment of drunkenness within the criminal system should be pursued vigorously. One of the most promising possibilities is the construction of detoxification centers with medical services 2 --- -.---23 16 225 1 and therapy for short-term detention. A network of aftercare facilities and services should also be established to which referrals could be made after diagnosis at a detoxification center. Eliminate criminal treatment of drunkeness when not accompanied by disorderly or otherwise unlawful c o n d u c t 2 3 6 Establish civil detoxification centers 236 237 Coordinate and extend aftercare prograrns.-.. 237 Expand research CONTROL OF FIREARMS--CHAPTER 10 The increasing violence in the Nation demands that governments at all levels strengthen control of possession and sale of the firearms that contribute to that violence. Additional laws requiring registration of firearms and permits for those who possess or carry them, prohibiting their sale to and possession by certain potentially dangerous persons, and preventing transportation and sale of military-type weapons are needed. Such restrictions would not need to interfere with legitimate sporting or antique collecting interests. Enact laws prohibiting transportation and possession of military-type weapons Prohibit potentially dangerous persons from acquiring firearms Require registration of handguns, rifles, and shotguns Require permit for possessing or carrying a handgun Prohibit interstate sale of handguns and regulate such sales of other firearms 242 242 243 243 243 SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY--CHAPTER 11 The potential contributions of science and technology number of specific areas where science might make a in the field of law enforcement and criminal justice have contribution, particularly in increasing law enforcement scarcely been tapped; a strong research program to de- effectiveness. I t found a number of lines for improving velop them is necessary. This program should be police response-time for apprehension of criminals. initiated through Federal support. It should cover both Coordinated information systems covering immediatebasic research studies and systems analysis, and develop- response inquiries, law enforcement criminal records inment of specific technological innovations. The Com- formation, and statistics on criminal justice agency mission's task force on science and technology explored a operations should be established. Police Operations 248 Undertake studies in large police departments of crimes, arrests, and operations 250 Permit public access to police callboxes 250 Establish single, uniform police telephone number 251 Establish laboratory for simulation of communications center operations Develop computer-assisted command-and-control systems 252 Develop police radio networks 254 Require metropolitan areas to coordinate requests to FCC for additional frequencies 254 254 Make greater use of multichannel radio trunks Consider allocating portions of T V spectrum to police use 254 Establish Federal project to underwrite initial costs of new radio equipment 254 Initiate research on new fingerprint recognition system -255 Undertake experiments to improve statistical procedures for manpower allocation 257 Court Operations 259 Expand pilot use of simulation studies of court systems Correctional Operations Develop statistical aids for sentencing and treatment 260 Information Systems Establish criminal information systems 268 269 Establish National Criminal Justice Statistics Center General Federal Research and Assistance 270 Sponsor science and technology research and development program 270 Coordinate establishment of equipment standards 770 Provide technical assistance to criminal justice agencies Support operations research staffs in large criminal justice agencies 27 1 27 1 Support scientific and technological research in research institute RESEARCH-CHAPTER Expanded research is essential for preventing crime and improving the effectiveness of criminal justice. It must be conducted by operating agencies; universities, foundations, and research corporations; private industry; and govcrnmcnt institutes. It must attempt a more corn- 12 plete assessment of the volume, nature, and causes of crime. It must look more carefully at the way the criminal justice system operates. Change nerd not wait upon the gaining of such knowledge; only through innovation and evaluation of operations can most of it be obtained. Organize research units in criminal justice agencies Give public and private support to criminal research institutes in various parts of the country Expand research efforts of unive~sities,foundations, and other private groups Provide funds to individuals and organizations with promising research programs Establish a National Foundation for Criminal Research 975 276 277 277 277 TABLE OF RECOMMENDATIONS 301 A NATIONAL STRATEGY-CHAPTER 13 The Commission's recommendations must be implemented through a strategy for change involving all levels of government, private groups, and every American citizen. Control of crime requires three very basic emphases: Preventing delinquency before it ever becomes a matter for the criminal justice system to deal with; providing the agencies of justice with adequate resources; and pushing forward the search for better knowledge about crime and how best to handle it. Control of crime and improvement of criminal justice are basically State and local concerns. Governments at this level must begin by planning the changes needed: gathering facts, setting priorities, and mobilizing resources needed for action. But legislatures-and the publicmust also be ~villingto spend a great deal more to secure safety and justice. And officials and citizens must be willing to undertakr often diffirult reforms. The role of the Federal Government must be to lead and coordinate change through providing financial and technical assistance and support of research. Private groups and individuals can join in---indeed lead-the process of change, through activities ranging from doing volunteer work to c~nployingreleascd offenders. And the support of every citizer. is crucial to all other progress in controlling crime. Establish agency or officials in every State and city responsible for planning and encouraging improvements in criminal justice Initiate 8-point Federal support program 280 285 ADDITIONAL .VIEWS OF INDIVIDUAL COMMISSION MEMBERS ADDITIONAL VIEWS O F MISS BLATT ". . . Godlessness as a basic cause of crime and religion as a basic cure . . ." Thorough as the Commission's studies have been and comprehensive as its valuable recommendations are, its report seems deficient to me in that it neglects to recognize godlessness as a basic cause of crime and religion as a basic cure. The report acknowledges the necessity for activating religious institutions in the war on crime, and it mentions some of the excellent work religious groups have done in youth work and along similar lines. But nowhere does the report mention the Ten Commandments which underlie our Judaeo-Christian culture. Nor does it mention the God who created all of us, who gave us the Ten Commandments, who enforces a law higher than ours and who administers the ultimate justice. Admittedly, it would not be within the province of the Commission to recommend how to combat the godlessness so prevalent today and so basically at the root of so much of our crime problem. Nor could the Commission properly outline how religion, as a moral force distinct from an institutional group, could help control crime. But just as the report recognizes the obvious relationship of poverty and ignorance and discrimination to an increas- ing crime rate, it should recognize that man's alienation from his God has also been a crime-inducing factor. I t is true that the all too frequent unwillingness of many religious groups and of many presumably religious individuals to live by and not just to profess the moral precepts common to all religions has all too frequently blunted the effectiveness of religion in preventing crime. Nevertheless, properly used, religion is a real weapon. I n my personal opinion, it is the best weapon. And it should be used. My feeling is that we unquestionably should, as the Commission suggests, improve family life and the school system and every other human institution. In so doing we will undoubtedly help prevent crime. T o do these things, however, without renewing and revitalizing religious life, won't be enough. Somehow or other we must restore to every citizen's everyday living that same belief in God's love and justice which was characteristic of our countrymen in an earlier and less crime-ridden period of our history. We were a God-fearing people at one time, and proud of it. We must be that again if we expect to see the crime rate substantially reduced. ADDITIONAL VIEWS O F DR. BREWSTER, JUDGE BREITEL, MRS. STUART, AND MR. YOUNG Despite our strong feelings that the Commission and its staff have done an outstanding job in a very limited period of time with some of the most difficult problems that our Nation faces, we feel compelled to note that the Commission has not confronted many major unanswered questions about narcotics and dangerous drugs. This is one field in which an openminded, questioning inquiry is necessary. This is one field in which reliance upon assumptions, emotional biases, and the acceptance of traditional viewpoints is most dangerous. Many persons concerned with the problem have for years been questioning whether the criminalization of narcotics and marihuana distribution has not served to defeat the objective of controlling and perhaps eliminating drug abuse and the crime associated with it. The gnawing question to which there has never been a satisfactory answer is whether this policy of criminalization, which raises the cost and increases the difficulty of obtaining drugs, does in fact make the drug user a proselytizer of others in order that he may obtain the funds to acquire his own drugs. There is also the unusually difficult question of whether the compdsion of the addict to obtain drugs and the moneys to purchase them causes him to commit collateral crime that otherwise he might not commit. In this important area the Commission has been unable to face the fundamental questions. Instead, for reasons that are quite understandable but in our view not justifiable, it assumes that the laws and the traditional methods of enforcement which have obtained for over 50 years, are the only proper ways in which to meet the problem. I t makes this assumption at a time when the use of narcotics and other drugs may have become intensified, and all of the moral, economic, and criminal law problems associated with these vices may be greater than ever. That the Commission and its staff were capable of openminded imaginative analysis in other difficult areas is demonstrated by the way the report deals with such matters as the assessment of crime and the application of scientific thinking and methods to solving problems of criminal justice. These successes, and the objective analysis of the operations of criminal justice agencies generally, make all the more contrasting the Commission's failure to have the staff explore an equally new approach to narcotics and drugs. There is no field in which the problems and failures frighten Americans more. We recognize that there were practical limitations, apart from the short time the Commission was given to do its work. I t is not easy to question the views of the many National and State law enforcement agencies of high quality and experience, which have been struggling heroically with the problem along traditional lines for over a half century. I t is also difficult to attempt to raise anew questions that were, or should have been, explored by another Presidential commission limited to this problem, which concluded its work only 3 years ago. I t is particularly difficult to remove from one's Own mind and from the minds of others the idea that, because there is correlation of events, one must be the cause of the other. But the fact-the obvious fact-that so many criminals are also users of narcotics or marihuana, and that there has been an escalation in the use and the amount and kind of drugs, does not necessarily mean that drug abuse is a cause of crime. I t is difficult to persuade people that they should at least consider whether both are simply the effects of common causesthat delinquents resort both to drugs and to crime for more deep-seated reasons than that the one causes the other. We feel impelled to make these remarks because, while we do not know the answers or have the data to disprove what we believe to be the unproven presuppositions of the traditional approach, we are convinced that the time must come when this Nation will have to consider from entirely new and unbiased viewpoints the associated but distinguishable problems involving narcotics, marihuana, hallucinogens, and other dangerous drugs. The time will come when we will have to determine causal relations and consider the possibility that traditional methods of law enforcement produce more rather than less crime, .particularly of a collateral character. We have done as much in ~rovidingnew approaches in the field of corrections and, more recently, in the field of bail reform. We first questioned and then proved that traditional approaches were producing exactly the reverse of what had been the design. The present report is so hospitable to the broadest kind of research that we can hope that there will be opportunity to reevaluate the present bases of our drug laws. ADDITIONAL VIEWS O F MESSRS. JAWORSKI, MALONE, POWELL, AND STOREY We have joined our fellow members of the Commission in this report and in commending it to the American people. This supplemental statement is submitted in support of the report for the purpose of opening up for discussion-and perhaps for further study and action-areas which were not considered explicitly in the report itself. These relate to the difficult and perplexing problems arising from certain of the constitutional limitations upon our system of criminal justice. CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS The limitations with which we are primarily concerned arise from the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States as they have been interpreted by the Supreme Court in recent years. The rights guaranteed by these amendments, and other provisions of the Bill of Rights, are dear to all Americans and long have been recognized as cornerstones of a,system deliberately designed to protect the individual from oppressive government action. As they apply to persons accused of crime, they extend equally to the accused whether he is innocent or guilty. I t is fundamental in our concept of the Constitution that these basic rights shall be protected whether or not this sometimes results in the acquittal of the guilty. We do not suggest a departure from these underlying principles. But there is a serious question, now being in- creasingly posed by jurists and scholars,' whether some of these rights have been i7terpreted and enlarged by Court decision to the point where they now seriously affect the delicate balance between the rights of the individual and those of society. Or, putting the question differently, whether the scales have tilted in favor of the accused and against law enforcement and the public further than the best interest of the country permits. It is concern with this question which prompts us to express these additional views. As the people of our country must ultimately decide where this balance is to be struck, it is important to encourage a wider understanding of the problem and its implications. In 1963 Chief Judge Lumbard of the Court of Appeals of the Second Circuit warned : [ W ] e are in danger of a grievous imbalance in the administration of criminal justice * * *. In the past forty years there have been two distinct trends in the administration of criminal justice. T h e first has been to strengthen the rights of the individual; and the second, which is perhaps a corollary of the first, is to limit the powers of law enforcement agencies. Most o f us would agree that thc devetopment of individual 'See Friendly, The B i l l 01 R i j h t s os o Code 01 Criminal Procedure, 53 Calif. L. Rev. 929 (1965) ; Schaefer. Police Intcrrogarion ond the Privileje A,fain.sr Sell. Incrimination. 61 Nw. U.L. Rev. 506 (1966) ; Traynor. T h e Devils 01 Due Process i n Criminal Detection, Detention and Trial. 33 U . Chi. L. Rev. 657 (1966). rights was long overdue; most of us would agree that there should be further clarification of individual rights, particularly for indigent defendants. At the same time we must face the facts about indifferent and faltering law enforcement in this country. W e must adopt measures which will give enforcement agencies proper means for doing their jobs. In m y opinion, these two eflorts must go forward simultane~usly.~ The trends referred to by Judge Lumbard have had their major impact upon law enforcement since 1961 as a result 'of far-reaching decisions of the Supreme Court which have indeed effected a "revolution in state criminal procedure." The strong emotions engendered by these decisions, for and against both them and the Court, have inhibited rational discourse as to their actual effect upon law enforcement. There has been unfair-and even destructive-criticism of the Court itself. Many have failed to draw the line, fundamental in a democratic society, between the right to discuss and analyze the effect of particular decisions, and the duty to support and defend the judiciary, and particularly the Supreme Court, as an institution essential to freedom. Moreover, during the early period of the Court's restraint with respect to State action, there were many examples of gross injustice in the State courts and of indefensible inaction on the part of State legislatures. In short, there was often a pressing need for action due to neglect elsewhere, and many of the great decisions undoubtedly brought on by such neglect have been warmly welcomed. Whatever the reason, the trend of decisions strikingly has been towards strengthening the rights of accused persons and limiting the powers of law enforcement. I t is a trend which has accelerated rapidly at a time when the nation is deeply concerned with its apparent inability to deal successfully with the problem of crime. We think the results must be taken into account in any mobilization of society's resources to confront this problem. T H E ACCUSATORY SYSTEM In any attempt to assess the effect of this trend upon law enforcement it is necessary to keep in mind the essential characteristics of our criminal system. Unlike systems in many civilized countries, ours is "accusatory" in the sense that innocence is presumed and the burden lies on the State to prove in a public trial the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable.,doubt. The accused has the right to a jury trial, and-in mbst if not all States-the added protection that a guilty verdict must be unanimous. ~ u m h n r d .The Administration of Criminal lustice: Some Problems and Their Resolutfon. 49 A.B.A.J. 840 (1963). ,Judge Lumhard is chairman of the American Bar Association's Criminal Justice Project. George. Constitutional Limitations on Evidence in Criminal Cases 3 (1966). Other characteristics which have marked our system include the requirements of probable cause for arrest, prompt arraignment before a judicial officer, indictment or presentment to a grand jury, confrontation with accusors and witnesses, reasonable bail, the limitation on unreasonable searches and seizures, and habeas corpus. Argument and controversy have swirled around the interpretation and application of many of these rights. The drawing of a line between the obvious need for police to have reasonable time to investigate and the right of an accused to a prompt arraignment occasioned one of the most intense contro~ersies.~ There also has been serious dissatisfaction with the abuse of habeas corpus and especially the flood of petitions resulting from decisions broadening the power of Federal courts to review alleged denials of constitutional rights in State court^.^ No other country affords convicted persons such elaborate and multiple opportunities for reconsideration of adjudication of guilt.= Another constitutional limitation, affecting criminal trials and now being increasingly q~estioned,~ requires that a conviction be set aside automatically whenever material evidence obtained in violation of the Bill of Rights was received at the trial. The purpose of the rule is not related to relevance, truth or reliability, for the evidence in question may in fact be the most relevant and reliable that possibly could be ~btained. Rather, the reason assigned for the peremptory exclusion is that there is no other effective method of deterring improper action by law enforcement personnel. ESCOBEDO A N D MIRANDA .' But the broadened rights and resulting restraints upon law enforcement which have had the greatest impact are those derived from the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and the Sixth Amendment assurance of counsel. The two cases which have caused the greatest concern are Escobedo v. Illinois and Miranda v. A r i ~ o n a . ~In Miranda the requirements were imposed that a suspect detained by the police be warned not only of his right to remain silent and that any statement may be used against him at trial, but also that he has the right to the presence of counsel and that counsel will be furnished if he cannot provide it, before he can be asked any questions at the scene of the crime or elsewhere. The suspect may waive these rights only if he does so "voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently" and all questioning must stop immediately if at any stage the person indicates that he wishes to consult counsel or to remain silent. 354 U.S. 439 (1957), ,See Mdlory v. United SFay V. Noia. 372 U.S.391 (1963); Townsend .v. Sain. 372 US. 293 (1963). In 1941 fiscal year there were only 127 petitions; by 1961 there were 984. The number escalated to 3,531 in 1!W; during the first 6 months of fiscal 1965 there were 2,160 applications (an increase of 32.7 percent over the previous 6 months' period). See 90 A.B.A. Rep. 463 (1965). The Townsend case, to take one dreary example, was in the courts for more than 10 years after conviction of the defendant. with 6% yearn being consumed in various habeas corpus proceedings. The great majority of these petitions are not mcritorious. See Ihid. a The Commission's report, ch. 5, contains helpful recommendations as to what the States can do to minimize frivolous habeas corpus petitions. 'See Friendly, supra at 951-53. a 378 US. 478 (196%). 0 384 US. 436 (1966). Although the full meaning of the code of conduct prescribed by Miranda remains for future case-by-case delineation, there can be little doubt that its effect upon police interrogation and the use of confessions will drastically change procedures long considered by law enforcement officials to be indispensable to the effective functioning of our system. Indeed, one of the great State chief justices .has described the situation as a "mounting crisis" in the constitutional rules that "reach out to govern police interrogation." l o T H E FATE OF POLICE INTERROGATIONS If the majority opinion in Miranda is implemented in its full sweep, .it could mean the virtual elimination of pretrial interrogation of suspects-on the street, at the scene of a crime, and in the station house-because there would then be no such interrogation without the presence of counsel unless the person detained, howsoever briefly, waives this right. Indeed, there are many who now agree with Justice Walter V. Schaefer who recently wrote: The privilege against self-incrimination as presently interpreted precludes the effective questioning of persons suspected of crime.ll In Crooker v. California, the Court recognized that an absolute right to counsel during interrogation would as well as un"preclude police questioning-fair Mr. Justice Jackson, familiar with the duty fair * * *." and practice of the trial bar, perceptively said : [Alny lawyer worth his salt will tell the suspect in no uncertain terms to make no statement to police under any circumstance^.^^ There will, it is true, be a certain number of cases in which the suspect will not insist upon his right to counsel. If he makes admissions or a formal confession, the question whether his waiver of counsel was "voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently" made will then permeate all subsequent contested phases of the criminal processtrial, appeal and even post conviction remedies. And the prosecution will bear the "heavy" burden of proving such waiver; mere silence of the accused will not suffice; and "any evidence" of threat, cajolery or pressure by the government will preclude admission. The employment of electronic recorders l 4 and television possibly may enable police to defend such an interrogation if conducted in the station house. But in the suddenness of a street encounter, or the confusion at the scene of a crime, there will be little or no opportunity lo Traynor. supra at 664. Chief Justice Traynor discussed thin "mounting crisis" in the Benjamin N. Cardoro Lecture at the Association of the Bnr of the City of New York on Apr. 19. 1966. prior to the Court's decision in Miranda. l1 Schacfer, supra at 520. See also Justice Schnefer's first lecture in the 1966 Julius Rosenthnl Lectures. Northwestern University Law School 8 (un~ublished manuscript). 19357 U.S. 433. 441 (1958). the holding of which was overruled in Mirando. supra at 479 n. 48. [Emphasis in original.] l 3 Watts V. Indiana. 338 U S . 49. 59 (1949) (dissenting opinion). " AS recommended in Model Code of Pre.Arraignmant Procedure # 4.09 (Tent. Draft No. 1. 1966). to protect police interrogation against the inevitable charge of failing to meet Miranda standards. The litigation that follows more often than not will be a "trial" of the police rather than the accused. There are some who argue that further experience is needed to determine whether police interrogation of suspects is necessary for effective law enforcement. Such experience would be helpful in defining the dimensions of the problem. But fewcan doubt the adverse impact of Miranda upon the law enforcement process. Interrogation is the single most essential police procedure. I t benefits the innocent suspect as much as it aids in obtaining evidence to convict the guilty. Mr. Justice Frankfurter noted : Questioning suspects is indispensable in law enforcement.15 The rationale of police interrogation was well stated by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Cone: The fact is that in many serious crimes-cases of murder, kidnapping, rape, burglary and robberp-the police often have no or few objective clues with which to start an investigation; a considerable percentage of those which are solved are solved in whole or in part through statements voluntarily made to the police by those who are suspects. Moreover, immediate questioning is often instrumental in recovering kidnapped persons or stolen goods as well as in solving the crime. Under these circumstances, the police should not be forced unnecessarily to bear obstructions that irretrievably forfeit the opportunity of securing information under circumstances of spontaneity most favorable to truth-telling and at a time when further information may be necessary to pursue the investigation, to apprehend others, and to prevent other crimes.ls T H E FUTURE OF CONFESSIONS The impact of Miranda on the use of confessions is an equally serious problem. Indeed, this is the other side of the coin. If interrogations are muted there will be no confessions; if they are tainted, resulting confessions-as well as other related evidence-will be excluded or the convictions subsequently set aside. There is real reason for the concern, expressed by dissenting justices, that Miranda in effect proscribes the use of all confession^.'^ This would be the most far-reaching departure from precedent and established practice in the history of our criminal law. 15 Culombe v. Connecticut. 367 U S . 568, 578 (1961). quoting People v. Hall, 413 111. 615. 624, 110 N.E. 2d 249. 254 (1953). 10354 F. 2d 119, 126. cert. denied, 384 U S . 1023 (1966). Pcrhnps the best published stotemcnt of the considerations favoring in.custody interrogation is that found in the Model Code of Pre-Arraignment Procedure. Commentary $5.01, 0: 168-74 (Tent. Draft No. 1. 1966). See also Bator & Vorenberg. Arrest. Detention. Interrogation and the Right to Counsel: Basic Problems and Possible Legislative Solutions. 66 Colum. L. Rev. 6 2 (1966) ; Friendly, supra, at 941, 948. IT Mr. Justice White, joined by Mr. Justice Hnrlnn and Mr. Justice Stewart. said "[Tlhe result [of the mnjority holding] ndds up to n judicial judgment that evidence from the accused should not be used against him in any way. whether compelled or not." Mironda v. Arizona, supra at 538 (dissenting opinion). . 306 Until Escobedo and Miranda the basic test of the admissibility of a confession was whether it was genuinely voluntary. IS Nor had there been any serious question as to the desirable role of confessions, lawfully obtained, in the criminal process. The generally accepted view had been that s.tated in an early Supreme Court case: [l1he admissions or confessions of a prisoner, when voluntary and freely made, have always ranked high in the scale of incriminating evidence.19 It is, of course, true that the danger of abuse and the difficulty of determining "voluntariness" have long and properly concerned the courts. Yet, one wonders whether these acknowledged difficulties justify the loss at this point in our history of a type of evidence considered both so reliable and so vital to law enforcement. THE "PRIVILEGE" AND CRIMINAL TRIAL The impact upon law enforcement of the privilege against self-incrimination as now construed by the Court is not confined to the Miranda issues of interrogation and confession. The privilege has always protected an accused from being compelled to testify; it now prevents any comment by judge or prosecutor on his failure to testify; and it limits discovery by the prosecution of evi20 It was dence in the accused's possession or control. not until 1964 that the privilege was held applicable to the States by virtue of the 14th amendment,21 and the final extension came in 1965 when the Court held invalid a State constitutional provision permitting the trial judge and prosecutor to comment upon the accused's failure to testify at trial. 22 'J1he question is now being increasingly asked whether the full scope of the privilege, as recently construed and' enlarged, is justified either by its long and tangled history 'Or by any genuine need in a criminal triap3 There is agreement, of course, that the privilege must always be preserved in fullest measure against inquisitions into political or religious beliefs or conduct. Indeed, the his18 Indeed, until very recently and back through English constitutional history. D. distinction had been made between the privilege against self. incrimination and the rules excluding compelled confessions. See Morgan, The Privile,e A,ains, Self. Incrimination, 34 Minn. L. Rev. 1 (1949); 3 Wigmore, Evidence 819 (3d ed. 1940). But .ee Brom v. United Stat.., 168 U.S. 532, 542 (1897). In the United States, the common law and tbe du~ process clauses of the Constitution were can. strued to provide a voluntariness standard for the admissibility of confessioos. See Developmenll in the Laur-Confe..ions, 79 H.rv. L. Rev. 935 (1966). The Fifth Amendment was adopted in 1791. Before that time. in England and in this country, the privilege was construed to apply only at judicial proceedings in which the person aS8erting the privilege was being tried on criminal charges; at preliminary hearing the magistrate freely questioned the accused without warning of his rights and any failure to respond wa8 part of the evidence at trial, such evidence being given by testimony of the magistrate himself. See Morgan, supra at 18. Dean Wigmore and Profe88or Corwin suggest that the intent of the framers of the Fifth 'Amendment was to r~tain these limitations upon the privilege. See Corwin, The Supreme Cour"s Corutruct;,on oj the SelJ-Incrimination Clause, 29 Mich. L. Rev. I, 2 (1930); 8 Wigmore, Evidence § 2252, .t 324 (McNaughton rev. 19(1). . 10 Brown v. Walker. 161 U.S. 591, 596 (1896). Moreover, a. Judge Friendly ha. pointed out: "[T]here is no social value in preventing uncoerced admission of the facts." Friendly, supra at 948. § DJ See 8 Wigmore, Evidence 2264 (McNaughton rev. 1961). Beyond the trial itself, the ~rivilege protects grand jury witnesses (CouMelmaR v. Hitchcock, 142 U.S. 547 (1892»; witnesses in civil trial (Mc'Carthy v. Arndslein. 266 U.S. 34 (1924»; and witnesses before legislative committees (Enupak v. United Stales, 349 U.S. 190 (1955); Quinn v. United States, 349 U.S. 155 (1955». . Malloy v. HOKon, 378 U.S. 1 (1964). " Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965). 23 See, e.g., McCormick, The Scope of Pr;,vilele ,in the Law of Evidence, 16 Texas "" L. Rev. 447 (1938); Schaefer, supra; Traynor. sapIa; Warden, Miranda-:--Some Hutory, Some Observation.! and Some QuestiolU, 20 Vand. L. Rev. 39 (1966). toric origin and purpose of the privilege was primarily to protect against the evil of governmental suppression of ideas. But it is doubtful that when the Fifth Amendment was adopted it was conceived that its major beneficiaries would be those accused of crimes against person and property. Plainly this is an area requiring the most thoughtful attention. There is little sentiment-and in our view no justification-for outright repeal of the privilege clause or for an amendment which would require a defendant to give evidence against himself at his trial. But a strong case can be made for restoration of the right to comment on the failure of an accused to take the stand.24 As Justice Schaefer has said: [I]t is entirely unsound to exclude from consideration at the trial the silence of a suspect involved in circumstances reasonably calling for explanation, or of a defendant who does not take the stand. It therefore seems to me imperative that the privilege against sel/incrimination be modified to . permit comment upon such silence.25 Any consideration of modification of the Fifth Amendment also should include appropriate provision to make possible reciprocal pretrial discovery in criminal cases. One specific proposal, meriting serious consideration, is. to acc,omplish this by pretrial discovery interrogation before a magistrate or judicial officer.2G The availability of broad discovery would strengthen law enforcement as well as the rights. of persons accused of criine/7 and would go far to establish determination of the truth as to guilt or innocence as the primary object of our criminal procedure. OTHER COUNTRIES LESS RESTRICTIVE We know of no other system of criminal justice which subjects .law enforcement to limitations as severe and rigid as those we have discussed. The nearest analogy is found in England which shares through our common law heritage the basic 'characteristics of the accllsatory system. Yet, there are significant differences-especially in the greater discretion of English judges and in the flexibility which inheres in an unwritten constitution. There is nevertheless a developing feeling in England, parallel to that in this country, that criminals are unduly protected by the present rules. The Home Secretary of the Labor Government, speaking of proposed measures to aid law enforcement, recently said: 24.See Traynor, supra at 677: "I find no inconsistency in l'emaining of the opinion that a judge or prosecutor might fairly comment upon the silence of a defendant at the trial itself to the extent of noling that a jury could draw un. 'favorable inferences from the defendant's failure to explain or refute evidence when he could reasonably be expected to do 80. Such comment would not be evi. dence and would do no more than make clear to the jury the extent of its freedom in drawing inferences,'" :25Schaefer, supra at 520. 20 Schaefer, supra at 518-20. 27 The Commission report ~niphasizes the need for broader pretrial discovery by both the prosecution'8 and tho defense. . . . . . . . . . . T h e scales of justice in Britain are at present- tilted a little more in the favor of the accused than is necessary to protect the innocent.28 One of the measures recommended by the Labor Government is to permit a majority verdict of 10, rather than the historic unanimous vote of all 12 jurors.20 Leading members of the English bar are pressing for further reforms. After pointing out that "the criminal is living in a golden age," Lord Shawcross has commented: The barriers protecting suspected and accused persons are being steadily reinforced. I believe our law has become hopelessly unrealistic in its attitude toward the preuention and detection of crime. W e put illusory fears about the impairment of liberty before the promotion of justice.30 Among the reforms being urged in England are major modifications of the privilege against self-incrimination, broadened discovery rights by the state, and the adoption of a requirement that accused persons must advise the prosecution in advance of trial of all special defenses, such as alibi, self-defense, or mistaken identity. Another change suggested would allow the admission i n evidence o!: previous convictions of similar offenses, although convictions of dissimilar crimes still would not be admis~ible.~l THE FIRST DUTY OF GOVERNMENT, I n the first chapter of the Commission's report the seriousness of the crime situation is described as follows: Every American is, in a sense, a victim of crime. Violence and theft,have not only injured, often iyreparably, hundreds of thousands of citizens, but have directly affected everyone. Some people haue been impelled to uproot themselves hnd find new homes. Some haue been made afraid to use public streets and parks. Some have come to doubt the worth of a society in which so many people behave-so badly.32 The underlying causes of these conditions are far more fundamental than the limitations discussed in this statement. Yet, prevention and control of crime-until it is "uprooted" by long-range reforms-depends in major part upon effective law enforcement. T o be effective, and particularly to deter criminal conduct, the courts must convict the guilty with promptness and certainty Address of the Rt. Hon. Roy Jenkins, h1.P.. Secretary of State for the Home Department, National Press Club, Washington, D.C., Sept. 19, 1966. Mr. Jenkins, in emphasizing the deterrent eBect of swiftness and certainty in justice. also said: "Detection and conviction are therefore necessarily prior deterrents to that of punishment, and I attach the greatest possible importance to trying to increase the chances that they will follow a criminal act." m T h e rule in Scotland long has been that a simple majority vote suffices to convict. "Address by Lord Shawcross. Q.C.. Attorney General of Great Britain. 1945-51. before the Crime Commiasion of Chicago. Oct. 11, 1965, reprinted in U.S. News & World Report. Nov. 1. 1965. p 8 0 4 2 . See also Shawcross. Police and Public in Great Britain. 51 A.B.A.J. 225 &965). " S e e statements o f Viscount Dilhorne (Q.C. and Lord Chancellor, 1 9 6 2 6 4 and Attorney General, 1 9 5 4 4 2 ) . and Lord Shawcross, as reported . i n The Listner, Aug. 11. 1966, pp. 190. et seq. Commission's General Report. ch. 1. . " just as they must acquit the innocent. Society is not well served by limitations which frustrate reasonable attainment of this goal. We are passing through a phase in our history of understandable, yet unprecedented, concern with the rights of accused persons. This has been welconlcd as long overdue in many areas. But the time has come for a like concern for the rights of citizens to bc free from criminal molestation of their persons and property. In many respects, the victims of crime have been. the forgotten men of our society-inadequately protected, generally uncompensated, and the object of relatively little attention by the public at large. Mr. Justice White'has said: "The most basic function of any government is to provide for the security of the individual and of his property." 33 Unless this function is adequately discharged, society itself may well become so disordered that all rights and liberties will be endangered. RIGHTING T H E IMBALANCE This statement has reviewed, necessarily without attempting completeness or detailed analysis, some of the respects in which law enforcement and the courts have been handicapped by the law itself in seeking to apprehend and convict persons guilty of crime. The question which we raise is ,whether, even with the support .of a deeply concerned President 34 and the implementation of the Commission's national strategy against crime, law enforcement can effectively discharge its vital role in "controlling crime and violence" without changes in existing constitutional limitations. There is no more sacred part of our history or our constitutional structure than the Bill of Rights. One approaches the thought of the most limited amendment with reticence and .a full awareness both of the political obstacles and the inherent delicacy of drafting changes which preserve all relevant values. But it must be remembered that the constitution contemplates amendment, and no part of it should be so sacred that it remains beyond review. Whatever can be done to right the present imbalance through legislation or rule of court should have high priority. The promising criminal justice programs of the American Bar Association and the American Law Institute should be helpful in this respect. But reform and clarification will fall short unless they achieve these ends : An adequate opportunity must be provided the police for interrogation at the scene of the crime, during investigations and at the station house, with appropriate safeguards to prevent abuse. The legitimate place of voluntary confessions in law enforcement must be reestablished and their use made - -- " Mironda - - v. Arizona, supra at 539 (dissenting opinion). In his recent Stnte of the Union Address, President Johnson said: "Our country's laws must be respected, order must be maintained. I will support-with all the constitutional powers I possess-our Nation's law enforcement officials in their attempt to control the crime and violence that tear the fahric of our communities." Statc af the Union Address, Jon. 10, 1%7. 8' dependent upon meeting due process standards of voluntariness. Provision must be made for comment on the failure of an accused to take the stand, and also for reciprocal discovery in criminal cases. If, as now appears likely, a constitutional amendment is required to strengthen law enforcement in these respects, the American people should face up to the need and undertake necessary action without delay. CONCLUSION We emphasize in concluding that while we differ in varying degrees from some of the decisions discussed, we unanimously recognize them as expressions of legally tenable points of view. We support all decisions of the Court as the law of the land, to be respected and enforced unless and until changed by the processes available under our form of government. I n considering any change, the people of the United States must have an adequate understanding of the ad- verse effect upon law enforcement agencies of the constitutional limitations discussed in this statement. They must also ever be mindful that concern with crime and apprehension for the safety of their persons and property, as understandable as these are today, must be weighed carefully against the necessity-as demonstrated by history-of retainmg appropriate and effective safeguards against oppressive governmental action against the individual, whether guilty or innocent of crime. The determination of how. to strike this balance, with wisdom and restraint, is a decision which in final analysis the people of this country must make. I t has been the purpose of this statement to alert the public generally to the dimensions of the problem, to record our conviction that an imbalance exists, and to express a viewpoint as to possible lines of remedial action. I n going somewhat beyond the scope of the Commission's report, we reiterate our support and our judgment that implementation of its recommendations will have far reaching and salutary effects. MR. BYRNE, CHIEF CAHILL, AND MR. L Y N C H CONCUR I N T H I S STATEMENT. Appendix A The Commission and Its Operations I. THE COMMISSIONERS NICHOLAS DEB. KATZENBACH, CHAIRMAN Washington, D.C.; Under Secretary of State; U S . Army Air Force, 1st Lieutenant, prisoner of war, awarded Air Medal With Three Clusters, 1941-45; Rhodes scholar, 1947-49; attorney, Department of the Air Force, 195052; Professor of Law, Yale Law School, 1952-56; Professor of International Law, University of Chicago, 195661 ; Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, 1961; Deputy Attorney General, 1962-65, Attorney General of the United States, 1965-66. GENEVIEVE BLATT Harrisburg, Pa., attorney; Phi Beta Kappa; Secretary of Internal Affairs, Member, State Board of Pardons, State of Pennsylvania, 1955-67. CHARLES D. Association, 1963-64; President, Massachusetts District Attorneys Association, 1963-64; President, National District Attorneys Foundation. THOMAS J . CAHILL San Francisco, Calif.; Chief of Police, San Francisco; entered San Francisco Police Department as patrolman, 1942; Big Brother of the Year Award, 1964; Liberty Bell Award, San Francisco Bar Association, 1965; Vice President, International Association of Chiefs of Police, 1963- ; Chairman, Advisory Committee to the Governor on the Law Enforcement Section of the Disaster Office of the State of California; Chairman, Advisory Committee to the School of Criminology, City College, San Francisco; Member, National Advisory Committee, National Center on Police-Community Relations, Michigan State University. BREITEL OTIS CHANDLER New York, N.Y.; Associate Judge, Court of Appeals of the State of New York; Deputy Assistant District Attorney, New York County, staff of Thomas E. Dewey, special rackets investigations, 1935-37; Assistant District Attorney, New York County, 193841; Chief of Indictment Bureau, 1941; Counsel to Governor, State of New York, 1943-50; Justice, Supreme Court of New York, 1950-52; Associate Justice, Appellate Division (First Department), Supreme Court of New York, 1952-66; Advisory Committee, Model Penal Code, American Law Institute; Chairman, Special Committee on the Administration of Criminal Justice, Association of the Bar of the City of New York; Council, American Law Institute. San Marino, Calif.; Publisher, Los Angela Times; U.S. Air Force, 1st Lieutenant, 1951-53; Senior Vice President, the Times:Mirror Co.; Member, Board of Directors, Associated Press, Western Airlines, Union Bank. LEON JAWORSKI New Haven, Conn.; President, Yale University; U S . Navy, Lieutenant, 194246; Assistant Professor of Law, Harvard Law School, 1950-53; Professor of Law, Harvard Law School, 1953-60; Provost, Yale University, 1960-63; author, "Anti-Trust and American Business Abroad" ( 1959) ;"Law of International Transactions and Relations" (with M. Katz, 1960). Houston, Tex.; attorney, senior partner, Fulbright, Crooker, Freeman, Bates & Jaworski; U S . Army, Colonel, Chief, War Crimes Trial Section, European Theater, Legion d Merit, 1942-46; President, Houston Bar Association, 1949; President, Texas Civil Judicial Council, 1951-52; President, American College of Trial Lawyers, 1961-62; President, Texas Bar Association, 1962-63; Special Assistant U S . Attorney General, 1962-65; Special Counsel, Attorney General of Texas, 1963-65; Executive Committee, Southwestern Legal Foundation; trustee, Houston Legal Foundation; Fellow, American Bar Foundation; U S . Member, Permanent (International) Court of Arbitration; Member, National Science Commission; Chairman, Governor's Committee on Public School Education, State of Texas. GARRETT H. BYRNE T H O M A S C. LYNCH Boston, Mass.; attorney; District Attorney, Suffolk County, Mass.; Member, Massachusetts House of Representatives, 1924-28; President, National District Attorneys San Francisco, Calif.; Attorney General, State of 'California; Assistant U.S. Attorney, 193342; Chief Assistant U S . Attorney, 1943-51 ;District Attorney, San Francisco, KINGMAN BREWSTER, J R . Calif., 1951-64; Fellow, American College of Trial Lawyers; Advisory Committee on Prearraignment Code, American Law Institute. ROSS L. MALONE Roswell, N. Mex.; attorney, partner, Atwood & Malone; U.S. Navy, Lieutenant Commander, 194246; Deputy Attorney General of the United States, 1952-53; President, American Bar Association, 1958-59; President, American Bar Foundation; Trustee, Southwestern Legal Foundation; Council, American Law Institute; Board of Regents, American College of Trial Lawyers; Board of Trustees, Southern Methodist University. JAMES BENTON PARSONS Chicago, Ill.; Judge, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois; US. Navy, 1942-46; teacher, Lincoln University of Missouri, 1934-40, city schools of Greensboro, N.C., 1940-42, John Marshall Law School, 1949-52; Assistant Corporation Counsel, city of Chicago, 1949-51; Assistant U.S. Attorney, 1951-60; Judge, Superior Court of Cook County, Ill., 1960-61; Member, Committee on Administration of Probation System, Judicial Council of the United States; Chicago Commission on Police-Community Relations; Illinois Academy of Criminology. LEWIS FRANKLIN POWELL, JR. Richmond, Va.; attorney, partner, Hunton, Williams, Gay, Powell & Gibson; U.S. Army Air Force, Colonel awarded Legion of Merit, Bronze Star, Croix de Guerre With Palms, 194246; Member, Virginia State Board of Education, 1961- ; President, American Bar Association, 1964-65; Trustee, Washington and Lee University and Hollis College; Board of Regents, American College of Trial Lawyers; Vice President, American Bar Foundation; Trustee and General Counsel, Colonial Williamsburg, Inc. WILLIAM PIERCE ROGERS Bethesda, Md. ; attorney, partner, Royall, Koegel, Rogers a Wells (New York and Washington) ; Assistant U.S. Attorney, New York County, 193842, 1946-47; U.S. Navy, Lieutenant Commander, 1942-46; Chief Counsel, U.S. Senate War Investigating Committee, 1948; Chief Counsel, Senate Investigations Subcommittee of Executive Expenditures Committee, 1948-50; Deputy Attorney General, 1953-57, Attorney General of the United States, 1957-61; Member, U.S. Delegation, 20th General Assembly, United Nations, 1965; U.S. Representative, United Nations Ad Hoc Committee on Southwest Africa, 1967; Member, President's Commision on Crime in the District of Columbia, 1965-67; Fellow, American Bar Foundation. ROBERT GERALD STOREY Dallas, Tex.; attorney, partner, Storey, Armstrong & Steger; Phi Beta Kappa, Order of Coif; U.S. Army, 1st Lieutenant, 1918-19, Colonel, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, 194145; Assistant Attorney General, State of Texas, 1921-23; Executive Trial Counsel for the United States, trial of major Axis war criminals, Nuremberg, Legion of Honor (France), 194546; Dean, Southern Methodist University Law School, 1947-59; President, Texas Bar Association, 194849; President, American Bar , , Association, 1952-53; Member, Hoover Commission, g~ 1953-55; President, Inter-American Bar Association, 1954-56; American Bar Association Gold Medal, 1956; Vice Chairman, U.S. Civil Rights Commission, 1957-63 ; President, Southwestern Legal Foundation. G JULIA DAVIS STUART Spokane, Wash.; President, League of Women Voters of the United States; Governor's Tax Advisory Council, State of Washington, 1958; Chairman, Citizens Subcommittee on School Finance, State of Washington Legislature, 1960; National Municipal League Distinguished Citizen Award, 1964; Member, National Citizens Cornmission on International Cooperation, 1965. e ROBERT F . WAGNER New York, N.Y.; attorney; New York State Assembly, 193841; U.S. Army Air Force, Lieutenant Colonel, 1942-45; New York City Tax Commission, 1946; Commissioner of Housing and Buildings, New York City, 1947; New York City Planning Commission, 1948; President, Borough of Manhattan, N.Y., 1949-53; Mayor, New York City, 1954-66. HERBERT WECHSLER C New York, N.Y.; Harlan Fisk Stone Professor of Constitutional Law, Columbia Law School; Assistant Attorney General, State of New York, 193840; Special Assistant U.S. Attorney General, 194044, Assistant Attorney General of the United States, 1944-46; Member, U.S. Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Rules of Criminal Procedure, 1941-45; Oliver Wendell Holmes Lecturer, Harvard Law School, 1958-59; Director, American Law Institute; Reporter, Model Penal Code, American Law Institute; Member, New York State Temporary Commission on Revision of the Penal Law and Criminal Code; Member, Executive Committee, Association of the Bar, City of New York; author, "Criminal Law and Its Administration" (with J. Michael, 1940) ; "The Federal Courts and the Federal System" (with H. Hart, Jr., 1953) ; "Principles, Politics and Fundamental Law" (1961). WHITNEY MOORE YOUNG, JR. New Rochelle, N.Y. ; Executive Director, National Urban League; Dean, Atlanta University School of Social Work, C ,, '' ,x ii 1954-60; Member, President's Committee on Youth Employment, 1962; Member, President's Committee on Equal Opportunity in the Armed Forces, 1963; Member, President's Commission on Technology, Automation, and Economic Progress, ,1965-66; Member,' Special Presidential Task For& on Metropolitan and Urban Problems, 1965-66; Member, Advisory Committee on Housing and Urban Development, Department of Housing and Urban Development; Presidentj National Conference on Social Welfare; Member, Advisory Board, A. Philip Randolph Institute; Member, National Board, Citizens Cru- I sade Against Poverty; Trustee, Eleanor Roosevelt Memorial Foundation; author, "To Be Equal" ( 1964) . LUTHER W. YOUNGDAHL Washington, D.C.; Senior Judge, U.S. District Court, District of Columbia; U.S. Army,' artillery officer, World War I ; Judge, Municipal Court, Minneapolis, Minn., 1930-36; Judge, District Court, Hennepin County, Minn., 1936-42; Associate Justice, Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1942-46; Governor of Minnesota, 1947-51 ; Judge, U.S. District Court,. District of Columbia, 1951-66. . ' . 11. HOW THE COMMISSION DID ITS WORK The President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice was established on July 23, 1965, by President Lyndon B. Johnson, who instructed it to inquire into the causes of crime and delinywncy and report to him, early in 1967, with recommendations for preventing crime and delinquency and improving law enforcement and the administration of criminal justice. At the first Commission meeting, in September 1965, the Commission with the advice of its staff designated specific subjects in which intensive work was to be undertaken. The staff, on the basis of further consultation with the Commission members and experts in various fields, prepared preliminary work plans relating to these subjects. It also began the task-which extended through the full term of the Commission-of gathering and analyzing data and the views of consultants and advisers and preparing, for Commission review and analysis, drafts of material looking to the development of the final report. The work of the Commission was initially divided into four major areas: Police, courts, corrections, and assessment of the crime problem. Concentrating on each was a task force consisting of a panel of Commission members, a number of full-time staff members, and consultants and advisers. As the Commission's work proceeded, special task forces or working groups were formed to give special attention to organized crime, juvenile delinquency, narcotics and drug abuse, and drunkenness. Early in 1966, the task force on science and technology was organized as a collaborative undertaking by the Commission, the Office of Law Enforcement As&ance of the Department of Justice, and, with direct responsibility for the work, the Institute for Defense Analyses. The full-time staff began as only a fc\v a d grelv to number more than 40. I t included lawyers, police officials, correctional pcrsonncl, prosecutors, sociologists, psychologists, systems analysts, juvenile delinquency prevention planners, and professional writers and editors. Many were professors on leave from universities : criminal justice officials on leave from Federal, State, ancl local agencies; or experts on loan from various Federal departments, including Justice, HEW,. Treasury, Labor, Army, and Navy. T o direct the staff work, the president appointed, as Executive Director, James Vorenberg, on leave as Pro-. fessor at Harvard Law School, who had been serving, as the first Director of the Office of Criminal Justice in thc Department of Justice. The Deputy Director, Henry S. Ruth, Jr., had been a prosecutor in the Department of Justice's Organized Crime and Racketeering Section, ancl later a member of the Office of Criminal Justice. The four Associate Directors of the Commission and their areas of primary responsibility were: Police-Gene S. Muehleisen, on leave as the Executive Officer of the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training in the California Department of Justice; correctionsElmer K. Nelson, on lcavc as Professor of Public Administration at the University of Southern California; assessment of the nature and scope of c r i m c L l o y d E. Ohlin, on leave as Professor of Sociology at Columbia University and Director of Research of Columbia's School of Social Work; courts-Arthur I. Rosctt, a former Federal prosecutor who was an attorney in private practice. I n addition, Alfred Blumstein of the Institute for Defense Analyses was director of the science and technology task force. The Comn~ission'sresearch and inquiries took many forms, a few of which arc suggested below. Surveys were conducted in connection with work on police-community relations, professional criminals, unreported crime, and correctional pcrsonncl and facilities. The corrections survey, sponsored jointly by the Comnlission and the Office of Law Enforcement Assistance, is only one example of the numcrous projects in which the 01fice of Law Enforcement Assistance and the Conlmission collaborated. This survey and the survey of unreported crime were the first nationwide studies ever made of those areas. Over 2,200 police departments were asked by cluestionnaire what field procedures thcy had found especially effective against crime. Field observers acquainted themselves with police patrol practices and procedures in loucr criminal courts. Commission staff and representatives visited correctional institutions, met with groups of residents in slum areas, and interviewed professional criminals and prison inmates. The Commission also had the benefit of data and suggestions from Federal agencies including the Federal Bureau of Investigation; the Bureau of Prisons; the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice; various divisions of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; the Department of the Treasury; the Department of Labor; and the Bureau of the Budget, to name a few. Members of'the Office of Criminal Justice and staff and citizen advisers of the President's committee on Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Crime assisted in a number of areas. Similar assistance was received from numerous State and local agencies and from officials in some foreign countries. The Commission sponsored many conferences, large and small, concerning mentally disordered offenders, riots and their control, correctional standards, plea bargaining, and the Federal role in crime control, to mention only a few. Commission members or staff met with rural southern law enforcement officials, government officials, practitioners, scholars, and others. One conference brought scientists and businessmen together to consider ways of working together against crime. Another inquired into the legal manpower problems of the criminal system. A third was attended by representatives of the State committees appointed by many Governors in response to the President's request that groups be formed in each State to plan and implement reform of criminal systems and laws. I n this connection, the Commission staff also worked with State and local criminal justice personnel to obtain information on the operation of the law enforcement and criminal justice systems in their States and the likely effect of Commission proposals on those systems, and to assist State officials in planning research and programs in their States. Advice was sought at every step from experts in law enforcement, criminal justice, and crime prevention. Many of them, acting as consultants to the Commission, prepared useful background papers. A few of these papers served as the basis for chapters of the separate task force reports and many are published as appendices to the task force reports. A few leading scholars from corrections, police work, and law came to Washington and worked with the staff on a full-time 'basis during the summer of 1966. The principal role of most of the consultants, however, like that of the many other persons of knowledge and experience who served the Commission as advisers, was as a sounding board for new ideas, proposed recommendations, and materials being developed for Commission consideration. In addition, the Commission invited the views of professional organizations in many areas related to crime. The full Commission met seven times, for 2 or 3 full days each time. The meetings often led to new proposals or new lines the staff was instructed to explore. Discussion at the meetings centered on drafts sent Commission members in advance and focused chiefly on major issues and findings, although a number of specific stylistic and other drafting changes emerged as well. V A meeting of the Commission In addition to the meetings of the Commission as a whole, members participated on a continuing basis in preparing materials and developing the final report, both informally-by letter, telephone, and visits with staffand as formally constituted panels (sometimes with the inclusion of outside experts). In the early months, these panels played an important role in proposing directions the Commission's work would take. And before consideration by the full Commission, staff papers were reviewed by the several Commission members assigned by the Chairman to the given area and then usually reworked by the staff in light of the comments received. While the members of the Commission have considered carefully the entire report, this does not necessarily mean that there is complete agreement with every detail of each recommendation or statement. Except where otherwise noted, however, there is agreement with the substance of every important conclusion and recommendation. The nature of the general agreement and the extent of incidental disagreement are those to be expected when members of a Commission individually have given serious thought to a major and complex problem, and have sought to achieve a joint resolution in furtherance of the Commission's task as a deliberative body. As will be noted in the preface to each task force volume, those underlying volumes were prepared by the staff on the basis of its studies and those of consultants. The materials in the task force volumes were distributed to the entire Commission and discussed generally at Commission meetings, although more detailed discussion and intensive review were the responsibility of a panel of several Commission members attached to each task force. While, to the extent noted in the preface of the task force volumes, individual members of the panel may have reservations on some points covered in the task force volumes but not reflected in the Commission's general report, the task force volumes have the general endorsement of the panels. The final product of the Commission's work will consist of this report; the reports of the several task forces; and appendices containing consultants' papers, documentation, and other explanatory and supporting material. Appendix B Consultants and Advisers , . . -.. . I.. CONSULTANTS . GENERAL ADMINISTRATION O F JUSTICE ' Anthony G. ~ m s t e r d a iProfessor, , university of Pennsylvania Law. School, Philadelphia, Pa. Jan ,Deutsch, Associate Professor, Yale University Law School, New Haven, Conn. ' Norman Abrams, Professor of Law, University of California, Los -Angeles, Calif., Special Assistant, Criminal Division, Department of . Justice ' Arnold Enker, Professor, University of Minnesota Law School, ~ i n h e i ~ o l iMinn. s, Daniel .Freed, Acting Director, Office of Criminal Justice, Department of Justice : Howard ~ e f f r o h ,Professor, University of Washington Law School,. Seattle, Wash. Sanford H. Kadish, Professor; University of California Law School, .Berkeley, Calif. Michael March, Assistant to Chief, Education, Manpower and Science Division, ..Bureau of the Budget . . . . . . . Sheldon Elsen, attorney, New Ycrk, N.Y. Gilbert Geis, Professor, California State College at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, Calif. Lloyd L. Weinreb, Assistant Professor of Law, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. .. . ASSESSMENT . OF CRIME Albert D. Biderman, Senior Research Associate, Bureau of Social Science Research, Inc., Washington, D.C. . :?l" Egon Bittner, Associate professor . of Sociology and ~ e s i d e n tLangley , Porter Neuro-Psychiatric Institute, University of California Medital Center, San Francisco,.. Calif. , Abraham S. Goldstein, Professor of . Law, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. Zona F. Hostetler, Consultant, Office of Ecoriomic Opportunity. Louis L: ~ a f f e ,Professor of Law, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. : . Arthur B. Kramer, attorney, New York, N.Y. ' Sol . ~ h a n e l i s ,~ i r c c t o rof Child Sex Victimization, American Humane Association, New York, N.Y. Karl 0. Christiansen, Professor, Det Kriminalistiriske Institute, Copenhagen, Denmark 1 / Jerome Daunt, Chief, Uniform Crime Reporting Section, FBI, Department of Justice Samuel Dunaif, M.D., Supervising Psychiatrist, Jewish Family Service, New York, N.Y. Frank Remington, Professor, University of ~ h c o n s i nLaw School, Madison, Wis. John. S. Martin, Jr., attorney, Nyack, N.Y. Arnold Sagalyn, Director of Law ,Enforcement, Coordination, Department of the Treasury Monroe E. Price, Associate Professor of ~ a w University , of Californii, Los Angeles, calif. Donald A. Schon, President, Organization for Social and Technical Innovation, Cambridge, Mass. Lee Silverstein, Research Attorney, American Bar Foundation, Chicago, Ill. Phillip Ennis, Senior Study Director, National Opinion Research Center, University of Chicago, Chicago, Ill. Harry Subin, Associate Director, Vera Institute of Justice, New YO~~,"N.Y. Patricia M. Wald, Commissioner, President's Commissibn on Crime in the District of Columbia Robert Fogelson, Associate Director, Department of History, Columbi'a~niversit~, New York, N.Y. Otis Dudley Duncan, Professor, Department of Sociology, Univcrsity of. Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. Howard - Freeman, . Professor, School of Social Work, Brandeis University, Waltham, Mass. Philip C. Sagi, Professor of Sociology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa. Jack Gibbs, Professor, Department of Sociology, Washington State University, Pullman, Wash. Leonard D. Savitz, Associate Professor, Department of' Sociology, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pa.. Gilbert Geis, Professor, California State College at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, Calif. Donald Goldstein, Research Assistant, Bureau of Social Science Research, Inc., Washington, D.C. Leroy C. Gould, Assistant Professor, Department of Sociology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. Reginald Lourie, M.D., Director of Psychiatry, Children's Hospital, Washington, D.C. Jennie McIntyre, Assistant Professor, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, University of Maryland, College Park, Md. Sheldon Messinger, Vice Chairman, Center for the Study of Law and Society, University of California, Berkeley, Calif. Samuel Meyers, Research Associate, Bureau of Social Science Research, Inc., Washington, D.C. Kriss Novak, Assistant Professor, Department of Sociology, Wisconsin State University, Whitewater, Wis. Fred Powledge, Brooklyn, N.Y. Albert J. Reiss, Jr., Professor, Department of Sociology,.University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. Peter Rossi, Director, National Opinion Research Center, University of Chicago, Chicago, Ill. Stephen Schafer, Professor, Department of Sociology-Anthropology, Northeastern University, Boston, Mass. Karl Schuessler, Professor, Department of Sociology, Indiana University, Bloomington, Ind. Milton Shore, National Institute of Mental Health, Public Health Service, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare James F. Short, Dean, Graduate School, Washington State University, Pullman, Wash. CORRECTIONS William T. Adams, Assistant Director, Joint Commission on Correctional Manpower and Training, Washington, D.C. Myrl E. Alexander, Director, U.S. Bureau of Prisons, Department of Justice Gordon Barker, Professor, Department of Sociology, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colo. Sanford Bates, Pennington, N.J. Bertram Beck, Executive Director,, Mobilization for Youth, New York, N.Y. Alan B r e e d, Superintendent, Northern California Youth Center, Stockton, Calif. Jerome H. Skolnick, Center for Study of Law and Society, University of California, Berkeley, Calif. Bertram S. Brown, M.D., Deputy Director, National Institute of Mental Health, Public Health Service, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Irving Spergel, Professor, School of Social Service Administration, University of Chicago, Chicago, Ill. Milton Burdman, Director, Division of Parole and Community Service, Department of Corrections, Sacramento, Calif. Don D. Stewart, Washington, D.C. Richard Clendenen, Professor, Criminal Law Administration, University of Minnesota Law School, Minneapolis, Minn. Denis Szabo, Director, Institute of Criminology, University of Montreal, Canada Adrianne W. Weir, Research Analyst, Bureau of Social Science Research, Inc., Washington, D.C. Marvin Wolfgang, Director, Center of Criminological Research, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa. James Woolsey, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. Fred Cohen, Professor of Law, University of Texas Law School, Austin, Tex. John P. Conrad, Chief, Division of Research, Department of Corrections, Sacramento, Calif. Thomas F. Courtless, Director of Criminological Studies, George Washington University Institute of Law, Psychiatry, and Criminology, Washington, D.C. Roger Craig, attorney, Washington, D.C. LaMar Empey, Director, Youth Studies Center, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, Calif. T. Conway Esselstyn, Professor of Sociology, San Jose State College, San Jose, Calif. Joseph P. Fitzpatrick, S.J., Associate Professor and Chairman, Department of Sociology, Fordham University, New York, N.Y. Robert H. Fosen, Research Director, Joint Commission on Correctional Manpower and Training, Washington, D.C. Ben Frank, Task Force Directw, Joint Commission on Correctional Manpower and Training, Washington, D.C. Marcia Freedman, Research Associate, Office of Conservation of Human Resources, Columbia University, New York, N.Y. Thomas E. Gaddis, Consultant, Research and Development, Division of Continuing Education, Oregon System of Higher Education, Portland Continuation Center, Portland, Oreg. David H. Gronewold, Professor, School of Social Work, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash. Matthew Matlin, Editor, National Council on Crime and Delinquency, New York, N.Y . Edward J. Hendrick, Superintendent of Prisons, Department of Public Welfare, Philadelphia, Pa. John M. Martin, Professor, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Fordham University, New York, N.Y. Harland L. Hill, Director, Research and Development, Institute for the Study of Crime and Delinquency, Sacramento, Calif. Garrett Heyns, Executive Director, Joint Commission on Correctional Manpower and Training, Washington, D.C. Richard F. McGee, Administrator, Youth and Adult Corrections Agency, Sacramento, Calif. John T. Kilkeary, Center Director, Bureau of Prisons, Pre-release Guidance Center, Chicago, Ill. Charles King, Executive Director, Wiltwyck School for Boys, New York, N.Y; Barbara Knudson, Department' of Sociology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minn. Gilbert Geis, Professor, California State College at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, Calif. Daniel Glaser, Chairman, Department of Sociology, University of Illinois, Urbana, Ill. Robert B. Levinson, Chief, Psychology Services, Federal Bureau of Prisons, Department of Justice Keith S. Griffiths, Chief of Research, Department of Youth Authority, Youth and Adult Corrcctions Agency, Sacramento, Calif. Boyd C. McDivitt, Deputy Director, Office of Probation, New York, N.Y. Barbara Kay, Task Force Director, Joint Commission on Correctional Manpower and Training, Washington, D.C. Howard ~ k a c h ,Consultant, New Mexico Council on Crime and Delinquency, A l b u q u e r q u e , N. Mex. Douglas Grant, Program Director, New Careers Development Project, Sacramento, Calif. Malcolm Matheson, Visiting Assistant Professor, School of Public Administration, University of Southern California; Deputy Director of Corrections, Province of British Columbia, Canada - Roma K. McNickle, Editor, Joint Commission on Correctional Manpower and Training, Washington, D.C. William G. Nagel, Executive Secretary, Governor's Council for Human Services, State of Pennsylvania, Harrisburg, Pa. Shenvood Norman, Director of Detention Services, National Council on Crime and Delinquency, New York, N.Y. Lawrence Pierce, Chairman, New York State Narcotic Addiction ~ b n t r oCommission, l Albany, N.Y. Milton Luger, Director, New York State Division of Youth, Albany, N.Y. Barbara Pittard, Assistant Professor, Department of Sociology, Georgia State College, Atlanta, Ga. Austin MacCormick, Executive ~irector,The Osborne Association, Inc., New York, N.Y. Kenneth Polk, Director, Research and Evaluation, Lane County Youth Project, Eugene, Oreg. Walter Reckless, Professor of Sociology, Department of Sociology ,and Anthropology, Ohio State ,University,Columbus, Ohio Milton G. ' ~ e c t o r Director, , National Council on Crime and Delinquency, New York, N.Y. Ernest Reimer, chief, Correctional !Program Services Division, California Department of Corrections, Sacramento, Calif. Fred Ward, Southern Regional Director, National Council on Crime and Delinquency, Austin, Tex. Paul Grams, Research Assistant, Merrill-Palmer Institute, Detroit, Mich. Marguerite Q. Warren, Principal Investigator, Community Treatment Project, California State Youth Authority, Sacramento, Calif. Robert F. Johnson, Executive Director, Wieboldt Foundation, Chicago, Ill. Robert Weber, Institutional Consultant, National Council on Crime and Delinquency, New York, N.Y. Henry Reining, Jr., Dean, School !of Public Administration, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, Calif. Leslie T. Wilkins, Professor, School of Criminology, University of California, Berkeley, Calif. Mark S. Richmond, Deputy Assistant Director, Community Services, Federal Bureau of Prisons, Department of Justice DKUNKENNESS David Pittman, Director, Social Science Institute, Washington University, St. Louis, Mo. Ted ~ u b i nJudge, , Juvenile Court, Denver, Colo. Peter Hutt, attorney, Washington, D.C. Charles. Shireman, School of Social Work, University of Chicago, Chicago, Ill. Gerald M. $hattuck, Professor, ,Department of Sociology and An.thropology, Fordham University, New York, N.Y. Clarence Schrag, Professor of Sociology, University of Southern California, Los 'Angeles, Calif. Saleem A. Shah, National Institute of Mental Health, Public Health Service, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Louis Tomaino, Director, Southwest Center on Law and the Behavioral Sciences, University of Texas, Austin, Tex. Robert Trimble, Executive Assistant to the Director, National Council on Crime and Delinquency, New York, N.Y. JUVENILE DELINQUENCY . . Ivar Berg, Associate Professor, Department of Business Administration, Columbia University, New York, N.Y. Virginia M. Burns, Chief, Training Administration, Office of Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Development, Welfare Administration, Department of Health, Education, and Welfarc Aaron Cicourel, Professor, Center for Study of Law and Society, University of California, Berkeley, Calif. Sanford J. Fox, Professor, Boston College Law School, Brighton, Mass. Don M. Gottfredson, National Council on Crime and Delinquency, Davis, Calif. Edwin M. Lemert, Professor, Department of Sociology, University of California, Davis, Calif. Henry D. McKay, Division Chief, Division of community Studies, Institute for Juvenile Research, Department of Mental Health, Chicago, Ill. Kenneth Polk, Associate Professor, Department of Sociology, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oreg. Hyman Rodman, Senior Research Associate, Merrill-Palmer Institute, Detroit, Mich. Margaret K. Rosenheim, Professor, School of Social Service Administration, University of Chicago, Chicago, Ill. Seymour Rubenfeld, National Institute of Mental Health, Public Health Service, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Walter E. Schafer, Assistant Professor, .Department of Sociology, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oreg. William H. Sheridan, Assistant Director, Division of Juvenile Delinquency Service, Children's Bureau, Welfare Administration, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Leonard W. Stern, Chief, Demonstration Programs, Office of Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Development, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Jackson Toby, Professor, Department of Sociology, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, N.J. John Gardiner, Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wis. George D. Eastman, Headquarters Representative, Public' Administration Service, Chicago, Ill. Robert D. Vinter, Associate Dean, School of Social Work, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. Rufus King, attorney, Washington, D.C. John Fabbri, Chief of Police, South San Francisco, Calif. Ralph Salerno, Central Intelligence Bureau, New York City Police Department, New York, N.Y. Edward A. Farris, Professor of Police Science, New Mexico State University, University Park, N. Mex. .. Gus Tyler, Director, Department of Politics, Education, and Training, International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, New York, N.Y. James L. Fyke, Field Representative, Public Administration Service, Chicago, 111. Carl Werthman, Research Assistant, Center for Study of Law and Society, University of California, Berkeley, Calif. Marvin E. Wolfgang, Director, Center of Criminological Research, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa. POLICE NARCOTICS Dennis S. Aronowitz, Assistant Professor of Law, Washington University, St. Louis, Mo. Richard H. Blum, Professor, Project Director, Psychopharmocology Project, Institute for the Study of Human Problems, Stanford Uni; versity, Stanford, Calif. Jonathan 0.Cole, M.D., Chief, Psychopharmocology Research Branch, National Institute of Mental Health, Public Health Service, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Arthur D. Little, Inc., Cambridge, Mass. Richard H. Blum, Professor, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif. Raymond Galvin, Assistant Professor, School of Police Administration and Public Safety, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Mich. Allen P. Bristow, Associate Professor, Department of Police Science and Administration, California State College at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, Calif. A. C. Germann, Professor, Department of Criminology, California State College at Long Beach, Long Beach, Calif. William P. Brown, Professor, State University of New York, Albany, Herman Goldstein, Professor, University of Wisconsin Law School, Madison, Wis. N.Y. James E. Carnahan, Associate Professor, Department of Police Science and Administration, California State College at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, Calif. Michael P. Rosenthal, Assistant Professor of Law, Rutgers University, Camden, N.J. Edward V. Comber, Project Director, Criminal Justice Information Systems Design Study, California Department of Justice, Sacramento, Calif. ORGANIZED CRIME J. Shane creamer, First Assistant ,US. Attorney, Philadelphia, Pa. G. Robert Blakey, Associate Professor, Notre Dame Law School, Notre Dame, Ind. William F. :Danielson, Director of Personnel, City of Berkeley, Calif. Donald R. Cressey, Dean, College of Letters and Science, University of California, Santa Barbara, Calif. Harry Diamond, Associate Professor, Department of Police Science and Administration, California State College at LO; Angeles, Los Angeles, Calif. G. Douglas Gourley, Professor and Chairman, Department of Police Science and Administration, California State College at Los Angeles,.Los Angeles, Calif. John Guidici, Captain, Oakland Police Department, Oakland, Calif. ~ i c h a r d 0. Hankey, Professor, Department of Police Science and ,Administration, California State College at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, Calif. William H. Hewitt, Assistant Professor and Chairman, Department of Police Science, State University of New York, Farmingdale, N.Y. Roy E. Hollady, Chief of Police, Fort Collins, Colo. , Norman C. Kassoff, Supervisor, Police Training Unit, International Association of Chiefs of Police, Washington, D.C. Margaret G. Oslund, Department of Political and Social Science, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, Ill. Joseph Kimble, Chief of Police, San Carlos, Calif. Wesley A. Pomeroy, Undersheriff, San Mateo County Sheriff's Police Department, San Mateo, Calif. Richard Laskin, Associate Professor, Department of Political and Social science, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, Ill. Norman E. Pomrenke, Assistant Director, Institute of Government, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, N.C. G. Stephen Lloyd, Field Representative, Public Administration Service, Chicago, Ill. Louis Radelet, Professor, School of Police Administration and Public Safety, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Mich. Joseph D. Lohman, Dean, School of Criminology, University.of California, Berkeley, Calif. Lawrence S. Margolis, Special Assistant US. Attorney for the the District of Columbia, Department of Justice Gordon E. Misner, Visiting Associate Professor, School of Criminology, University of California, Berkeley, Calif. Richard A. Myren, Dean, School of Criminal Justice, State University of New York, Albany, N.Y. David L. Norrgard, Field Representative, Public Administration Service, Chicago, Ill. George W. O'Connor, Director, Professional Standards Division, International Association of Chiefs of Police, Washington, D.C. Bruce T. Olson, Police Administration Specialist, Institute for Community Development and Services, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Mich. J. Kinney O'Rourke, Executive Director, Massachusetts League of Cities and Towns, Boston, Mass. Leonard E. Reisman, President, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, The City University of New York, New York, N.Y. Gerald Robin, Office of National Analysts, Philadelphia, Pa. Jewel1 L. Ross, Captain (retired), Berkeley P o 1i c e Department, Berkeley, Calif. James D. Stinchcomb, Supervisor, Police Education Unit, International Association of Chiefs of Police, Washington, D.C. Patricia M. Wald, Commissioner, President's Commission on Crime in the District of Columbia John B. Williams, Associate Professor, Department of Police Science and Administration, California State College at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, Calif. SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY Mary Ellen Angell, Institute for Defense Analyses, Arlington, Va. James E. Barr, Chief, Safety and Special Radio Services Bureau, Federal Communications Commission Thomas Bartee, Professor, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. Mandell Bellmore, Associate Professor, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md. Robert Brooking, communications Engineer, City of Burbank, Calif. Albert Bush-Brown, President, Rhode Island School of Design, Providence, R.I. Ronald Christensen, University of California, Berkeley, Calif. Joseph Coates, Institute for Defense Analyses, Arlington, Va. Robert Cohen, Institute for Defense Analyses, Arlington, Va. Jerome Daunt, Chief, Uniform Crime Reporting Section, FBI, Department of Justice P. A. DonVito, Washington, D.C. Ronald Finkler, Institute for Defense Analyses, Arlington, Va. Saul I. Gass, International Business Machines, Inc., Rockville, Md. Leonard Goodman, Bureau of Social Science Research, Washington, D.C. Norbert Halloran, International Business Machines, Inc., Yorktown Heights, N.Y. Janice Heineken, Insitute for Defense Analyses, Arlington, Va. William Herrmann, Police Consultant, Rand Corp., University bf Southern California, Los Angeles, Calif. Thomas Humphrey, International .Business ~achine;, Inc., Houston, Tex. Herbert Isaacs, Los Angeles, Calif. Lois Martin, Institute for Defense Analyses, Arlington, Va. Marsha Smith, Institute for Defense Analyses, Arlington, Va. Peter Szanton, Bureau of the Budget Vincent Keenan, Paoli, Pa. Robert Muzzy, Research Associate, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio Peter Kelly, Kelly Scientific Corp., Washington, D.C. Franz Nauta, CEIR, Inc., Bethesda, Md. . Jerry Kidd, National Science Foundation Joseph. Navarro, Institute of Defense Analyses, ~ r l i n ~ t o Va. n, Sue Johnson, Glen Head, N.Y. Robert Jones, CEIR, Inc., Bethesda, Md. . . Ray Knickel, Kelly Scientific Corp., Washington, D.C. William' . 'Offutt, Internatiorial ~usi*essMachines; Inc., Rockville, Md . Richard Larson, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass. Lloyd Perper, Tucson, Ariz. Peter Lejins, Professor, University of Maryland, College Park, Md. S.. Rothman, TRW Systems, Redondo Beach, Calif. Charles McBride, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass. Thomas Schelling, Professor, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. Jean Taylor, Institute for Defense . Analyses, Arlington, Va. Claude Walston, International Business Machines, Inc., Gaithersburg, Md. .. Herbert Weiss, Litton Systems, Inc., Van Nuys, Calif. Leslie T: Wilkins, Priifessor, University of California, Berkeley, Calif. ' . b . Marvin Wolfgang, Director, Center of Criminological Research, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa. 11. ADVISERS ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE Francis A. Allen, Dean, University of Michigan Law School, Ann Arbor, Mich. Richard Arens, Professor of Law, McGill University, Montreal, Canada Sylvia A. Bacon, Assistant Director, President's Commission on Crime in the District of Columbia Gary Bellow, Deputy Director, California Rural Legal Assistance, Los Angeles, Calif. Charles L. Decker, Major General, US. Army (retired),Director, National Defender Project of the National Legal Aid and Defender Association, Washington, D.C. ' Richard A. Green, Project Director, A.B.A. Special Project for Minimum Standards for the Administration of Criminal Justice, New York, N.Y. Lois R. Goodman, Washington, D.C. Geoffrey Hazard, Jr., Administrator, American Bar Foundation, Chicago, Ill. Richard A. Lavin, attorney, Newark, N.J. Peter Lowe, Professor of Law, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Va. Frank Miller, Professor of Law, Washington University, St. Louis, Mo. Tim. Murphy, Judge, Court of General Sessions, . Washington, D.C. Herbert Packer, Professor of Law, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif. A. Kenneth Pye, Associate Dean, Georgetown.University Law Center, Washington, D.C. Harold ~othwax,~irector,'Legal Services, Mobilization for Youth, New York, N.Y. Barbara Roffwaig, New York, N.Y. Murray L. Schwartz, Professor of Law, University of California, Los Angeles, Calif. Ted small, staff attorney, Office of Criminal Justice, Department of Justice James Thompson, Professor of Law, Northwestern University, Chicago, Ill. Jack Weinstein, Professor of Law, Columbia University, New York, N.Y. ' ASSESSMENT OF CRIME Dana Barbour, Office of Statistical Standards, Bureau of the Budget Belton Fleischer, Professor, Department of Economics, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio Donald E. Clark, Sheriff, Multnomah County, Portland, Oreg. Arthur Cohen, National Institute of Mental Health, Public Health Service, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Peter Lejins, Professor, Department of Sociology, University of Maryland, College Park, Md. Arthur R. Mathews, Jr., Director, Project on Mental Illness and Criminal Law, American Bar Foundation, Chicago, Ill. Donald P. Kenefick, Director, National Association of Mental Health, New York, N.Y. John Coons, Professor of Law, Northwestern University, Chicago, Ill. Gerald Levinson, Bureau of Prisons, Department of Justice Joseph B. Dellinger, Correctional Service Federation, Baltin~ore, Md. C. F. McNeil, Director, Social Welfare Assembly, New York, N.Y. Fred Fant, New York State Division of Probation, New York, N.Y. Herman G. Moeller, Assistant Director, Bureau of Prisons, Department of Justice. , James McCafferty, Research and Evaluation Branch, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts Thorsten Sellin, Professor of Sociology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia,' Pa. Philip Selznick, Director, Center for the Study of Law and Society, Berkeley, Calif. Henry Sheldon, Bureau of the Census Stanton Wheeler, Sociologist, Russell Sage Foundation, New York, N.Y. CORRECTIONS Stuart Adams, Project Director, Prison College Project, University of California, Berkeley, Calif. Dean Babst, Research Associate, Joint Commission on Correctional Manpower and Training, Washington, D.C. James V. Bennett, Consultant, Bureau of Prisons, Washington, D.C. ' Paul H. Gebhard, Institute for Sex Research, Indiana University, Bloomington, Ind. Paul Gernert, Chairman, Pennsylvania Board of Parole, Harrisburg, Pa. Howard Gill, Director, Institute of Correctional ,Administration, American University, Washington, D.C. Abraham Goldstein, Professor of Law, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. Don M. Gottfredson, Director of Research, National Parole Institute, Davis, Calif. John Grace, Commissioner, Salvation Army, New York, N.Y. Alfred Hantman, Chief, Criminal Section, U.S. Attorney's Office, Washington, D.C. A. Louis McGarry, M.D., Law and Medicine Center, University School of Medicine, Boston, Mass. James Murphy, Assistant Director, Office of Law Enforcement Assistance, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. Abraham G. Novick, Executive Director, Berkshire Farm for Boys, Canaan, N.Y. Joshua Okun, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, D.C. Emery Olsen, Emeritus Dean, School of Public Administration, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, Calif. Russell Oswald, Chairman, New York State Parole Board, Albany, N.Y. Asher R. Pacht, Chief, Clinical Services, Division of Corrections, Department of Public Welfare, Madison, Wis. George Beto, Director, Texas Department of Corrections, Huntsville, Tex. Solomon Kobrin, Institute of Juvenile Research, Chicago, Ill. Mauris Platkin, M.D., Chief of Service, John Howard Pavilion, St. Elizabeth's Hospital, Washington, D.C. Harold Boslow, M.D., Superintendent, Patuxent Institute, Jessups, Md. ~ e l l eLead, Lieutenant Colonel, Volunteers of America, New York, N.Y. Samuel Polsky, Professor of Law and Legal Medicine, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pa. ., Sanger powers, Director, Divi; .. sion of Corrections, Wisconsin . Department of Public, Welfare, Madison, Wis. Ross Randolph, ~irector,Department of Public Safety, Springfield, . TI1 ,Donald H. Russell, M.D., ~iredtor, CourtClinics Program, Division of Legal Medicine, Brookline, Mass. 'Saleem A. Shah, Center for Studies -of Crime and Delinquency, National ~nstitute of Mental Health, Public Health Service, Department, of' Health, Education,, and Welfare ' E. Preston Sharp, Executive Secretary, American correctional Association, Washington, D.C. Charles Smith, M.D., Chief Medical Officer, Federal Bureau of Prisons, Department of Justice ' Heman Stark, Director, California State Youth Authority, Sacramento, Calif. John A. Wallace, Director, New York City Office. of Probation, New York, N.Y. Russell L. Wilson, Board of Control, Des Moines, Ia. Frederick Wiseman, Department of Sociology, Brandeis University, Waltham, Mass. , , Leonard Blumberg, Philadelphia Diagnostic and Relocation Center, Philadelphia, Pa. . . . Ralph F. Turfier, Professor, School of Police Administration and Public Safety, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Mich. sidney Cahn, Institute for the Study of Human Problems, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif. JUVENILE DELINQUENCY Michael Laski, Project Codirector, St. Louis Detoxification Center, St. Louis Police Department, St. Louis, Mo. Ames Robey, M.D., . Medical Director, ~assachusettsCorrectional Institute, Bridgewater, Mass. Russell 0.Settle., M,D., Director of Law and Psychiatry, Mennin.ger. Foundation, Topeka,.Kans. *. Lisle C. Carter, Jr.,. Assistant Sec- . ' retary for Individual and Family Services, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Rosemary Masters, Attorney, Vera Institute of Justice, New York, N.Y. . F;brrest E. coiner, Executive Secretary, .American .Association of School Administrators, Washington, D.C.' .. Frank .Mateker, Captain, Director, Planning and Research,Division, St. Louis Police Department, St. Louis, Mo. Richard Merrill, ~ t t o r n k Wash~, @tonj D.C. ' ~ o h 61. n Murtagh, ,Justice, New York Supreme Court, New York, N.Y. - J. Dudley Diggs, ~ b d ~ LaPlata, e, Md. . . Orman, W. ~ e t c h a k ,Judge, ' Juvenile Court of the District of Columbia James .H. Lincoln, Judge, Juvenile Division, Detroit, Mich. . Thomas Plaut, ~ssistant Chief, National Center for Prevention and Control of- Alcoholism, National Institute of Mental Health, Public Health Service, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare ' Earl Rubington, School of .Alcohol Studies; Rutgers University, New Brunswick, N. J. Irving Shandler, Director, Philadelphia Diagnostic ,and Relocation Center, Philadelphia, Pa. Thomas Shipley, Philadelphia Diagnostic and Relocation Center, Philadelphia, Pa. DRUNKENNESS Walter Stanger, Philadelphia ~ i a ~ n o s tand i c Relocation Center, Philadelphia, Pa. H. David Archibald, Executive Director, Addiction Research Fo~indation,.Toronto, Canada Herbert J. Sturz, Director, Vera Institute of Justice, New York, N.Y. I.' ~ i c h a r dPerlman, Chief, Juve-, .. nile Delinquency Studies Branch, . ~ i v i s i o iof , ~eseirch,Children's Bureau,', Welfare Administration, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare . . . George B: Raison, Jr., Judge, Chestertown, Md. , . Aubrey E. Robinson, Jr., Judge, Juvenile Court, .Washington, D.C. Bernard Russell, former Director, Office of Juvenile Delinquency . and Youth Development, Departmen of Health, Education, and Welfare. Rosemary C. Sarri, Professor, School.of Social Work, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. James W. Symington, former Executive Director, President's Committee on Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Crime ' Philip B. Thurston, Judge, Family Court of New York, New York, N.Y. Walter G. Whitlatch, Judge, Juvenile Court, Cleveland, Ohio NARCOTICS David Acheson, Special Assistant to the Secretary (for Enforcement), Department of the Treasury Carl L. Anderson, Chief Program Consultant, Center for Studies of Narcotic and Drug Abuse, National Institute of Mental Health, Public Health Service, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Dale C. Cameron, M.D., Superintendent, St. Elizabeth's Hospital, Washington, D.C. David Deitch, Executive Director, Daytop Village, Inc., New York, N.Y. inc cent P. Dole, M.D., Senior Physician and Professor, Rockefeller University, New York, N.Y. John Enright, Assistant to the Commissioner, Bureau of Narcotics, Department of the Treasury John Finlator, Director, Bureau of Drug Abuse Control, Food and Drug Administration, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare James H. Fox, Acting Chief, Center for Studies of Narcotic and Drug Abuse, National Institute of Mental Health, Public Health Service, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare George Gaffney, Deputy Commissioner, Bureau of Narcotics, Department of the Treasury F. M. Garfield, Special Assistant to the Commissioner for Drug Abuse Control, Food and Drug Administration, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Francis Gearing, M.D., Research Unit, School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, N.Y. Henry L. Giordano, Commissioner, Bureau of Narcotics, Department of the Treasury Kenneth R. Lennington, assistant to the Director for Regulatory Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Dean Markham: Special Assistant to the President, Great Lakes Carbon Corp., Washington, D.C. Aloysius J. Melia, Deputy Commissioner, .Trials, New York City Police Department, New York, N.Y. Donald S. Miller, Chief Counsel, Bureau of Narcotics, Department of the Treasury Herbert S. Miller, Senior Research Attorney, Institute of Criminal Law and Procedure, Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, D.C. Henry E. Peterson, Chief, Organized Crime and Racketeering Section, Criminal Division, Department of Justice Robert Rasor, M.D., Medical Officer in Charge, U.S.. Public Health Service Hospital, Lexington, Ky. Richard J. Tatharn, Chief of the Alcoholic and Drug Addiction Program, Development Office, D.C. Department of Health, Washington, D.C. ORGANIZED CRIME Julia Benson, Amherst, Mass. Louis C. Cottell, Deputy Inspector, Central Intelligence Bureau, New York City Police Department, New York, N.Y. William Duffy, Captain, Intelligence Division; Chicago Police Department, Chicago, Ill. Robert Herman, University of California, Santa Barbara, Calif. George GafTney, Deputy Commissioner, Bureau of Narcotics, Department of the Treasury William G. Hundley, Attorney, Falls Church, Va. Aaron Kohn, Executive Director, Metropolitan Crime Commission, New Orleans, La. Eliot Lumbard, Special Assistant to the Governor of New York for Law Enforcement, Albany, N.Y. Henry E. Peterson, Chief, Organized Crime and Racketeering Section, Criminal Division, Department of Justice Virgil Peterson, Director, Chicago Crime Commission, Chicago, Ill. Alfred Scotti, Chief Assistant District Attorney, New York County, New York, N.Y. Harold E. Yarnell, Captain, Intelligence Division, Los Angeles Police Department, Los Angeles, Calif. POLICE Claude Abercrombie, Jr., Sheriff, Douglas County, Douglasville, Ga. Charles R. Adrian, Professor and Chairman, Department of Political Science, University of California, Riverside, Calif. Douglas W. Ayres, City Manager, Salem, Oreg. David A. Booth, Associate Professor,, Department of Political Science, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Ky. C. Beverly Brily, Mayor, Nash ville, Tenn. Thomas Brownfield, Special Agent Supervisor, $BI, Department of Justice Robert L. Carter, General Counsel, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, New York, N.Y. Edward L. Epting, Sergeant, San Francisco Police Department, San Francisco, Calif. Paul E. Estaver, Dissemination Officer, Office of Law Enforcement Assistance, Department of Justice Rev. Walter E. Fauntroy, Director, Washington Bureau Office, Southern Christian Leadership Conference, Washington, D.C. Thomas F. Fitzpatrick, Director, Bureau of Special Services and Intelligence, San Francisco Police Department, San Francisco, Calif, Joseph Casper, Assistant Director, FBI, Department of Justice Arthur Q. Funn, General,Counsel, National Urban League, Inc., New York, N.Y. George E. Causey, Deputy Chief, Metropolitan Police Department, Washington, D.C. Charles R. Gain, Deputy Chief, Oakland Police Department, Oakland, Calif. Ben Clark, Sheriff, Riverside County, Calif. Robert R. J. Gallati, Director, New York State Intelligence and Identification System, Albany, N.Y. Donald E. Clark, Sheriff, Multnomah County, Portland, Oreg. James Cotter, Inspector in Charge, FBI National Academy, FBI, Department of Justice John Creer, County Commissioner, Salt Lake City, Utah Thompson S. Crockett, Professor of Police Science, St. Petersburg Junior College, St. Petersburg, Fla. Jerome Daunt, Chief, Uniform Crime Reporting . Section, FBI, Department of Justice C. D. deLoach, Assistant to the Director, FBI, Department of Justice . Leonard J. Duhl, Special Assistant to the secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, D.C. W~odrowW. Dumas, Mayor, East saton Rouge, La. Bernard Garmire, Chief of Police, Tucson, Ariz. Peter F. Hagen, Inspector, Los Angeles Police Department, Los Angeles, Calif. William Harpole, Sheriff, Oktibbeha County, Starkville, Miss. Patrick Healy, Executive Director, National League of Cities, Washington, D.C. William Hollowell, Sheriff, Sunflower County, Indianola, Miss. John, E. Ingersoll, Chief of Police, Charlotte, N.C. Adolph C. Jacobsmeyer, Major, St. Louis Police Department, St. Louis, Mo. John J. Jemilo, Deputy Assistant Director, Office of Law Enforcement Assistance, Department of Justice Herbert T. Jenkins, Chief of Police, Atlanta, Ga. Mark E. Keane, City Manager, Tucson, Ariz. John T. Kelly, Deputy Chief of Police, Chicago, Ill. Hubert 0.Kemp, Chief of Police, Nashville-Davidson County, Tenn. Floyd Mann, former Superintendent, Alabama Highway Patrol; Chambers County Sheriff's Office, Langdale, Ala. Daniel H. Margolis, Attorney, Washington, D.C. Robert E. McCann, Director of Training, Chicago Police Department, Chicago, Ill. William P. McCarthy, Inspector, New York Police Department, New York, N.Y. William W. Hermann, Police Consultant, Rand Corp., University of Southern Californk, Los Angeles, Calif. Roy McLaren, Director, Field Operations Division, International Association of Chiefs of Policc, Washington, D.C. James C. Herron, Captain, Philadelphia Police Department, Philadelphia, Pa. Karl A. Menninger, M.D., Chief of Staff, The Menninger Foundation, Topeka, Kans. Roderic C. Hill, Lieutenant General, Adjutant General, California National Guard, Sacramento, Calif. Raymond M. Momboisse, Deputy Attorney General, California Department of Justice, Sacramento, Calif. , William Mooney, Special Agent Supervisor, FBI, Department of Justice Patrick V. Murphy, Assistant Director, Office of Law Enforcement Assistance, Department of Justice Joseph D. Nicol, Superintendent, Illinois Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation, Joliet, Ill. R. Dean Smith, Director, Research and Development Division, International Association of Chiefs of Police, Washington, D.C. Charles L. Southward, Brigadier General, Assistant Chief for Army National Guard, US. National Guard Bureau, Washington, D.C. SCIENCE AND OGY TECHNOL- A. B. Cambel, Director, Research and Engineering Support Division, Institute for Defense Analyses, Arlington, Va. Daniel Stringer, Sheriff, Cherokee County, Canton, Ga. M. U. Clauser, Lincoln Laboratories, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass. John F. Nichols, District Inspector, Detroit Police Department, . Detroit, Mich. Quinn Tamm, Executive Director, International Association of Chiefs of Police, Washington, D.C. James Fletcher, President, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah Harvard Norred, Chief of Police, Gwinnept County, Lawrenceville, Ga. Carl C. Turner, Major General, Provost Marshal General, Department of the Army, Washington, D.C. Eugene Fubini, Vice President, International Business Machines, Inc., Armonk, N.Y. William Veeder, City Manager, Charlotte, N.C. Jesse Orlansky, Research and Engineering Support Division, Institute for Defense Analyses, Arlington, Va. Peter J. Pitchess, Sheriff, Los Angeles County, Los Angeles, Calif. George H. Puddy, Executive Officer, California Police Officers' Standards and Training Commission, Sacramento, Calif; Thomas Reddin, Chief, Los Angeles Police Department, Los Angeles, Calif. . Rudy Sanfillippo, Task Force Di- rector, Joint Commission on Correctional Manpower and Training, Washington, D.C. Lloyd G. Sealy, Assistant Chief Inspector, New York Police Department, New York, N.Y. Carleton, F. Sharpe, City Manager, Kansas City, Mo. Daniel J. Sharpe, Inspector, Rochester Police Department, Rochester, N.Y. Robert Sheehan, Professor, Department of Law Enforcement Administration, Northeastern University, Boston, Mass. N'elson A. Watson, Project Director, Research and Development Division, International Association of Chiefs of Police, Washington, D.C. Leon H. Weaver, Professor, School of Police Administration and Public Safety, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Mich. James Q. Wilson, Associate Propessor of Government, Director, Joint Center.for Urban Studies of Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. Minor Keith Wilson, Assistant Chief of Police, Chicago Police Department, Chicago, Ill. Thomas Reddin, Chief, Los Angeles Police Department, Los Angeles, Calif. David Robinson, Office of Science and Technology, Executive Office of the President Robert Sproull, Vice President for Academic Affairs, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y. A. Tachmindji, Assistant Director, Research and Engineering Support Division, Institute for Defense Analyses, Arlington, Va. 0 . W. Wilson, Superintendent, Chicago Police Department, Chicago, Ill. James Q. Wilson, Associate Professor of Government, Director, Joint Center for Urban Studies of Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. Orrell A. York, Executive Director, Municipal Police Training Council, Albany, N.Y. Adam Yarmolinsky, Professor of Law, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. IMPLEMENTATION Dwight Ink, Assistant Secretary for Administration, Department of Housing and Urban Development Herbert Shepard, Organization for Social and Technical Innovation, Canibridge, Mass. R0ger.W. Jones, Special Assistant to the Director, Bureau of the Budget Elmer B. Staats, Comptrolled General of the United States, General Accounting Office Herbert Kaufman, Professor, Department of Political Science, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. David T. Stanley, Member Senior Staff, Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C. Evelyn Murphy, Organization for Social and Technical Innovation, Cambridge, Mass. Robert Steadman, Director, Committee for Improvement in Government, Committee for Economic Development Ferrel Heady, Director of Institute of Public Administration, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. William Pincus, Public Affairs Program, Ford Foundation, New York, N.Y. Frederick Wiseman, Organization for Social and Technical Innovation, Cambridge, Mass. T. Norman Hurd, Budget Director, State of New York, Albany, N.Y. Randall B. Ripley, Research Associates, Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C. Adam Yarmolinsky, Professor of Law, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. Seymour S. Berlin, Director, Bureau of Inspections, Civil Service Commission Don L. Bowen, Executive Director, American Society for Public Administration, Washington, D.C. Henry Cohen, First Deputy Human Resources Administiator, New York, N.Y. Morris W. H. Collins, Jr., Professor of Law, University of Georgia, Athens, Ga. Bernard L. Gladieux, Attorney, New York, N.Y. Appendix C Supporting Staff and Services Secretarial and Clerical James A. Adkins Doris J. Bacon Margaret Beale Mary G. Bergbom Margaret R. Bickford Nancy B. Bradley Rita Louise Brooke Conchita A. Brown Scennie M. Brown Suzanne L. Carpenter Barbara A. Casassa Sally M. Chopko Willie Copeland Catherine Cyrus Mary Frances Factory Doris T. Farmer AM .Felegy Mary Fox Carol A. Hambleton Rosalind M. Humphries Nancy Hunt Betty C. Irby Barbara J. Jones patxicia A: Lanham Joan E. Peterson Evelene Richards Lee E. Salerno Shelia M. Sheahan Nancy Strebe Margaret Triplett Supporting Services DESIGN Tasi, Gelberg, Symons Washington, D.C. + Associates, GRAPHIC REPRODUCTION AT Art Service, Rockville, Md. COPY EDITING Katherine M. Hanna Elinor Halprin James O'Bryan INDEX Edward T. Johnson & Associates, Washington, D.C. Picture Credits Cover ' Tasi Gelberg Associates Symons & Chapter 2 16. New York Daily News 28. Office of Economic Opportunity, by Morton R. Engelberg 35. Office of Economic Opportunity, by Joan Larson 37. Life Magazine, @ 1966 Time Inc., by G. L. Rentmeester 42. Martin Dehnel 45. Cowles Magazines, Inc. 46. Honolulu Police Dept. 49. Life Magazine, @ 1965 Time Inc., by I. C. Rapaport Chapter 3 54. 57. 6 1. 62. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 72. 73. 75. 76. 77. 79. 86. Black Star, by Joe Corello Life Magazine, @ 1965 Time Inc. George de Vincent Office of Economic Opportunity Office of Economic Opportunity, by Ralph Matthews George de Vincent United Press International United Press International Children's Bureau, by Esther Bubley Office of Economic Opportunity, by Ralph Matthews Office of Juvenile Delinquency Office of Economic 'Opportunity Office of Economic Opportunity Mobilization for Youth, by Vernon L. Smith, Scope Associates Children's Bureau, by Esther Bubley Children's Bureau, by Esther Bubley Chapter 4 90. New York City Police Department, Spring 3100 92. Ross Chapple 93. United Press International 95. International Association of Chiefs of Police 97. Sheriff's Information Bureau, Los Angeles, Calif. 101. San Diego Police Department 109. Oakland Police Department 112. Los Angeles Police Department 1 1 4. Metropolitan Police Department, Washington, D.C. 119. Life Magazine, @ 1966 Time Inc., by Rentmeester Chapter 5 124. Rowland Scherman 132. @ 1964 The Curtis Publishing Company, by I. C. Rapaport 137. John Bickel 138. Rowland Scherman . 144. Hartford Times, by Einar G. Chindmark 147. National College of State Trial Judges 148. United Press International 150. Life Magazine, @ 1966 Time Inc., by C. Bonnay 151. Life Magazine, @ 1966 Time Inc., by D. Dannou 153. Columbia University School of Law Chapter 6 158. 162. 163. 164. 166. 172. 172. 173. 174. 175. 176. 177. 178. 184. W. R. Burdette W. R. Burdette W. R. Burdette Children's Bureau, Bonn Children's Bureau, Bubley Youth Authority, Calif. Bureau of Prisons Bureau of Prisons, Anderson Children's Bureau, Bubley Bureau of Prisons Bureau of Prisons Bureau of Prisons Bureau of Prisons W. R. Burdette by Philip by Esther Sacramento, by Ransierby Esther Chapter 7 186. 188. 195. 207. Newark News Associated Press Federal Bureau of Narcotics United Press International 216. 217. 221. 226. Black Star, by H. Kreider Federal Bureau of Narcotics Life Magazine, @ 1965 Time Inc. Life Magazine, @ 1965 Time Inc., by B. Effridge Chapter 9 232. Black Star, by Walt Sanders 236. George de Vincent 237. Metropolitan Police Department, St. Louis, Mo. Chapter 1 0 238. Life Magazine, @ 1966 Time Inc., by She1 Hershorn 240. Internal Revenue Service, U.S. Treasury Department 242. Life Magazine, @ 1965 Time Inc., by Bob Sherman Chapter 11 244. System Development Corp., Santa Monica, Calif. 251. Chicago Police Department 255. Sheriff's Information Bureau, Los Angeles, Calif. 256. Detroit Police Department 267. International Association of Chiefs of Police, by Paul Garvin Chapter 1 2 272. University of Chicago Center for Studies in Criminal Justice 274. Albert C. Flores: Chicago YMCA 275. University of Columbia School of Law 276. Chicago Police Department Chapter 13 278. Michael A. Geissinger 281. New York State Identification and Intelligence System 283. Bureau of Prisons 289. News Bureau, General Electric 291. Indianapolis News, Anti-Crime Crusade Chapter 8 Appendix 210. Black Star, by Steve Schapiro 215. Lawrence Schiller 312. Life Magazine, @ 1966, Time Inc., by Rowland Scherman Index Addict civil commitment definition, 228 involuntary commitment of noncriminal, 228-229 laws, 223, 228-229 recommendations of Commission, VIII types, 228-229 voluntary commitment before conviction, 228-229 nondrug offenses, 221, 222 treatment, see addiction Addiction definition, 2 12 Supreme Court decisions on, 221 treatment California Rehabilitation Center, 226, 227 commitment of addicts, see addict, civil commitment cyclazocine, 22 7 Daytop Lodge, 227 evaluation, 228 Federal narcotic hospitals, 225- 226 methadone maintenance, 227, 230 New York State program, 226- fin- Parkway center, 226 parole programs, 227 standards of ethical medical practice, 230-231 see also AMA-NRC statement Synanon, 227 use of narcotics, 227, 230 withdrawal, 230 Administration of justice task force, 259 Adolescents attitudes toward adults, 66 community effect, 6 discontent, 6 employment, 6 in labor force, 74-75 involvement in community activities, 68 "labeling" as delinquents, 67, 72 parental authority, 6 programs agency services, 68 employment, 76-77 examples, 68 limitations, 68 need for expansion, 68 recommendations of Commission, 69 social institutions, 6 society, 58-59 see also youth groups unemployment rates, 75 see also juveniles Advisory Council of Judges, 223 Alarm systems automatic, 250 improvement, 250, 289 manual, see police, emergency calls Alarm systems linked to computers, 252 Alcoholics Anonymous, 237 Allen, Francis, 80, 81 American Bar Association (ABA) 136, 137, 139, 146, 147, 149, 290 American Bar Foundation, 276, 291 American College of Surgeons, 52 American College of Trial Lawyers, 152 American Correctional Association, 183 American Judicature Society, 146 American Law Institute, 126, 137, 142, 283,290 American Medical Association, 230, 23 1 American Medical Association-National Research Council (AMANRC) statement on use of narcotics in medical practice departures from, 230, 23 1 summary, 230 American Newspaper Publishers Association, 137 Amphetamines cost, 215 effects, 214 Federal law, 2 16 medical use, 2 14 Apalachin conference, 190, 192, 196, 197 Apprehension process, 246-247 Apprehension process, resources associated with time delays in the, 248 Army Materiel Command, 27 1 Arrest rates drunk, 233,234 female, 44 juvenile, 27, 44, 55-56 male, 44 national, 19, 20, 24, 28, 247 Negro, 44-45 white, 44-45 see also Crime statistics; crime trends Arrest rates for different age groups1965, 56 Arrest records, improper use, 75, 77 Arrests distribution of first and subsequent, for Index crimes, 266 drunk, 233-235 juvenile, 4, 5, 27, 44, 55-56, 260- 261 Arrests, first and lifetime . rearrests, average distribution of for Index crime offenders, 266 Arrests, number and rate, 10 most frequent offenses, 1965, 20 Arrests, percent o f , accounted for b y different age groups-1965, 56 Arrests, relation between response time and, 248 Assault acquaintance of victim and offender, 3 aggravated acquaintance of victim and offender, 40 by juvenile gangs, 19 defined, 19 injuries inflicted, 19 involving firearms, 4, 239 number of cases, 239 prevention, 4 Atlanta Commission on Crime and Juvenile Delinquency, 57 Attorney General's Special Group on Organized Crime, 197 Auburn University, 174 Automobile deaths, 19 B Bail cost to public, 131 discrimination, 131 factors in fixing, 10 in juvenile justice system, 11 information-gathering technique for setting, 131 method of paying, 131 purpose 10, 131 rates, 10, 131 recommendations of Commission, 132, vrrx reform, 131, 132 see also Federal Bail Reform Act of 1966 Barbiturates, 2 14-2 16 Barrett, Dean Edward, 128 Bell Telephone System, 250, 251 Bellevue Hospital, New York, 215 Bootlegging, organized crime participation in, 213 Borderland o f Criminal Justice, T h e , 81 Boss, 193, 195 Boston crime survey, 273 Boston University Law School, 152 Boys' clubs, 68 Breitel, Judge Charles, 129 Brennan, Justice William, 139 Brookhaven National Laboratory, 277 Brown, Claude, 60, 67 Brown V. Board o f Education of T o peka, 70 Buffer, organized crime, 193 Bureau of Customs.. 217.. 218.. 219 Bureau of Drug Abuse Control, 216, 2 17, 220. 23 1 Bureau of Social Science Research, 21, 50 Titles of books, articles. tables, charls and names of law cases appear in italics. 327 Bureau of Social Science Research Survey, 21, 50-51 Burglars, 4 Burglary defined, 19 losses, 4, 42 nonresidential, 42 number of cases, 4 prevention, 4 residential, 19 success, 4 Business contribution t o criminal justice system, 289 control by organized crime effect on economy, 190 methods, 190 telephone used in, 201 types of businesses infiltrated, 190 growth, 47 regulation, 47-48, 49 Business crime corrosive effect on society, 5, 48 cost, 32, 48 detection, 48 extent, 48 public tolerance, 17, 29, 47, 48 studies needed, 48 "Button", organized crime, see soldier California Crime Commission, 198 California Institute for Study of Crime and Delinquency, 276 California Rehabilitation Center, 226, 227 California Youth and Adult Corrections Agency, 226 California Youth Authority, 170, VII Cambridge Institute of Criminology, 25 capital punishment as a deterrent, 143 debate, 143 discrimination, 143 impact on administration of justice, 143 infrequent use, 143 recommendations of. Commission, 143 statistics, 143 Capone, Al, 23,196 Career development and educational standards, 108 Careers in crime program, 222 Car-locator devices, automatic, 250, 252 Cartel, criminal, 192 Center for Studies in Criminal Justice at the University of Chicago, 275 Center for Studies on Narcotics and Drug Abuse (NIMH), 231 Central Intelligence Agency, 204 Chicago Conference on Religion and Race, 290 Chicago Crime Commission, 198 Chicago Police Department, 40, 41, 104, 114, 116, 122, 213, 288 Chief, organized crime, 193 Children's Bureau, 55, 56, 80, 269, 283,286, x Citizen advisory committees, VIII Citizen grievances procedures for handling, 103 recommendations of Commission, 103, vrIr Citizen volunteers in correctional system, 168, 173 Citizens failure to report crime, 3, 21-22, 25, 31, 96 fear of crime, 3, 18,50,51,52-53, v precautions against crime, 5 1 responsibility for crime control, 13, 53, 260, 288, 289, v tolerance of crime, 17,47,48, 5 1-52 Civil addict commitment law, 228 Civil Service, 111, 113 Clearance of crimes with named and unnamed suspects, 248 Cocaine, 213 Commissioner of Customs, 220 Commissioner of Narcotics, 2 12 Committee on Alcoholism and Drug Addiction, 231 Committee on Prisons, Probation, and Parole in the District of Columbia, 245 Committee on Problems of Drug Dependence, 23 1 Community action programs, 284 Community aftercare resources development, VIII recommendation of Commission, 237, VIII Community agencies for juvenile delinquents advantages, 83 recommendations of Commission, 83 referrals, 83 Youth Services Bureau, 83, 280 see also Youth Services Bureau Community detoxification units development, 235, 236, 237, vrIr recommendations of 'Commission, 236, VIII Community responsibility for crime control, 13, 53, 291 Community service officer, 68,98, 108- 109, 118, IX Community treatment programs experimental Essexfields, N. J., 17 1, 173 Highfields, N.J., 171, 173 New York State Division for Youth, 171 Pine Hills, Provo, Utah, 171 San Francisco, Calif., 171 small expenses, VII success, VII Turrell Residential Center, New Jersey, 171 recommendations of Commission, 171,177 see also correctional system, parole, probation services Comparison of survey and U C R rates, 21 Computer criminal justice system use, 267, VII information systems, 267-268 police use, 252, 255, 267, vr simulation of operations of a District of Columbia court, 259 . Computer--Continued use for criminal record information, 268 Computer-assisted police commandcontrol system, a possible, 253 Confederation in organized crime employees, 193 membership, 195 origin, 192 Confederation commission balance of power, 195 composition, 195 Confederation families in organized crime activities, 193 hierarchy, 193 informal roles, 196 Confederation hierarchy, 193, 195 Coordinated eflort against organized crime, 205 Corporal punishment, 162-163 Correctional institutions alarms, 259 caseload, 171-1 72, 178-1 79 collaborative approach, 173 conditions, 163 conflict between staff and inmates, 173 cost, 176 diversification, 164 educational level, 174 facilities, 178 furloughs, 176 graduated release, 177 history, 162-163 industries constraints, 176, 289 Federal program, 176 goods produced, 176 programs, 174, 175 recommendations of Commission, 176 isolation, 172 local and misdemeanant, 178 model, 172-1 73 personnel, 173, 175 programed instruction, 174, 175 programed learning, 174,259-260 recommendations of Commission, 173, 174, 175, 176, 178 reforms, 163-164 release, 173, 176-177, 178 restraints, 172, 173 Correctional institutions, distribution of personnel in jails and local, 1965, 178 Correctional institutions, number o f inmates in, daily average in 1965, 172 Correctional programs development, 14,183,260,282 employment, 174,175,289 Correctional system a ~ ~ l i c a t i oof n information systems, 259 application of systems analysis, 259 caseload. 12, 159. 160. 171-172. . .A community treatment costs, 166 effectiveness, 166, 170 experimental programs, 170, 171, 173, VII reform, 169 , Correctional system-Continued conditions, 159,163 custody as major task, 12 employment programs, 174, 175,289 facilities, 13 Federal role, 180, 183 history, 162-163 inadequacies, 163, VIII information gathering, 180, 181 isolation, 11-12 lack of central control, 160-162 lack of public knowledge, 159 nationwide survey, 159 need for changes, 183 nongovernment role, 183 personnel, 12 see also correctional system personnel random reform of programs, 164 State role, 183 theory, 163 university role, 183,291 Correctional system decisionmaking, 12, 179-181 Correctional system personnel division of functions, 162 shortage, 162, 180 training, 286 see also correctional institutions, parole officers, probation officers Correctional treatment recommendations of Commission, 260 statistical data, 260 Corrections, average daily population in, 160 Corrections of the future, 182 Corrections, some national characteristics o f , 161 Corrections task force, 160, 162 Corrupter, organized crime, 193 Cosa Nostra, La, 192, 201, 209, 218 see also confederation Cost-effectivenessanalysis of delay red m t i o n in hypothetical city, 249 Costello, Frank, 188 Cottrell, Leonard S., Jr., 57 Council of Judges of the National Council on Crime and Delinquency, 140 Council of State Governments, 123 Council on Mental Health, 231 "Counselor," organized crime, 193 Court , criminal caseload, 126 central role in criminal justice system, 125 constitutional limitations, 125 due process, 125 public expectations, 125 family, 85 felony, presentence reports, 144 justice of the peace recommendations of Commission, 130 reform, 129 see also justices of the peace juvenile, see juvenile court lower calendar, 127 caseload, 128, vrrr Court-Continued lower--Continued conditions, 128, vrrr defense counsel, 128 facilities, 128, 129 importance, 128 judge, 128 personnel, 128, vru petty offense section, 129 plea negotiation, 11 presentence investigations, 129 probation officers, 11 probation services, 129 prosecutor, 128 recommendations of Commission, 129 misdemeanor presentence reports, 144 probation services, 144 see also court, lower urban administrative procedures, 127 calendar, 154-1 55 caseload, 10, I27 lack of information about offender, 127 lack of understanding of offender, 127 needs, 127 plea negotiation, 128 Court administration avoiding delay, 156 business procedures, 156 recommendations of Commission, 156-157 reform, 157 supervision, 156 Court administrative office, State, 157 Court information system, 141 Crime behavior range, v business, see business crime causes failures of criminal justice system, 17 need for information, 17 public tolerance of crime, 17 social factors, 177 see also crime, social factors contributing victim's role, 17 cost data, 32 see also specific crimes cost, 31-34, 35, 59, 273 costs to society, 34 data need, 23, 31 recommendations of Commission, 31, 35, 53 effect, 1, 3 extent, 21, v failure of citizens to report, 3,21-22, 25, 31, 96 fear based on fear of strangers, 18, 50, 52 by income, 50 by neighborhood, 50-51 by race, 50 correlated to measures against crime, 51 Crime-Continued fear-Continued correlated to victimization, 51 effect on citizens, 3, 52, v mass media contribution, 52-53 specific crimes, 18, 51-52 Federal, 20 increase, 3, 5, 23, 24, 26, 28 juvenile, vr knowledge about, 273 lack of information, 13, 247, 266, 269, 273 national strategy against, 279 organized, see organized crime professional, see professional crime property, see property crimes public concern, 49-50, 53 reporting increase due to changed expectations, 25, 30 increase due to insurance, 27 police programs, 25, 27, 30 political use, 27 procedural changes, 25-26 public attitudes, 21-22, 50, 96 recommendations of Commission, 27, 31 supplements, 3 1 unreported crime, 3, 20-21, 25, 31, v representative experiences, v research, see research, research institutes responsibility conclusions of Commission, XI of individual, XI of society, v self-reported, studies, 43-44, 55, 57 social factors contributing, 1, 5, 6, 15, 35-36, 91 statistical information, see Uniform Crime Reports techniques for measuring, 3, x violent, see violent crimes white-collar, see white-collar crime Crime cases arrests, 248 clearance, 248 Crime commissions headquarters, 207 private, 198, 199 public, 198, 199 recommendations of Commission, 207 Crime deterrence, lack of knowledge, 96, 247 Crime message to Congress, 284 Crime prevention Anticrime Crusade of Indianapolis, 290 citizen organizations, 289 citizen responsibility, 13, '53, 260, 288, 289, XI community role, 13, 53, 291, XI conclusions of Commission on, 27, 49,60, 209, vr-vrr employers, contribution, 290 Federal programs, 283-284,285 juvenile, 58 Crime prevention-Contiriued lighting of streets, 261-262, 290 methods combating segregation, vr improvement of law enforcement operations, vr improvement of schools, vr providing employment opportunities, vr reduction of opportunities 'for crime, vr, VII strengthening family, vr private agencies, 290 religious institutions, 290 society's responsibility, 58, 60, XI see also theft, automobile, prevention . Crime prevention and control, public expenditures for, 34 Crime-pricing system, 131 Crime rates Federal Republic of Germany, 30 immigrants, 36-37 in standard metropolitan statistical areas, 119 international, 30 national, 28 north central United States, 30 rural, 5, 28 slum, 35-36, 37 suburban, 5,28 urban, 5, 28-29, 35-36 . variations in urban rates, 29 Crime statistics arrest, 20, 28, 44 Federal Bureau of Investigation computation of trends, 26 in analyzing crime problem, 20 national collection, 23, 24, 26 offense. 27 police, '20 reporting to Federal Bureau of Investigation 20.28.30 . . see also arrests; crime, reporting; Uniform Crime Reports Crime trends analysis, 28 arrest rates, 24, 28 conclusions of Commission, 30-3 1, 51-52 factors affecting affluence, 29 age composition of population, 27-28, 56 enumeration, 27 inflation, 30 studies, 29 urbanization, 28; 29, 56 knowledge, 23,25,30 , offense rates, 23, 24 see also crime rates Crime victimization business, 41-42 female, 39 male, 39 Negro, 40 nonwhite, 39 public facilities, 43 public organizations, 41-42, 43 rates, 31, 38, 42 risk, 39 - Crime victimization-Continued sites, 40, 41 survey of Commission, 20-21, 31 survev techniaue. . ,22., 30 white: 39 Crimes, clearance of with named and unnamed suspacts, 248 Crimes, eC0fl0miC impact of and re-. fated -expenditures, 33 Crimes, reported, against persons and property, 196045 trends, wrests, and oflenses known to police, 24 Crimes, selected Federal, 20 Crimes without victims arrests, 5 categories, 5 effect of correctional system, 5 investigation, 5 Criminal cases discovery procedures, 138 recommendations of Commission, 139 pretrial examination of witnesses, 139 Criminal code definition of offenses, 126, 127 grading of offenses, 126 reform, 126 revision, 283 see also penal codes; sentencing codes Criminal court, see court, criminal Criminal justice agencies equipment, 27 1 Federal support for improvements, 270, 271, 281, 284, 285, 286, 287 management studies, 286 operations research groups, 27 1, x outside research assistance, x recommendations of Commission, 271, 282 State support for changes, 281 see also law enforcement agencies Criminal justice information systems crime statistics, 287 see also crime statistics criminal records, 268-269, 286 see also criminal records files contained, 267-268,284 files, users, 267 inquiry system, 268, 286 National Crime Information Center, 268, 286 national inquiry file, 268 need for. 267 organized crime intelligence system, 286 statistics on criminal justice system, 286 Criminal justice personnel Federal support for training, 285 quality, 282 .salaries, 282 shortage, 12-13, 15, 282, vr, IX training, 206, 285, 286 Criminal justice planning Federal support, 285 local level, 280 need, 279-280 State level, 280 Criminal justice planning units appraisal, 281, 282-283 coordination, 280 functions, XI gathering of information, 281 immediate changes, 281, 282 membership, 280-281, XI mobilization of financial support, 281-282 pressure for change, 281, 282 recommendations of Commission, 280 State planning committees, 280, 285 Criminal justice system application of systems analysis, 262, 263-264 business contribution, 289 caseload, 12, 14, 126, 128, vrrr community contribution, 291 computer use, 267 conclusions of Commission, 78, 185, VIII, XI controlled experimentation, 262 decisionmakina. -. 10.. 12 demonstration projects, 287 , facilities, 13 Federal grants-in-aid, 287, 288 Federal role, 283 Federal support for technological research and development, 270 see also R.D.T. & E . programs financial needs for new programs, x for research, x for salaries, x industry, contribution, 289 inertia, 14, 274 juvenile, see juvenile court, juvenile justice system labor contribution, 289 lack of information, 266, 269, 273 legislative changes, 283 limited use of technological. devices, 245, 287 need for better information, 266- 267 needs, 10, 13, 14, XI new services examples, 282 financial aid, 282 philosophy, 7 professional groups, role, 291 protection of individual, 7, VIII purposes, 7, VIII recommendations of Commission, vrrr research institutes for, see research institutes research, 287 responsibilities, 58, 128, vrIr see science and technology, R.D.T. & E. programs . structure, 7 see also correctional system, court, police support for changes, 281, XI technological devices, 245, 246, 257- 258, 287 university contribution, 13, 183, 275, 291 see also law enforcement Criminal justice system costs estimating, 265 for Index crimes, 264-265 for police, 265 per offender, 265-266 public expenditure, 34-35, 273 rehabilitation, 32, 35 salaries, 35 Criminal justice system costs for Index 265 crimes, total 1965, U.S., Criminal justice system direct costs for U.S.crime in 1965, estimated, 264- 265 Criminal justice system model, 263-265 Criminal justice system model, 262-263 Criminal law limitations on effectiveness, 130, 200 see also criminal code Criminal process administrative, 130 administrative decisions, 130 alternatives for disposing of cases information service, 136 institutional commitment, 134 intensive supervision, 134 computer use, VII delay deleterious effects, 154 example of: District of Columbia court, 258 efficiency, 154, vrr fairness, 154, VI, VIII juvenile, 7, 11 see also juvenile court, juvenile justice system lack of knowledge, x model timetable, 155-156, 258 pretrial examination, 139 reduction of delay, 258-259, vrr theory versus practice, 7 timetable, 155-156, 258 see also bail, plea negotiation, postconviction procedures, pretrial release, sentencing, trial Criminal, professional, see professional criminal Criminal records areawide center, 120 computer use, 268 fingerprints, 269 policy problems, 268 recommendations of Commission, 120, 268-269 security, 269 State, 269 Criminal research institutes, see research institutes Customs agency service, 217 Daytop Lodge, 227 Deaths, automobile, 19 Deaths from caurc~,19 other than natural Defendant bail, 131 discovery of Government case, 138, 144 felony time spent in court, 258 time spent in criminal process, 258 Defendant-Continued in lower court, 129 in plea negotiation, 135-1 36 release of before trial 131- 133 see also bail rights, 126 Defender system, vrrr Defense counsel aid by nonlegal personnel, 153 exchange of information with prosecutor, 136 expanded role, 151 in juvenile court, 86-87, vrrr in lower court, 128 . need, 86-87, 149-150, 153 professional status, 152 provision by coordinated assigned counsel systems, 150-15 1, vnr by defender system, 150-151, vrrr cost, 150-151 for adults, vrrr for juvenile, 86-87, VIII in parole and probation proceedings, vrrr recommendations of Commission, 137, 150, 151, vrrr recruitment, 152 salaries, 152, 153 shortage, 151 State laws providing, 149 Supreme Court decisions, 149 training, 152, IX Delinquency records, improper use of by employers, 75 Depressants illicit traffic in, 2 17-218 medical use, 214 see ako barbiturates, tranquilizers Detoxification centers as detention facilities, 235, 236 as medical facilities, 236 demonstration projects, 236 in-patient programs, 237 referrals, 237 treatment of alcoholics in, 237 Dewey, Thomas E., 196 Dictograph Corp., 289 District attorney, see prosecutor District Court of the District of Columbia, 258 District Court of the District of Columbia, median time ( i n days) between events for the felony cases filed in 1965,258 District of Columbia Court of General . Sessions, 128 District of Columbia Crime Commission, 18, 19, 27, 40, 42, 45, 58, 235, 28 1 Dole, Dr. Vincent P., 227 Domestic problem, most important, by race and income, 49 Draper Correctional Center, 174, 260 Driver v. Hinnant, 236 Drug abuse . increase, 215 President's Ad Hoc Panel, 225 President's Commission, 2 11, 23 1 responsibility, 21 1 White House Conference, 21 1 Drug Al>use Control Amendments of 1965, 215, 220 Drug laws conclusions of Commission, 224, 229 effectiveness, 2 18-2 19 enforcement methods, 218 objectives, 218 personnel involved, 21 7 personnel needed, 219-220 recommendations of Commission, 220 gradations of offenses, 223 mandatory minimum sentences, 223 penalties, 222-223 recommendations of Commission, 216, 220, 221, 223 recordkeeping provisions, 220-22 1 violators, 219, 223 Drugs dangerous control of illicit traffic, 220 definition, 2 14 Federal laws, 21 1, 213, 215-216, 220, 223 illicit traffic, 2 16, 2 18 seizure of abroad by Federal agents, 2 17 seizure a t ports and borders, 217 State laws, 211, 213, 216, 220, 223 see also amphetamines; barbiturates ; depressants ; hallucinogens; heroin; marihuana; narcotics stimulants public understanding agencies disseminating information, 231 college program, 23 1 recommendations of Commission, 23 1 Drunk arrests, see arrests, drunk Drunk case burden on criminal justice system, 233, 235 trial, 234 unfairness in handling, 235 Drunk offender, see offender, drunk Drunkenness as public health problem, 236 diagnosis, 235, 237 laws, 233 noncriminal treatment care after release, 237 detoxification centers, 235, 236, 237 recommendation of Commission, 236 serious crimes, 237 Drunkenness, arrests, com~arison of in three cities, 234 Dyer Act, 260 E Easter v. District of Columbia, 236 Educational levels, comparison of, 161 Electronic surveillance devices as a method of law enforcement, 201 as a threat to privacy, 202 authority for use by law enforcement officers, 201-202, 203 detection, 202 Electronic surveillance devices-Con. , , . legality, 202-203 privatc usc, 202, 203 recommcndations 'of Commission, 203 Supremc Court decisions, 202,203 Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 284 Einployment . choice, 75, 76 denial . arrest record, 75, 77.. . delinquency record, 75 - . school failure, 75 . . cnforccment of fair practices, 77 inadequate preparation, 74-75 information, 77 labor force, 74-75 new sources, 77 programs preparing youth, 76-77, 289-290, VI recommendations of Commission, 77 Enforcer, organized crime, 193 Estes decision, 137 Evidence, motion f o r suppression, 140, ,203 Exclusionary rule, 126 Expert committee on addiction-producingdrugs(WH0),212 . - ' Faith opportunities project, 290 Family as social institution for develop. ing child's potential, 63 Family factors contributing to delinquency , discipline, inconsistency, 63-64 family membership, 63, 65 identification between 'father and son, 64 marital discord, 63, 65 parental affection, 64 premature autonomy, 63 status in community, 65 Family, strengthening as a functioning ,unit, 65 . counseling, 65 employment, 65 housing, 65 individuals in family, .65-66 recommendations of Commission, 66 Federal Bail Reform'Act of 1966, 132, 259 Federal Board of Parole, 223 Federal Bureau of Investigation, 3, 4, 18, 20, 26, 28, 30, 32, 39, 55, 110, 111, 112, 117, 118, 119, 122, 192, 196, 197, 199, 204, 206, 222, 240, 241, 247, 261, 265, 269, 270, 283; 284, 286, x, xr Federal Bureau of Investigation Academy, 285 Federal Bureau, of 1nGestigati& Uniform Crime Reporting Section,' 264 Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reports ( U C R ) , 1, 3, 4, 5, 18, 19, 20, 25, 26, 27, 30, 32, 39, 42,46,55, 286, 287, x Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reports "Index crimes", 1 , 4 , 5 , 18, 19, 24 Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 197, 206, 212, 213, 217, 218, 219, 220, 222, 224, 230, 231 ~ e d e r a l~ i r e a uof Prisons, 223, 269, 282, 284, 286, 289, x, xr Federal Circuit Court decisions on arrests for drunkenness Driver v. Hinnant, 236 Easter v. District of Columbia, 236 Federal Communications Act, 202 Federal Communications Commission, 254 Federal crimes, selected, 20 Federal narcotics hospitals, 225-226 Federal prisons drug law violators, 223 see also correctional institutions Federal ,Rules of Criminal Procedure, 137 Federal Youth Corrections Act, 223 Fence, 46-47 Fingerprint identification by Federal Bureau of Investigation, . 269 - b y police, 97, 255 by State agencies, 269 computer, 255 recommcnda tions of Commission, 255-256 Firearms and second amendment, 241, 242 Federal laws, 240, 242, 243, vrr see also Firearms Act of 1934, Fircarms Act of 1938, Mutual Security Act of 1954 importation, 239, 241 in interstate commerce, 239, 243 licenses, 240, 241 local laws, 240, 241 possession by felons, 242 purchase, 240, 241, 242 recommendations of Commission, 242, 243 registration, 239, 240, 241, 242, 245, VII State laws, 240, 241, 242, vrr see also Sullivan law Supreme Court decisions, 242 surplus, 240 taxes, 239 use inwimes, 4, 239,241 Firearms Act of 1934, 239, 241 Firearms Act of 1938,239 Firearms control Federal, 240,242, 243 see also Firearms Act of 1934, Firearms Act of 1938, Mutual Security Act of 1954. public opinion, 240, 241 recommendations of Commission, 239 resistance, 241 State, 240, 241, 242 see also firearms, State laws; Sul' livan law Fix, 46, 47 Food and Drug Administration, 2 14, 215,216,217,220 . Ford Foundation, 275,290 Frankfurter, Justice Felix, 273 Fraud, 19-20, 32 Gallup polls, 49-50, 241 . . Gambling ' control by organized crime, 1'89 independent operators, 188 profit to organized crime, 188, 189 Gambling operation, interstate, diagram of, 197 ' Gambling syndicate, 197 Ganey, Judge T. Cullen, 48 Gang, see youth groups: Gault v. United States, 86 Gencral Board of Christian social'concerns of the Methodist Church, 168 Georgetown University, 276 Gideon v. Wainwright, 149 . Gilman, 225 Glueck, Eleanor,'45 Glueck, Sheldon, 45 . Goodman, 225' . Gouled v. United States, 125, 126 ' ' Habeas Gorpus petitions . increase, 139 . legal counsel, 139-140 liberalization of court rules, 139 reduction . by improving procedures on postconviction claims, 139 . by improving trials, 139, Hallucinogens controversy, 2 14 . Federal law, 2 16 illicit traffic, 2 18 . increased'use, 2 15 legitimate use, 2 14 other than LSD, 215 use, 2 14 see also LSD Harlem Youth Opportunities' Unlimited, Inc., 62 Harris surveys, 49,50 Harrison Narcotic Act of 1914, 213, 230 Harvard Business School, 285 Harvard Law School, 152 Harvard University, 289 Hawes-Cooper Act, 176 Head Start, 73, 284, XI Heroin as a n illegal drug, 213, 2 16 oost to addict, 189,213,217,222 distribution, 189 effects, 212 Federal laws, 2 13 illicit traffic, 213,217,218 profit to organized crime, 218 quality for addict, 213, 217 seizure abroad by Federal agents, 2 17 seizure a t ports and borders, 2 17 smuggling into United States, 216, 217 sources, 216-21 7 State laws, 213 use by addict, 2 12 Heroin addicts arrests, 222 nondrug offenses, 222 number, 189,2 12 .- ' Heroin addicts-Continued previous use of marihuana, 225 residence, 2 12 Hogan, District Attorney Frank S., 201 Homicide acquaintance of victim and offender, 3.39.40 . , involving firearms, 4 number of cases, 3 unintentional, 19 Homicide rate for selected countries, 30 Hoover, J. Edgar, 192 Houston Legal Foundation, 150 Hunter College, 74 I IBM, 289 Illinois Crime Commission, 190, 198 Immunity, see witness, immunity Imprisonment, 162-163 see also corrcctional institutions Index crime trends, 1933-1965 reported crimes against property, 23 reported crimes against the person, 22 Index crimes, 1, 4; 5, 18, 19, 24 Index crimes, comparison of survey, U C R rates for, 21 Index offense rates, variation in by police district, Grand Rapids, Mich., 1965, 36 Index offenses, estimated number and percentage o f , 1965, 18 Industry, contribution to criminal justice system, 289 Institute for Judicial Administration, 147 Institute for Policy Studies of the District of Columbia, 175 Institute of Juvenile Research, 36 Integrated national criminal justice information system, users of files in an, 267 Internal Revenue Service, 197 International Association of Chiefs of Police, 20, 207, 282, 286, 290-291 International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, 289 Jackson, Justice Robert J., 145 Jails, see correctional institutions James, Jesse, 23 Job Corps, 284, 290 Johnson, President Lyndon B., 2, 1.42, 188, 197, 284, xr Joint Commission on Correctional Manpower and Training, 183 Joint Committee on Continuing Legal Education, 152 Judge discretion of in srntcncing, 1 1, 126, 142 impeachment, 147 in juvenile court, 80 in lower court, 128 rccall. 147 rccommcndations of Commission, 147, IX rrtircment, 147 Judge-Continued role in plea negotiation, 136 selection, 146-147 sentencing, 11, 141-142, 144 tenure, 147 training, 147, rx see also sentencing Judicial conduct, supervision, 147 Judicial Conference of the United States, 137, 139, 147 Judicial sentencing institutes, 145 Jurors compensation, 157 physical facilities, 157 recommendations of Commission, 157 Jury grand need, 200 recommendations of Commission, 200 term, 200 sentencing, 145 recommendations of Commission, 145 Justices of the peace compensation, 129, vrrr number, 130 professional standards, 129, 130 recommendations of Commission, 130 supervision, 129 Juvenile court characteristics, 79-80 clinical services, 80 dispositional alternatives, 80, 81 failure, 80 personnel, vrr pre-judicial disposition consent decree, 88 intake function, 84 preliminary conferences, 84 recommendations of Commission, 84 probation services, 80 recommendations of Commission, 81 revised philosophy, 81 theory versus practice, 7, 81 see also juvenile justice system Juvenile court judge education, 80 status, 80 Juvenile court jurisdiction comprehensiveness, 8 1, 84 legislative revision, 84, 88 rationale, 8 1, 84 recommendations of Commission, 85 Juvenile court procedures adjudication proceedings, 87 counsel needed, 86-87, vrrr counsel role, 86 detention, 20-21, 87, VIII disposition hearings, 87 informality, 81, 85, 87 lack of procedural safeguards, 85-86 recommendations of Commission, 87, 88 Supreme Court decisions, 85-86 theory versus practice, 7, 80-81 , Juvenile court records confidentiality, 87 disclosure to other agencies, 87-88 Juvenile delinquency as a forerunner to adult crime, 46 control in community, 88-89 in juvenile justice system, 88-89 factors contributing, see family, school, slums in slums, 59, 61 increase, 56 prediction, 59 public concern, 49 rates in inner city, 59 rates, Negro, 57 rates, white, 57 . self-report studies, 55, 57 statistics, 55 Juvenile Delinquency-Its Prevention and Control, 57 Juvenile delinquents characteristics of, 56, 60 community agencies, see community agencies economic background, 57 ethnic origin, 57 families, 56, 57, 60, 61 see also family factors contributing to delinquency in cities, 56, 57 in school, 56, 60 middle class, 59 peer group, 60, 66 see also youth groups social background, 57 Juvenile encounters with police police policy, 78-79, 104 situations leading, 78 tensions created, 79 Juvenile justice system bail, 11 decisionmaking, 11 intake officer, 11 plea negotiation, 11 pre-judicial disposition, 81-82 police handling, see, police, prejudicial disposition types, 82 strengthening, 88-89 see also juvenile court Juveniles arrest rates, 27,44,55-56 arrests, 4, 5, 27, 44, 55-56, 260-261 attitudes toward police, 79 experimental community treatment programs, 83, 171, 173 inadequacies of parole and probation services, 80 Kefauver committee, 192, 196 Kennedy, President John F., 27, 239 Kennedy, Robert F., 187 Kent v. United States, 85 La Guardia report of 1944,225 Labor, contribution to criminal justice system, 289 Labor force, 74-75 Labor unions, control by organized crime, 190 Larceny amount, 4 as a misdemeanor, 20 defined, 30,43 preVcntion, 4 Law, criminal adequacy, 130, 200 sentences for violations committed as part of organized crime, 203 see also, penal code; sentencing Law enforcement contract, 122 coordination of efforts, 199 evidence on organized crime, 199, 200 failure to use available sanctions, 199 failures, 284 informants, 198,200,209, 218 intelligence information, 199,201 lack of political commitment, 200 lack of public commitment, 200 local against organized crime, 197-198 Federal support, 284, 285 neutralization by organized crime, 191 personnel conclusions of Commission, IX shortcomings, VIII training, 206 political leadership, 208 pooled, 112 State against organized crime, 10 1-102 Federal support, 284, 285 subordinate service districts, 122-123 see also criminal justice system Law enforcement agencies auxiliary services, 120 central office of intelligence information, 204-2C6 central security system, 206 concentration of resources, VII exchange of information, 120, 204, 206 Federal activities against organizcd crime, 196-197 investigative teams, 206 recommendations of commission, 204-206 responsibilities, 283 Federal aid, XI Federal services, 206, 283 intelligence units, 204 lack of coordination, 123, 199 ' lack of resources, 199 mutual aid agreements, 122 organized crime investigation units, 198, 199 rccomrnendations of Commission, 204 sharing of information, 120, 204, 206 staff services, 120 see also criminal justice agencies Law Enforcement Assistance Act, 283, 284, 285 Law enforcement assistance program of Department of Justice, 285 Law Enforcement Intelligence Unit of California, 198 Law enforcement methods, electronic surveillance see electronic surveillance Law enforcement studies factors to be studied, 248-249 recommendations of Commission, 248,255-256,257 Task Force on Science and Technology-Los Angeles study, 248 Law schools, new programs, 152 Loan sharking, 189 Los Angeles Police Department, 109, 114, 248, 257, vr LSD cost, 215 dangers, 215 effects, 215 illicit traffic, 218 legal use, 215 preparation, 2 14 Luciano, Lucky, 196 Mafia, see confederation Magistrate appointing of counsel, 10 information available, 10 setting of bail, 10, 131 "Manchild in the Promised Land," 60, ' 67 Manhattan General Hospital, 227 Manpower Development and Training Act, 76,284, 285 Marihuana . as a prelude to addiction, 224,225 as an illegal drug, 2 14 association with crime, 224-225' effects, 213,224,225 Federal laws, 2 13-2 14,223-224 illicit traffic, 2 18 literature, 2 15 preparation, 2 13 price, 2 13 recommendations of Commission, 215 research, 225 seizure by Federal authorities, 213, 217 smuggling into United States, 2 13 State laws, 214,223,224 use, 2 13 Marihuana Tax Act, 224 Massachusetts State Police, 240 Mayor's committee on marihuana, ,225 McClellan committee, 190, 196 McCone Commission, 37 McKay, Henry D., 36,57,59,76 McKay-Shaw studies, 57,59 Median time ( i n d a y s ) between events o f the felony cases filed in the District Court o f the District o f Columbia in 1965, 258 Medical Society of the County of New York, 215,224 Metcalf-Volker Act, 226,228 Metropol, 122 Metropolitan Crime Commission of New Orleans, 198 Michigan State University, 291 Miranda v. Arizona, 94, 149 Mobilization for youth, 73 Model cities program, 284 Model Code of prearraignment procedure, 137 Model penal code, 126, 137, 142, 203, 283 Model sentencing act, 142,203 Model State barbiturate act, 220 Mode1,State department of justice act, 149 Model State drug abuse control act, 220 Model State police council act, 120 Model timetable for felony cases, 154- 155 Municipal planning boards, 9 8 Mutual Security Act of 1954,239 Narcotic abuse President's Commission, 2 11, 23 1 White House conference, 21 1 Narcotic Addict Rehabilitation Act of 1966, 224, 228 Narcotic Treatment Bureau, see Special Narcotic Project of the New York State Division of Parole Narcotics definition, 21 2 Federal laws, 21 1, 223, 231 medical use, see AMA-NRC statements sale, 189 see also heroin seizure at ports and borders, 2 17 seizure in United States, 217 State laws, 2 11, 223 see also cocaine; marihuana; opiates Nashville-Davidson County, Tenn., 122 Nassau County, Long Island, N.Y., 123 National Academy of Sciences, 230, 23 1 National Association of Manufacturers, 77 National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, 23 1 National Association of Training Schools, 183 National Bureau of Standards, 271 National Clearing House of Mental Health Information ( N I M H ) , 23 1 National College of State Trial Judges, 147 National Council of Juvenile Court Judges, 291 National Council on Crime and Delinquency, 160, 168, 183, 207, 276, 290 National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, 137, 139, 149 National Crime Information Center (NCIC) ,268,286 National Criminal Justice Statistics Center as a center for statistics on crime, 27,35,269-270, x . ' recommendations of Commission, 269, x National Criminal Research Foundation, see National Foundation for Criminal Research National defender project, 151 National District Attorneys Association, 148, 207 National Foundation for Criminal Research as control for research projects, 277 as focus for research efforts, 277 congressional appropriations, 277 independent status, 277 problems, in establishing, 277 recommendations of Commission, 277, x National Highway Safety Agency, 261 National Industrial Conference Board, 43 ~ational'informationsystem, see criminal justice information systems National inquiry file, see criminal justice information systems National Institute of Mental Health ( N I M H ) , 225, 231 National League of Cities, 114 National Legal Aid and Defender Association, 151, 152 National ~ p i n i d nResearch Center, 20, 239 National Opinion Research Center poll: Afirmative answers, 99 National Opinion Research Center Survey, 20-21, 27, 38, 49, 50, 51, 99 National Research Council, 230, 231 National Rifle Association, 241 National Science Foundation, 277, 285 National Teacher Corps, 72-73 National Training School for Boys, 174-175 Nativc American Church, 214 NCCD, see National Council on Crime and Delinquency N e e d for Criminology, T h e , 276 Neighborhood advisory committees, 101 Neighborhood legal services, 153 Neighborhood Youth Corps, 76, 284, 290, XI New England State Police Compact, 198, 206 N e w Republic, T h e , 94 New York City Bar Association committee, 276 New York City Department of Corrections, 222 New York City Police Department, 132, 137, 192, 198 New York, prosecution against organized crime, 198, 201 New York State Combined Council of Law Enforcement Officials, 103 New York State Department of Mental Hygiene, 226 New York State Division of Parole, 228 New York State Division of Youth, 171, 177 New York State identification and intelligence system, 206 New York State Narcotic Control Commission, 227 New York State program on addiction, 226-227 New York State Temporary Commission of Investigation, 198-202 News media concern with organized crime, 208 effect on action against organized crime, 208 impact on criminal justice system, 137 recommendations of Commission, 208 regulation of statements, 137 North American Judges Association, 168 Nyswander, Dr. Marie, 227 0 Occupational experience, 161 Offender, drunk background, 233 chronic, 233, 234, 235, 237 court handling, 235 detainment, 234 jailing, 234 rearrest, 235 release, 234 Offenders characteristics, 44, 45, 160, 180 diversity, 160 "hidden", 44 identification, 180 income, 45 information, 181 prior record, 45 public perception, 169 recidivism, 45-46, 55 reintegration into community, 165, 168, 172, VIII rights, 181 treatment conclusions of Commission, VII- VIII experimental programs, 170, 17 1, 173. VII individualized, 170, 180 recommendations of Commission, 166, 180, 181-183, 260 segregation from society, vrr self-involvement, 174 see also community treatment programs, experimental Offense, estimated rates of, comparison o f police and BSSR survey data, 21 Offense, petty, 5 Offense rates, 27 Offenses known by city size, 1965, 25 Offenses known t o the police, 1960-65, 24 Office of Criminal Justice, 286 Office of Economic Opportunity, 73, 74,76,152,153,236,290 Office of Education, 69, 76 Office of Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Development. 283 Office of Law Enforcement Assistance, 160.. 245., 285., XI Office of Manpower Development and Training, XI Ombudsman, 282 "Operation Crime-Stop", 288 Operational research, see research Opiates drugs included in term, 2 12 medical use, 212 statistics on use, 212 see also heroin Opportunity for urban excellence, 57 Organized crime activities, 187, 188, 189, 190, 218 America's limited response, 188 Apalachin conference, 190, 192, 196, 197 authority, 195 briefings, 208 business activities, 189-190 code of conduct, 195-196 compliant victims, 198 congressional committee, 207 control, rx core groups, 192, 193 see also confederation families corruption of public officials, 19 1, 193 discipline, 193, 195 enforcement, 193 families, see .confederation families Federal law enforcement activities against, 196-197 financial power, 187 general comments, 187, 191-192 government regulation, 208 impact, 187, 188, 190, 191 in large cities, 191 in small cities, 191 intelligence units organization, 204 recommendations of Commission, 204 investigation, 196 labor control, 190 private regulation, 208 prosecution in New York, 198, 201 protection of higher echelon personnel against law enforcement, 198, 201 public reporting, 208-209 recommendations of Commission, 192, 204, 207, 208 structure, 193-195 see also confederation hierarchy see also business, gambling, loan sharking, narcotics Organized Crime and Racketeering ( O C R ) Section of the U.S. Department of Justice, 196-197, 204 Organized crime, coordinated effort against, 205 Organized crime family, an, 194 Parkway Center, 226 Parole defined, 164 facilities, 166 for addicts, see Special narcotics project of the New York State Division of Parole recidivism, 45 recommendations of Commission, 166,168,181 Parole agencies, 169-1 70 Parole boards, 12, 23 Parole decision, 12,181 Parole officers aid from volunteers, 168 caseload, 12, 167 recommendations of Commission, 167, 169, 170 roles, 169 shortage, 167 supervisory duties, 165 Peace Corps, 77 Penal codes defects, 142 recommendations of Commission, 143 revision, 142 violation committed as part of organized crime, 203 . . see also sentencing People v. Berger, 203 Perjury limited effectiveness of sanctions, 141 recommendations of Commission, 141 Perjury prosecutions proof requirements, 141, 20 1 recommendations of Commission, 141, 201 Peyote, ,214, 215 Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics, T h e , 225 Plea negotiation abuses, 135 contents, 11 defendant, 135-1 36 form, 11, 134 functions, 135 in juvenile justice system, 11 in lower court, 11 judge's role, 136 prosecutor's role, 11, 135 recommendations of Commission, 135-136 unsanctioned, 11 Police citizen complaints, 102-1 03 contacts with citizens, 91 see also police-community relations cost, 91, 117 detention facilities, 120-1 21 discretion, 10, 106, 126 emergency calls by police callboxes, 250-251 by telephone, 250,25 1 r&om&endations- of Commission, 250, 251 fingerprint identification, 97,255 inquiry system, 268 see also criminal justice information systems murder, 256 pre-judicial disposition changes recommended, 82 information, 82 recommendations of Commission, 83 referrals, 82 standards, 82 professionalization, 25, 106 public attitude toward, 92, 96, 99, 100, 102 ' ' Policdontinued relations with minority groups, 99100, 101-102, vrn studies by factors to be studied, 248-249 recommendations of Commission, 248, 255-256, 257 success rates of applicants, 109 team policing, 118 Police, The, 79 Police Administration, 102 Police apprehension process definition, 247 delay in relation to resources, 249 reduction of delay, 250 task force study, 248 Police communication's center areawide, 120 computer use, 252, VI importance, 116 improvement, 25 1-252 model, 116 procedures, 25 1 prototype, programs to implement, 252-254, vr recommendations of Commission, 120. 252. VI role, i65, i66 technological devices, 252, 282 Policesommunity relations community service officer, 68, 98, 108-109, 118, xx minority groups, 99-100, 101-102, VIII police conduct in community, 102, 115 police units, 101, VIII programs, 100, 101 recommendations of Commission, 100-101, 282 Police conduct departmental regulation, 102-103, 115-1 16 effect on community, 102, 115 see also police corruption; police misconduct Police corruption, see police misconduct Police crime laboratories, see police laboratories Police fingerprint identification, 97, 255 Police, fragmentation o f urban, 121 Police functions community service duties, 97, 98 municipal planning boards, 98 recommendations of Commission on, 99 formulation of policy, 106 law enforcement, 91,92,93 policing demonstrations, 104-106, 118-1 19 reconsideration of, 97-98 riot control, 118 Police intervention, situations requiring illegal conduct, 91 matrimonial dispute, 92, 104 people needing help, 91 public nuisances, 91 threatening conduct, 91 Police investigation electronic surveillance, 94 field interrogation, 94-95,97 fingerprints, 97,255 intelligence units organization, 204 recommendations of Commission, 204 internal, 103,116 of complaints against police, 102103 personnel, 96, 97, 122 policy, 94, 106 Supreme Court decisions, 95 tracing stolen property, 97 Police-juvenile encounters departmental policy, 7&79,104 recommendations of Commission, 79 situations leading to, 78 tensions created, 79 Police laboratories facilities, 118. model, 121-122. needs, 122 recommendations of Commission, 122 technological devices, 256 Police law enforcement policy advantages of formulating, 103, 106 oommunity role in establishing, 94, lo6 failure to articulate, 103-104, 106 legislative ruling, 103-1 04, 106 on arrests, 106 on demonstrations, 106,118-1 19 on hearms, 119 on handling juveniles, 78-79, 104 police officer's role in establishing, 94, 104 recommendations of Commission, 95, 104, 119 Police legal advisers, 114, 204 Police misconduct extent, 115 investigation units, 103, 116, vrIr opportunities, 115 prevention, 115-1 16 reasons, 115 recommendations of Commission, 116 Police officer as arbiter of social values, 10 attitudes of toward juveniles, 79 law enforcement policy made, 10 personal discretion, 10, 106, 126 Police operations, see police procedures Police organization central control, 113-1 14 fragmentation, 117-1 18, 119 lines of command, 113, 117-1 18 need for improvement, 113 planning, 114, 119 public information services, 120 purchasing, 120 recommendations of Commission, 113, 114-115, 117 research, 114 staff, 114-1 15, 122 Police patrol analysis of operations, 252 deployment, 96,252 Police patrol-Continued duties, 95 effective use, 95, 117, 252 effectiveness, 95, 96, 97, 117 estimating effectiveness, 116-1 17, 25 7 foot, 117 motor, 117 statistical procedures for assignment, 252, 257 technological devices, 287 Police personnel civilian, 111-1 12 wmmunity service officer (CSO) , 68, 98, 108-109, 118, IX division of functions among, 109 educational standards, 107, 109110, rx effective use, 107, 117 evidence technicians, 118 legal adviser, 114, 204 physical standards, 109, 110-1 11 planning, 120 police agent, 108, rx police officer. 108. rx promotion, i02, 107, 111, 282 quality, 107 ratio to population, 96, 106 recommendations of Commission. recruitment, see police recruitment; police recruits retirement, 109 . shortage, 97, 107, 109, 110, rx teams, 118 training, see police training see also police organization, staff Police policy, formulation and execution o f , 105 Police procedures arrest, 106 court limitations, 93, 94 court review, 93-94 definition needed, 106 departmental guidelines, 103 failure to articulate policy, 103-104, lo6 field interrogation, 94-95, 97 fingerprint identification, 97, 255 "frisking", 94-95, 101, 103 in demonstrations, 104-106, 118119 in matrimonial disputes, 92, 104 in riot control, 118 in street gatherings, 104 interrogation of suspects, 94 see also police procedures, field interrogation investigative practices, see police investigation lack of guidelines, 92, 94 legal limitations, 93-94 recommendations of Commission, 118 special techniaues. . , 117 Supreme Court decisions, 92, 93, 94, 149 surveillance, 117 team policing, 118 use of dogs, 117 ' Police radio communications frequencies available on T V bands, 254 sharing, 254 shortage, 254 mobile radio equipment, 254-255 networks, 254 recommendations of Commission, 254-255, vr teletypes, 255 Police recruitment from minority grbups, 101-102, 107, 109 programs, 109 recommendations of Commission, 102, 109, 110, 111, 112 standards, 109, 110, rx , tracks, 280, 282 Police recruits educational standards, 107. 109110, rx physical standards, 109, 110-1 11 probation, 113 recommendations of Commission, 113 screening, 102, 109, 110, 113 training, 102, 112 Police response time correlation with ability to make arrests, 97, 248, 273-274 reduction, 250, vr resources correlated to, 249-250 Police role in community, 97, 98 limitations. 92 Police salaries Federal Bureau of Investigation scale, 111 recommendations of Commission, 111 tied to salaries of other municipal employees, 111 Police services coordination defined, 119 in field operations, 122 in investigations, 122 in juvenile work, 122 in vice operations, 122 need, 119-1 20 obstacles, 123 pooling defined, 119 methods, 119-1 20 obstacles, 123 recommendations of Commission, 122 Police standards implementation by State commissions, 123, rx recommendations of Commission, 123 State commissions, 123 see also police educational standards; police physical standards Police standards commissions, 123, 282, , IX Police training programs community relations, 102, 112 effect on handling of juveniles, 79 Police training programs-Continued for evidence technicians. 118 for recruits, 102, 112 inservice, 113 new programs, 285 recomrncndations of Commission, 102, 112, 113 Police weapons limited range, 256 nonlethal as replacement for gun, 257 as supplement to gun, 257 Population, average daily in corrections, 160 Postconviction procedures need for improvement, 139 recommendations of Commission, 140 Postrelease guidance centers, vrr Powell v. Alabama, 149 Prerelease guidance centers, 173, 177, 181 Presentence investigations in lower courts, 129 Presentence reports disclosure to defendant and counsel, 138, 144 in felony courts, 144 in misdemeanor courts, 144 recommendations of Commission, 144, 145 President John F. Kennedy, 27,239 President Lyndon B. Johnson, 2, 142, 188,197,284, xr .President's Ad Hoc Panel on Drug Abuse, 225 President's Advisory Commission on Narcotics and Drug Abuse, 2 11, 23 1 President's Commission on Crime in the District of Columbia, 18, 19, 27, 40, 42,45,58,235,281 President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice additional views of individual Commission members, 302-308 Advisers, 319-324 Commissioners, 309-3 11 Consultants, 3 13-3 19 methods, 2, 188, v operation, 3 11-3 12 report, 279, v secretarial and clerical staff, 325 supporting services, 325 surveys, 3, 20-21, 25, 31, 42, 43, 80, 116,159-160,197, v task, 1, 2, 24, 49, 188, 245, 279 President's Advisory Commission on Narcotic and Drug Abuse, 2 11, 23 1 President's Science Advisory Committee, 270 Pretrial detention facilities for juveniles, 20-21, 87, VlII recommendations of Commission, 2 1 Pretrial release recommendations of Commission, 133 stationhouse summons project, 132 Pretrial release-continued summons, 132-133 see also bail; defendant, release Prisoner Rehabilitation Act of 1965, 177 Prisoners, see offenders Prisons, see correctional institutions Probation defined, 164 recidivism, 45, 166 Probation agencies, 169-1 70 Probation officers aid from volunteers, 168 caseload, 11, 12, 144, 167 recommendations of Commission, 144,167,169,170 roles, 169 shortage, 167 supervisory duties, 165 Probation oficers, caseloads of, 167- 168 Probation services for felons, 166 for misdemeanants, 166 in lower courts, 129 in misdemeanor court, 144 inadequacies, 80 recommendations of Commission, 144,166,168 Professional crime activities, 46-47 employment system, 46 exploitation by loansharks, 46 fence, 46-47 fix, 46, 47 protection, 47 Programed learning in correctional institutions, 174, 175, 259-260 "Project Misdemeanant", 168 Property crimes arrest rates, 24 increase, 23, 26 losses, 19-20, 32-34 see also specific crimes Prosecution appeals effects of limitations, 140 limitations, 140 recommendations of Commission, 140 burden of proof, 126 discovery of defendant's evidence, 138 limitations, 125, 126 right of appeal, 140, 203 State coordination, 148 State supervision, 149 Prosecutor charge decisions alternatives, 133, 134, 142 discretion in making, 11, 126, 130, 133, 142, 147 lack of established procedures, 133 lack of standards, 133 lack of sufficient information, 133, 135 recommendations of Commission, 154 reduction of charge, 12, 135 discretion in bringing charges, 11, 126, 130, 133, 142, 147 Prosecutor-Continued exchange of information with defense counsel, 136 in lower court, 128 influence on sentence, 130, 135 influence over pretrial process of case, 11 private practice, '148 recommendations of Commission, 137, 148, IX role in law enforcement system, 147 role in plea negotiation, 11, 135 salary, 148, 152 selection, 148 State office, 148-149 Statewide council of, 149 tenure, 148 training, 148 Prosecutor's office, recommendations of Commission, 149, 204 Prostitution, organized crime participation, 189 Psychedelic drugs, see hallucinogens; LSD PTA, 52, 291 Public administration service, 286 Public defender, 150 see also defense counsel Public defender interviews client, 151 Public facilities victimization, 43 violence, 43 Pure Food and Drug Act, 48 . Racial discrimination, 6, 37-38, 99- 100, 101 Radzinowicz, 276 Rape acquaintance of victim and offender, 3,39,40 involving firearms, 19 R.D.T. & E. programs administration, 270-27 1 equipment developed, 270 Federal sponsorship, 270 field experimentation, 270 recommendations of Commission, 270 systems analysis studies, 270 Recommendations, table of, 293-302 Record, criminal, see criminal record Regression analysis, 257 Religious institutions, 6,68, 69, 290, xr Reporting system changes-UCR Index figures not comparable with prior years, 25 Research by criminal justice agencies, 114, 274, VI, x by independent sources, 275-276, x by schools and universities, 275 conclusions of Commission, x cost, 273, x defined, 274 influence on future surveys, 273 need, 273, x on criminal justice system, 287 on organized crime, x recommendations of Commission, 117, 275, 277, 287, x unexplored areas, 274 i Research institutes affiliation, with scientific corporations, 277 establishment, x Federal funding, 277 location, 276 programs, 271, 276 recommendations of Commission, 271, 276, x resources, 276 role, 288 self-regulation, 276 staff, 271 Resources associated with time delays in the apprehension process, 249 Response time and arrests, relation between, 248 Riots as attacks on slum conditions, 37-38 prevention, 38 repudiation of standards, 37 Watts, 37, 38 Robbery committed by drug addicts, 4 committed by juveniles, 4 defined, 18,19 forms, 1, 2 injuries inflicted, 18-19 involving firearms, 4, 18, 239 number of cases, 1, 2 of business establishments, 42 of organizations, 42 Robbery and burglary trends for Chicago and New York, 1935-66,26 Robbery rates in 1965-14 largest cities in order of size, 29 Robinson v. California, 221 Rockefeller University Hospital, 227 S Salerno, Sgt. Ralph, 192 San Quentin, 175 School accessibility to change, 69 as a public instrument, 69 attitudes toward, 69, 71 differences among, 69 educationally handicapped child, 69, 73 factors contributing to delinquency demands on child, 69 downward spiral of failure, 71 passivity, 69 slum behavior problems, response, 71- 72, 73 contact with community, 74 facilities, 69, 70, 72 grouping procedures, 70 instructional material, 70-71, 73- 74 new programs, 73 promotion, 71 rebellion of student, 7 1 recommendations of Commission, 73, 74 segregation, 70, 73 standards, 70 supplementary services, 74 teachers, 72-73 School-community advisory panels, 74 School failure correlation with juvenile delinquency, 71 correlation with unemployment, 74, 75 downward spiral, 71 Science and technology task force, see Task force on science and technology Scientific discovery failure to consider crime, 273 investment, 273 results, 273 Search warrant, 125 Seattle Police Department, 40 Secret Service, 204 Securities and Exchange Commission, 48 Senate Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency, 241 Sentences appellate review, 145-146 as a prediction, 141 judicial discretion, 11 mandatory minimums in drug offenses, 223 Sentencing alternatives, 142 disparity, 145 mandatory minimums, 142, 223 maximums, 142 objectives, 141 recommendations of Commission, 145, 146, 203 statistical data, 260 violations committed as part of organized crime, 203 Sentencing codes defects, 142 recommendations of Commission, 143 revision, 142 see also penal codes Sentencing councils, 145 Service purchase defined, 170 recommendation of Commission, 170 Shaw, Clifford, 36, 57, 59 S h e p p h d decision, 137 Silverman v. United States, 202 Simulation techniques, 258, 259, VII Slums as ghettos, 37 attitudes, 60, 69 crime as a reaction to conditions, 6, 35-37 crime rates, 35-37, 62 cycle of poverty, 76 example of successful professional criminal, 67 failure of social institutions, 59-60 families, 63, 76 see also family factors contributing to delinquency homes, 61-62 neighborhood as perceived by juveniles, 6 1 4 2 overcrowding, 62 recreation facilities, 62 religious institutions, 290 Slums-Continued schools, 76 see also school, slum violence, 62 Soldier, in organized crime, 193, 195 South End Center for Alcoholics and Unattached Persons in Boston, Mass., 236 Space General Corporation, 263 Special narcotic project of the New York State Division of Parole, 228 Special project on minimum standards for the administration of criminal justice of the American Bar Association, 136, 137, 139 St. Louis Police Department, 101, 114 Standard metropolitan statistical areas, 119 Stanford Research Institute, 45 State committees on criminal administration, 280, 285, XI State National Guard, 118, 119 State planning committees, 280,285 States in which organized crime members reside and operate, 192 Stationhouse summons project, 132 Stimulants illicit traffic, 2 17-2 18 medical use, 2 14 see also amphetamines Street workers, 67 Subcommittee on Improvements in Judicial Machinery of Senate Judiciary Committee, 147 Suffolk County, Long Island, N.Y., 123 Sullivan law of New York, 240 Summons, 132-133 Supreme Court decisions addiction: Robinson v. California, 221 defense counsel Gideon v. Wainwright, 149 Miranda v. Arizona, 149 Powell v. Alabama, 149 electronic surveillance People v. Berger, 203 Silverman v. United States, 202 firearms, 242 immunity of witness, 140 juvenile court procedures Cault v. United States, 8 6 Kent v. United States, 85 police investigation, 95 police procedures: Miranda v. Arizona, 94, 149 publicity Estes, 137 Sheppard, 137 search warrants: Gouled v. United States, 125, 126 segregation: Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 70 Survey research center, 21 Sutherland, Justice Edwin H., 48, 149 Synanon, 227 Systems analysis applications correctional system, 259 crime 'control, 249 criminal justice system, 160, 262, 263-264 Systems a n a l y s i d o n t i n u e d cost-effectiveness analysis by, 263 in R.D.T. & E. programs, 270 limitations, 262-263 Task force on science and technology insights, 247 results of research, 245-246, 270 study of police apprehension process, 273-274 task, 245 Technological devices budgetary limitations on introduction, 246 limited use in criminal justice system, 245, 287 police use in apprehension process, 250, 287 in communications center, 252 in crime laboratories, 256 Theft automobile arrest of juveniles for, 4, 260-261 as a misdemeanor, 20 as a professional crime, 4 causes, 261 cost, 4, 260 ignition unlocked, 261, VII inquiry systems, 268 losses, 4 minimum requirdments for d t vices to prevent, 26 1 number of cases, 4 prevention, 261, 289, VII solution, 4, 20 business increase, 29 losses, 32 tolerance, 29 employee, 32,43 forms, 4 increase, 30 inquiry systems, 268 losses, 4 professional, 46-47 shoplifting, 42-43 tolerance, 29-30 Tranquilizers abuse, 214 Federal law on, 216 Trial, function, 137 Trial publicity effect, 137 recommendations of Commission, 138 regulation, 137 Underboss, 193 Unemployment arrest record, 75, 77 correlation of with school failure,, 74, 75 delinquency record, 75 Unemployment rates of adolescents, 75 Uniform Crime Reporting Section of Federal Bureau of Investigation, 264 ' Uniform.Crime Reports (UCR) 1; 3;. 4, 5, 18, 19, 20, 25, 26, 27, 30, 32, 39, 42, 46, 55, 286, 287, x Uniform Narcotic Drug Act, 213, 214, 220, 224 U.S. Bureau of the Census, ,119, x U S . census of population;45 United States Code, 142 . U.S. Commissioner authority, 130 compensation, 130 number, 130 office recommendations of Commission, 130 reform, 130 training, 130 U.S. Congress, 220, 283 , U.S. Constitution,'lO U.S. Department.of Defen'se;239, 263, . 271, 2i3, x U.S. ~ e ~ a r t m e noft Health, Education, and Welfare, 55, 69, 76, 170, 269, 283, 285 U.S. Department of ~ustice,103, 137, 148, 196, 197, 202, 204, 236, 245, 261, 277, 283, 284, 285, 286, XI U.S. Department of Justice Criminal Division, 284 U.S..Department of Justice Organized Crime and Racketeering Section (OCR), 196-197, 204 U.S. Department 'of Labor, 71, 76, 77, 285, 290, x . U.S. Department of State, .239, 241 U.S. Department of the Treasury, 196, 197,213,214,230,239 U.S. District Court for the Eastern .. District of Michigan, 145 U S . District Court of Michigan, 130 U.S. Post Office Department, 48 U.S. Public Health Service, 52 U S . Public Health Service hospitals, . 225-226 U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, 130 . Universities . ' departments of criminal justice, 275 recommendations of Commission, 185 research on &me, 13 . . role in contemporary corrections, 183, 291 University of California, 175, 276 . ' ' ' , University of California at Berkeley, .. . 291 universib of California at Los Angeles, 37 University of Chicago, 20, 275. University of Michigan, 21, .52 University of Pennsylvania, 276 Upward bound, 74 ' .. W Warren, Chief Justice Earl, 70 Weber, Robert, 171 Wheeler, Stanton, 57 White-collar crime defined, 47 . see also business crime White House Conference on Narcotic and Drug Abuse, 21 1 . White, Justice Byron, 94 Wickersham Commission, 14, 27, 32, 93, 129, 149 Wilson, James Q., 79 ' " . Wilson, 0. W., 102 Wisconsin University Law ~chbol,152: . . . , . , Witness . . compensation, 157 .. ; . immunity . availability, 140, 200 ". ' coordination of grants, 200 ' danger, 140 need for provisions, 203 . recommendations of, Commission; 141, 201 Supreme Court decisions, 140 physical facilities, 157 prokction in organized crime cases, 187,203-204 recommendations of Coinmission, 141,157,204 , World Health Oqanization Expert . Committee on Addjction-Produc. ing Drugs, 212 .. . ' v Vandalism, 43 : Vera Institute of Justice, 131, 132, 236, 275, 276, 289 Victim, see crime victimization; victimization Victim compensation bills, 41 opinion of Commission, 41 . , programs, 41. . reasons, 41 Victim-offender relationships information needed, 38, 39, 40, 41 race, 40 residence, 40 study of, 38,39,40,41 see also specific crimes Victim-Oflender relationships by race and sex in assaultive crimes against the person (except homicide), 40' Victims and nonvictims, concern of about burglary or robbery, 51 Victims' most important reason for not notifying police, 22 Victimi:ation-by age and sex, 39 . . Victimization by income, 38 Victimization by race, 39 Victimization by sex and place of occurrence f o major ~ crimes (except homicide) against the person, 41 Victimization status. concern for security by, 51 Violent crimes acquaintance of victim and offender, 39-40 arrest rates, 24 increase, 23, 26 injuries inflicted, 19 likelihood, 19 losses, 32 statistics, 18 see also specific crime VISTA, 77 Vocational Rehabilitation. Administration, 198, 283 Vocational training in correctional institutions, 173, 174, 175, ficommendation of Commission, 175 , , ' , ' ' 8. .Y YMCA, 68,289 *I Youth groups activities, 66 models provided, 66 role in transition to adulthood, 66 violence, 67 Yottth in the Ghetto, 62 Youth Opportunity Centers, 76-77, 284,290 Youth Services Bureau, 68, 69, 82;83, 88, 89, 170, 280Jb282,VII, vm, x see also Community agencies for jyvenile delinquents U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1867 0 . . - 239-112 .