Advocates; Would we be safer from crime if we closed down most of our prisons?; 308

By all means be enthusiastic applaud respond and so on but let's try to keep it. Good evening ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the advocates.

The PBS fight of the week. Tonight's broadcast comes to you from St. Paul's Chapel on the campus of the University of Wisconsin in Madison. Tonight the advocates consider a proposal that provides the basis for a symposium on corrections currently being held here. The question is would we be safer from crime if we close down most of our prisons arguing in support of the proposal. Is advocate Howard Miller with him will be Jerome Miller director of Youth Services in Massachusetts a former convict. JOHN IRWIN And Kenneth fair a probation officer from San Diego. Advocate William Rusher will be opposing the proposal his witnesses will be James Park associate warden at San Quentin Miami Police Chief Bernard Gar Meyer and David Robinson professor of criminal law at George Washington University. This gentleman may I have your attention please.

Moderator Michael Dukakis has just called tonight's meeting to order. Good evening ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the advocates. We are particularly pleased this evening to be included as a part of a symposium on corrections which is being held here in St. Paul's Chapel at the University of Wisconsin. I should explain for the benefit of our home viewers that this conference of correction officers government officials educators and others has been assembled here in Madison for the purpose of discussing a wide range of issues relating to prisons and prisoner rehabilitation and in particular a central subject of that discussion will be a recent report of a citizens task force here in Wisconsin which has recommended the phasing out of most of Wisconsin's prisons and their replacement with a system of community based facilities. That's central recommendation is the basis of our question the seeking would we be safer from crime if we closed down most of our prisons. That's the question before us. Mr. MILLER The floor is yours. There is a man in the United States today who is dealt with crime the way everybody wants to deal with it. He has reduced crime among a known group

of offenders and he has saved money. How is he done it. Has he gotten tough and tougher still. No. His name is Jerome Miller and he's head of juvenile corrections for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and he's done it by literally closing the reform schools and establishing community based facilities for all offenders. A task force of the governor of Wisconsin has made a similar recommendation and so is the National Council on Crime in the Lincoln City. And those are the basis for our proposals tonight. First to place a moratorium on the construction of what we've known as prison facilities. Now of course as in Massachusetts a small number of offenders are clearly dangerous and they will still need the maximum confinement. But for most there will be controlled community based facilities in which they can be rehabilitated. The Massachusetts example is not unique. It's worked in Saginaw Michigan it's worked in the state of New Mexico. It's worked in the state of California for the last six years fewer and fewer people have been sent to prison. More and more rehabilitated in the community. Why after

all that seems to be against all common sense. If someone commits a crime you lock him up. But the important thing to remember is that 95 percent of all those in prison will one day be set for it. The only questions are where and for how long they are in prison. Will it be in isolation in an eight by eight by eight cell totally cut off from the community or will it be based in the kind of correctional facility that gives you hope for rehabilitation. That's the issue we ask tonight. What is the best environment for the known offender who is not clearly dangerous isolated in his prison or in a controlled community facility where he can be held to tell us why the controlled community facility gives us our best hope to fight crime. We have with us Jerome Millet was. It was when we have a different thing. Jerome Miller is commissioner of youth services for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Straw or what have you done in Massachusetts with reform schools. We have closed all of our large institutional complexes for juveniles in the state. We felt that they had been crime factories if you will over the years and they were basically unreformable that does not mean that one could not introduce good programs into them it meant that it was very difficult given these structures to sustain good programs and so that we've moved to community based treatment centers. What do you mean by community based treatment center. We mean group homes halfway houses residential settings in local neighborhoods preferably very small no more than six to eight youngsters in age. Now of course there always is a small group that you must have in maximum confinement that's correct and we have a maximum security unit in Boston for about 35 youngsters with a capacity for locked doors and security windows and all of that and there are. A number of youngsters who do need a close setting but I think one has to realize particularly with young juvenile offenders that virtually all of them will be on the street within a matter of a year or two no matter how you

cut it and it's a matter of having alternatives that will lead them to be more responsible citizens when they return to the street. So you work primarily for juveniles can we take the system that has succeeded so well under you and extended to all correctional facilities including adults. I think there's no question that much of it would apply to adults. It would certainly apply to the youthful offender category would you take us up into the early twenties which would account for most of the crime these days that tell us most people think this is against common sense a man has committed a crime he's a known offender. Our instinct first century has been to lock him up. Tell us why your approach to community based facility works better. Well it was our. Understanding of our own history of our own department and I think this is borne out nationally that these were crime schools and they made things much worse. You see again and again a young person coming to you on something like a status offense truancy runaway stubborn child at age 12 13 or 14 graduating from there into breaking and entering and into car theft and

into assault. And we feel that much of this is a function of the juvenile correctional system. Just recently in our own state a man involved in four tragic killings in the adult institution in going over his records we found that he came to us for stealing candy bars at age 12 and was kept within the juvenile correctional system until age 17 without having committed much either in terms of substantial crime he was present at a gang fight one time his parole was revoked. But the escalation of violence within that system the returning the running the putting in discipline cottage discipline college in those days. And this is not. Unusual in many states of the Union that there are quite cruel and unusual and difficult sorts of situations. All right Mr. Merrill Let's turn now to Mr. Rusher who's got some questions for you Mr. Rusher. Thank you Mr. Miller. What is your own personal experience been in the field of adult corrections. I was consulting with the Air Force and sure I sure I spent 10 years in the Air Force as an Air Force officer

worked with the Air Force correctional system both in this country and in Europe. I do research in command of the Air Force and you have in Massachusetts worked with juveniles juveniles. That's really nice. Are the two situations in fact similar enough in other words wherever we go wherever we turn we see that the juvenile offender is treated differently the very fact that you have the job that you have as commissioner of. Corrections suggests that there is a difference is Lee is it a mistake to deal with them differently. I think that characteristically reform in Corrections is entered through the juvenile door. It's less of a threat obviously to the general populace to trying new approaches with younger people. However such things as probation and parole entered originally as juvenile sorts of arrangements. And I'm hoping that many of the things we're learning with reference to the institutionalization process and the need not to have it for juveniles will be appropriate from any adult horses that quite obviously it is going to be though a somewhat different and harder thing

when you're dealing with people who have two or three convictions and have been in prison maybe repeatedly over against a juvenile who is perhaps not a first at the most a second offense there is a difference isn't there. There could be very very often you're speaking of alumni of the juvenile system and sometimes reaching out Oh absolutely when they when they get enough experience they graduate as the saying goes. You say as I understand it that your form of Corrections is less expensive actually. That's correct. At least in the case of the youthful offenders who are in your care but would it necessarily be less expensive in the case of older prisoners who have these two or three convictions. You're aware that the proposal we have tonight calls a rather sweeping lay for. Creating educational facilities a halfway house in which he lives in a sort of a guarded environment with others or a foster family group living arrangements. The purchase of rehabilitative services like residential care employment training educational alternative psychological support drug withdrawal I would assume in the case at least of the adults many times. How can you be so sure that you would be able to reduce

expenses in the case of adult offenders. Because most people who are institutionalized don't need institutionalization they need a broad spectrum of services and most of these services when made available in the community. Cheaper a foster home is cheaper purchase of care of all the educational result is cheaper. Certainly the psychiatric or medical care the drug withdrawal treatments and so on are like at the expense of other No not necessarily. Not as you familiar with Judge Francis Porter the student liberi of Boston very he is I believe presiding judge of the juvenile court of Boston juvenile court is hearing. It's a fact and I must allude to this being forgive me that in the Boston Herald traveler on the MBR eleventh he is reported as having said that your policies are making a mockery of the Juvenile Justice Program of the masses. That's correct. I judge Poythress. Judge Trast doesn't need my programs to meet able to make a mockery of the juvenile justice system are at. Apparently however he needed your programs in order to send to the state prisons

five times as many juveniles were sent before you listen to that your reform. Yes that's correct and I think that is all right let's just understand that five times as many juveniles are now going to the state prisons of Massachusetts as they had before you were against it and it was the total is 21 this year 21. But. None. Of. Them are fine. They did not go to two adult prisons they were bound over to adult court. Of those two or three went to adult prisons and I think that's more just what we draft broadcast said that there was no adequate protection of the public under your present system he was wrong I take it in your guess he's going to go and say well I'm sorry I have to break in I'm sorry Mr Rush right sorry at that point Commissioner thanks very much for coming to America. It was a point is not that your own Mellor has critics simply that he succeeded. But let's move on to the failed. Let's move on to the field of adult corrections and let me call as my next witness. Dr John R. What

will be absolutely. John R1 spent five years in Soledad prison in California for committing the crime of armed robbery. Today he is professor of sociology at California State University at San Francisco. Sir when what does prison do to a prisoner the kind of prison you are in it so that if we were to sit down today and trying to plan a system which would increase the chances that a person would return to crime when he was released from prison we couldn't do better than the present systems of incarceration across the country. This happens because in the first place when he is sentenced he's treated very unfairly. This in bidder's him when he gets to prison. He's isolated for a long period of time a process a very complicated process but the result is that he's rendered into a social cripple. And then he's released untrained with no resources no concrete help. It's no wonder that a high percent in the present state of affairs return to crime upon release.

Now when you were sent to Soledad Soledad was a model prison wasn't it. The latest in reform and yet the same things occurred. Yes yes. So tell me is that is there any danger in letting out into these controlled community based facilities a vast majority of people in prisons. The surprising fact is that the increased danger to society by releasing persons from prison even if we open up the gates and let everyone out would be negligible. This is just several reasons for this. One is that the number of lawbreakers in the society running loose the potential lawbreakers is very very large relative to the number of persons we have in our grasp incarcerated. Secondly the fact remains that unless we are in willing to engage in some bizarre extensive capital punishment system or hold everyone we catch forever we have to let almost everyone loose. So what we have to find the optimum time to let them win. And what is the evidence does the longer sentence help prevent crime. That's that seems to be true that there is some good strong evidence that a lot of good theory

that this is true that the longer you hold a person the more likely it is that he will return to crime at least during his his his his period in his life during a high crime period but don't prisoners the terrors of the threat of that imprisonment of the tyrants the future crime we're led to believe by some again some evidence and then a lot of theory that in fact punishment not necessarily imprisonment punishment does deter. But there is also some evidence that is the certainty of punishment and the swiftness of a delivery that teeters not the intensity of punishment. Even when prison sentences are lengthened when capital punishment is in dues to replace a life imprisonment there seems to be no effect on the crime rate. So this suggests that we can get by with over that with much shorter sentences delivered to fewer people and still that the deterrence value would stay the same at least we could increase it to eternal value by increasing the certainty of punishment. To do this we would have to look around and find a lot of offenders who were not getting caught up in the criminal justice not the current gen I'm sorry.

Thank you go to Mr. Rusher some of our witnesses of the Times felt they wanted to incarcerate Mr. Rusher after his brush examination Dr. A Let's see how we dealt with you. I was sent to a halfway house here and there. Mr. One could only present however humane satisfy you as to the AS as a correctional facility. Certainly it could. Third all we're arguing about is whether or not a prison is sufficiently humane. Not about whether or not they serve a purpose whatsoever. From my perspective this is not the issue my perspective that I am operating from. Fairness is a much more important I agree that I understood you to say or at least as a Mr. Miller to say that we should do away with prison. Now you are telling me that there are prisons or at least could be prisons and I agree with you many of them need reform that could serve a correctional purpose. Oh I heard Howard Miller's opening statement to say that in fact we probably will end up with something like the maximum kind of confinement for some small segment of the persons I want to come to that and I ask you which types there would be more than just the the clear homicidal maniacs let's say nobody's going to let them out I

presume. But what in addition to that they would certainly you'd have to have some special kind of treatment probably including a certain amount of confinement for a number of drug addicts would you not the Wisconsin proposal provides for that as I understand. I guess the question we were dealing with here is what kind of confinement. Right and then what kind of confinement would you provide for people before they're charged with capital crimes before they're convicted. We don't presumably release them on their own regardless and so they're going to have to be put somewhere until they can at least be psychiatrically tested right. Agreed. And then again there's going to be a certain number of people who just won't be rehabilitated under your system under any circumstances is that right. The fact remains that we still don't know what you know what rehabilitated means the fact remains we're still there to release a certain number of people who will be and we can't we can't determine this I think perhaps all of the lawyers. It seems to me though that even on your own admission they're going to be quite a number of people in various categories who under the non prison system would still be in prison. So I think that's a first date. There's not a very reduced number.

Tell me let's take one particular category that interests me and that is the category of white collar crime isn't prison or the threat of prison a clear deterrent and probably the only or certainly the most effective deterrent for the tax dodge or the or someone like that. Is a matter of fact that the there is practically no deterrence value because this is the one category of criminal that never gets threat not easy vegetating earth. I'm about to give you some examples Mr one. Let's try first of all I don't know I think it's fair to call it a white collar prison or Jimmy Hoffa who was put in for jury tampering. What would you do take him out and put him in a foster home. This. Little. This is not what we usually mean by white collar criminal misuse misuse or not what would you do with Jimmy Hoffa. I would recommend to Jimmy Hoffa given a short sentence and release in other words he goes to jail anyway. Right. Certainly. Well then what happens to Mr. Howard Lederer proposal for not having in Lester Dean clearly dangerous.

I didn't hear that I think that we're we're we're we're we're getting that in fact there is going to be some people under confinement were suggesting that the numbers be reduced drastically in the in the way that the way it's determined that they end up there be much fair. Suppose these Watergate defendants are convicted would you favor jail sentences for them. I certainly would. So the. I gather that a stronger one this isn't a double standard of some kind as we know made a distinction between our time trying to return to a single standard. If we're going to have a system which incarcerates list incarcerate all the senses and then let's offer some other alternatives as we release them back in the point of fact you have already conceded that many people are going to have to remain in prisons and others who don't happen to fit into one or another type of crime that you particularly empathise with are going to go to prison under yours I don't think that's been disputed from the beginning in the argument I think I don't know what I shall do I think they're going to do it again. Well we're going to bring on another witness starter one thank you very much for being with us. I've.

Learned. First we have to remember that not only JOHN IRWIN but another man who thought James Hopper should not be in prison was Richard Nixon. And as far as the Watergate defendants I think man who invade the privacy of Americans are clearly dangerous to all of us. Now. Let's hear. Let's hear how this proposal can work for Mr. Cann fair. Of. All. We have. Like to have you with us Ken ferry's the chief probation officer of San Diego County California. Mr. Fair tell us about the probation subsidy program in California how does it weigh. California is recognized for some time that merely locking people in prisons are putting them in human warehouses is not the answer to crime but rather that perhaps 25 percent at the outset of the proposal it was estimated that could be dealt with more effectively in the community without proposing a menace to the community for all these people who otherwise would have gone to jail under ordinary

circumstances. Yes they are. So their logic the legislature 965 developed a program in conjunction with was a partnership program between the state of California and the counties to develop a more effective or a improve service in lieu of sending these people. Centrally what it is is to provide services that were previously not available. Placing people under intensive supervision. Developing a classification system because prior to that people were all processed the same regardless of the problems develop ancillary services that were not not available in other words. Providing services that had some meaning to the individual rather than merely saying that we're going to process you all of the same Gellatly employment and cetera and let me ask you a question only just for you as a question I'm sorry to interrupt again but could you tell us when you say ancillary services what kinds of things briefly are you providing into this program. Psychological counseling employment counseling

employment placement the use of volunteers the use of paraprofessionals they all enter into a team approach to make the whole system and the whole project more meaningful. Right now there are those kind of ancillary services with the person based in the community is that supportive and helping them to develop and be rehabilitated. Yes we found that it has been initially when the program started out and 1966 was the first year of operation. We reduced the number of commitments to state institutions by fourteen hundred. Now let me ask you also about cost there is projected over the next 10 years in this country about two billion dollars in additional prison construction facilities as this probation subsidy program in California save the state any money or it costs money for the first five years it has saved the state of California the net amount of one hundred twenty six million dollars. How is it that. It is done that by not constructing prisons that were designed for construction. We've closed prisons we've closed adult prisons we

closed units of the institutions and we're not building new institutions or new prisons at the present time. And is there any increase in the crime rate is there more crime because these people who otherwise would have been sent to prison are now briefing their community days there's already a brief answer. Our experience has been it has not resulted in a greater increase in crime. Thank you. Writer and director you're on fire. You are familiar I presume with Milton Bergman the deputy director of corrections in the state of California and he is actually in charge of parole and aftercare for corrections the part or not that's a crime. Well he said this year at the Institute for Criminal Justice at Harvard Law School and I'm quoting him verbatim there is no evidence so far that community based probation programs are any more effective than conventional methods. Will you care. Yes I would. We've found that it's equally as effective as anything else that has existed. This is each program has its

strengths and its weaknesses and perhaps this is one of the weakness of our program that we have not involved ourselves in research. This is a new phase of the program that has just been instituted. You are in the process of collecting data so we can make the study to determine the effectiveness. I don't believe to the contrary that there is ever any evidence that shows that it is not as effective as anything that's existed. Do you agree with the position presented by Mr Irwin and a few moments ago that the defendants like the Watergate defendants and Bobby Baker and Jimmy Hoffa are so clearly dangerous that they should go to jail. And if they should who shouldn't be. Robert. Well I might answer that by saying that I don't think the Charles Mansons should be down whereas I agree with you on that group that you but I do know it's an interesting category we've got here. They the white collar types are to go to jail. But then I would gather that what might be called a routine Rob crimes a violent robbery and things like that would tend to be out in the kind of

programs that you have there. Well I think that it's difficult to say precisely which ones and I think we have to be impossible. It may be. I think we have to become more proficient in predicting behavior and I think this is an effort in the direction that we're headed at the present time doesn't excuse me doesn't humanity though demand in a broad way justice in certain types of crimes instead of simply rehabilitation I have in mind things like for example a man who rapes and killed 10 year old child. And this happened just recently in New York City. Is it progressive or forward looking to ignore the human and social demand for justice as well as rehabilitation in this case. No I should not be ignored although he is perfectly capable is quite possible of rehabilitation. Which should not be ignored it should not be ignored so here we have yet another category the breakthrough Mr Howard Miller's proposal we have jailed people in in the cases where humanity itself requires some kind of activity of justice as well as the procedures that you mention. What would you do with a nonviolent felon say a forger who insists on violating the terms of his

probation. He isn't clearly dangerous but he just likes to go across town after curfew time. What would you do. It's difficult to respond on a hypothetical case such as that and while I still do a call about that I've why I think you need to know the circumstances. Maybe he has a girlfriend across town it is like the visitor after the curfew. Well I don't think that any violation of any conditions of parole and court orders and so should so forth should be ignored. They should all have to do what you do about why I think that they should be evaluated and return to the court as an appropriate proposal may decide or else what. Well I think one of the things that you that you have to do is to be is to develop alternatives to the city to the prisons you have to develop a broad spectrum of programs I use the hypothesis but my point was what do you do with a man who just doesn't respond to your rehabilitative. If he is a menace to the community then I think of this man as he does our forger and I think you're

going to have to show that he is a menace to the colony and otherwise he can violate your procedures with impunity. No I said that they should not be permitted to violate how to prevent. Well I suppose if if no other way that you could lock them up. So here we go back to prison again. Oh no. Six separate categories have been mentioned by the three of you gentlemen as having to remain in prison to this reform. I didn't say prison. I said a period of confinement. I think there's a difference between fighting with mind locking in a closet. You know. I think alternatives to prisons can be developed I think we do have to confine people I don't think there's any question about pathway not I just thought there was a debate on this but I think there's that there's a difference between institutions prisons today as they are and their size although you understand that we are not advocating prisons as they are today that they recommended amount that needs to be done with prison for I think for the I think is a group of those that need to be locked should be locked up in smaller institutions with better

design programs in those institutions and we've ever had that long and I'm afraid I have to let out this dialogue thanks very much for the fair for being with us. Ah. Ha. I understand why Mr. Rusher wants to talk about Jimmy Hoffa and Bobby Baker and white collar crimes you know it's been one of the tragedies in this country in terms of the protection that those haven't been the people of the law is prosecuted by and large their quarter of a million people in prison. And now to say they should stay there because of white collar criminals have never gone there is the kind of ultimate insult to them. You know William James once said that it's a tragedy when theories run up against the fact. And of course we've always thought that what you do with known offenders is you lock them up. But we know from Jerry Miller we know from what John Erwin has told us about prison. We know from Ken Fair's experience that the best way to deal with most is to control community based facilities that may be against our suppositions. But if we're really interested in dealing with crime and not only with our fears but with the

reality. That's what we should do. I was. We're going to go with Now we reached the midway point in our program and it's going to be Mr. Rush's turn for those of you at home have joined us late. Mr. Miller and his witnesses have been arguing in favor of closing down most of the nation's prisons. Now let's turn to Mr. Rusher who takes a decidedly opposite view. Glad you told the people at home that's what they were arguing because otherwise they might have guessed it. Here we are. Here we are in one of America's most progressive states yet it's correctional system even as it exists today does not satisfy Mr. Miller. He proposes first an immediate nationwide moratorium on all prison construction despite a crime rate that has increased by 150 percent in the last 12 years. Second he proposes the phased shut down of most prisons currently in operation in America and the release of the prisoners in them to the so-called community rehabilitation programs. Thirdly he proposes the development of a whole new

system of corrections based on supervision in institutions which will be called schools or hospitals or halfway houses all under the control of a necessarily expanded bureaucracy of probation officers paid by you know who. This is simply another ripple in the great wave of permissiveness that has engulfed America in recent years. It has nothing to it has nothing whatever to do with prison reform which I hope that all sensible men favor and which we the side of the advocates program tonight certainly do. It will however free thousands of men convicted of violent assaultive crimes to commit fresh and greater crimes that will entail a vast new bureaucracy to watch over these freed prisoners and monitor them. It will end any effective deterrence of white collar criminals for whom prison is the only real inconvenience anyway. Perhaps worst of all and I ask you to think about this it will replace the straightforward punishment of crime with a sort of brainwashing by what someone has called the therapeutic state. A sort of

big brother who arbitrarily defines every criminal as sick and thus naturally wants to treat him in a hospital or under outbreak of patient conditions until he gets well. To look at this matter from the standpoint of a modern corrections officer. I call them Mr. James Park. Again. Mr Park is trained as a clinical psychologist and is currently associate warden of San Quentin Prison in California. Mr. Park is California's a prison population notably lower than other states as a result of these progressive measures like yes it has been declining at the sametime county jail population has increased then going up and going up. So what actually you had more of a shift than an actual absolute decline. What would happen if the entire population. Almost the entire population of California's prisons and county jails were released over a period of time to community based rehabilitation facility.

You know I think. Well the most immediate effects would be number one a considerable increase in expenditures it's simply more expensive to run small facilities. It's more expensive to run 50 halfway houses than a centralized facility. Secondly you will see for your extra money you'll see no change in rehabilitation. Rehabilitation is a more complex thing than the proponents of abolishing prisons realize. The final thing you will have a significant increase in crime. There are many people including many offenders who require the deterrent value of incarceration and restraint. Now tell us when if ever on that last point is punishment by incarceration justified in and of itself. Well I think there are some people who respond to nothing else. I think members of outlaw motorcycle gangs the Hell's Angels We've had experience with them. That they are not changed one whit in their lifestyle that they may go out of prison a little more cautious a little more careful of other people's rights. The second point is a category of mention of white

collar criminals the Jimmy Hoffa's the Bobby Baker's Silverthorne a bank president. To me as a white collar person it's a great beater and I don't I don't know the terms anybody else or not but it does deter me. Finally. Finally there is that category of people that the public demands be locked up. Many murderers could be safely treated in the community I believe wife killers for example. Yet the community will not stand for this. Many child molesters are very passive people can be treated in the community but the community will not stand for this. One last question sir if there is none the less. Per Mr. Miller's original suggestion tonight an immediate moratorium on building prisons and jails. What will the result be. We will immediately sentence thousands upon thousands of prisoners to continue to be housed in inadequate actually subhuman and inhumane conditions. Actually we need more prisons and quickly and in the name of humanity.

We need to replace anatomy in place and facilities now for the question all right Mr. Park is throwing us in this park is wearing a bright blue sure whether that makes him a color or a blue collar person. I was tempted to ask you Mr. Park if there were no imprisonment for murder would you also kill your wife. Well I don't know that I would I would take the Fifth on that. OK. I think it'll. I certainly hope she's not watching this brother she will tell you yes yes. Well I point out I point out of the absolutely no penalty I think you'd have more wise more but of course we are you know that we're not turning everyone loose We are taking dangerous people murderers will remain in prison we know that I mean that is a kind of misrepresentation of what we're talking about people who are not dangerous now that so the average white killer is not a dangerous person in prison and he practically never kills a second wife is a very rare occurrence. Here. You're right as rain. He really gets a chance to marry one. Well let me point is that you know they serve the shortest time they serve some nine years as opposed to the average for murder in California about 12 years.

Let me read something to you Mr. Park. Let me read the following things here. We conclude that the present system is antiquated and inefficient. It does not reform the criminal. It fails to protect society. There is reason to believe that it and it is American prisons contributes to the increase of crime by hardening the prisoner but he thinks that. Probably I did not know what Alan's Allaah. Ah UT now the man who said that was the noted apostle of permissiveness former attorney general John Mitchell. Now in. An hour I will not subscribe to what politicians have heard many politicians say many things about prison reform. But their number one very superficial with respect to the attorney general former attorney general. And secondly they don't understand the nature of the problem. I'm glad you mentioned about the attorney general being superficial because it was a quote. Also he was quoting from the Wickersham report.

The most thorough investigation of American prisons made 40 or 50 years ago exactly the same views. Now let me ask you about St. Quentin. Do you think sent your deputy warden to say what you think San Quentin's a good place should stay in existence should we keep sending people there. No I think it should be replaced as we have proposed with a more modern way of handling the kind of dangerous people we have a standpoint what's wrong with it. It's too big. Number one it is however ideally located I'll point out next to water yes. It's next. It's next to a large urban center. It's ideal for work for all kind of program it's ideal for many programs we acquiring the community intervention or phasing it out or phasing it out because you have the choice of phasing it out or spending money to rebuild it which is money down the drain. What kind of changes are you going to make what kind of prison are you going to build. Well proposal is a maximum security prison because with the probation subsidy program this is the kind of person that we have. We're left with is not because I want to take the thrust of my questioning as your deputy warden of San Quentin.

It's being phased out I'd like to know why. Why has it failed. Why do you want to build something else what I don't say I don't say that has failed. It is over the years one hundred twenty years it's been in existence it has protected the society against literally hundreds of thousands of predatory people. How do you know it is true and now it is true it is true that there have been people in San Quentin unnecessarily confined. I think probation subsidy is tended to take care of this to a certain extent I think the point is I think that the authors of a proposal to phase out and abolish prisons are much too optimistic I think in fact California has probably bottomed out. We've lost 9000 in our prison population the last four years I don't think we can go any lower without significant but I guess it don't want to face the question of why the prison of which you're the deputy warden is being despite having protected people from hundreds of thousands of predatory acts and being in an ideal location. Nevertheless it's being phased that you are going to have to be very sure to answer while simply because of a change in the nature of the prisoners we have a more violent group a more greater

saturates you need more security than you have in saying that's right we proposed to have more security at like ours like that great successful also. No no general outing it's getting very parochial and very California in line with California is not parochial. Thank you very much Mr. Park thanks very much for being with us. Thank you. The. Rumor I get of the benefit of our lives was that Folsom is another California prison and that's a maximum security prison and her band director. Now let us consider the matter from a rather more theoretical standpoint I call upon Professor David Robinson of the. Eleventh. Fessor Robinson is professor of criminal law and procedure at George Washington University in Washington DC. Father Robinson in broad general terms what is the purpose of a prison or a prison sentence. It has four major purposes Mr. Rusher. One to separate the offender from the general society and secondly to deter others from committing criminal

offenses. Thirdly Reformation. And fourthly to assure the public that justice is being done and to there is no need for private vengeance or retribution. So just to underline this point in no less than four reasons rather than merely rehabilitation or reformation as you call it which is just one of the four. That's correct it's a multi multi purpose institution. What would be the effect of Mr. Miller's original proposal tonight on these purposes that are served by today's prison. Yes I think it would have a disastrous effect with respect to three of them in a substantially adverse effect with respect to the force with respect to general deterrence. It seems to me fairly apparent that if I know that if I rob you for example that even if I'm caught I cannot be sent to prison. Then it is more likely that I will rob you with respect to separation from the general society the reaction of communities where these local facilities have been proposed

suggests that they're very disturbed about the idea of convicts being moved in next door with respect to Reformation. There is substantial success statistical evidence that comparable results have been received in probation programs and in prison programs. But this is with the present situation of prison being and all the alternative of probation does not succeed so I would expect if that were not a realistic alternative that would also be adversely affected and of course the public would lose what confidence they may still have that justice is being done beyond these four effects on the central purposes of Prisons in a society. Is there any other particular danger that you see from tonight's proposal. From a theoretical standpoint I think we are devoted in general to the proposition that crime is followed by punishment which should be proportionate to the offense in terms of duration and in terms of objectives. As a matter of principle

though I understand it's not the specific proposal tonight into a matter of principle. The therapeutic alternative is not limited with respect to duration and is not limited with respect to objectives except as a therapist made arrests all the while in general I'm sorry I'm sorry I don't understand the professor. Why isn't it perfectly possible to sentence somebody under the proposal being supported by Mr. Miller to a fixed period of time but to treat him during that period of time in a community based facility I don't know why those two goals aren't perfectly consistent. That's not it. Yeah I think it is possible. The point I'm trying to make is that the model of the therapeutic effort is the mental hospital and the mental hospital is in general designed to treat until cured now in view of our rather poor abilities to mold people they're not plastic they're largely set in their ways by the time the systems get a hold of them. In view of that I say as a matter of principle the period of time is not limited.

Well I'm not sure I I'm not sure I comprehend it and I'm sorry Mr I have to turn it in or perhaps we can explore this a bit with some other things also. Let me take one one phrase that you used Mr. Robinson you said there's evidence that under the existing system there is as little repetition of crime with those who go on probation as with those who go to prison. But you said that if we send fewer to prison you might have a different result. Is that that's a correct reasoning correct. Now how do you know that in fact in California you could have made that statement five years ago now fewer and fewer people are being sent to prison in there still the same recidivism repetition among the probationers. Well California crime rates have increased very substantially as you know in recent years. Now in turn no no no let's talk about let's talk about the difference between the crime committed by those on probation and those committed in prison. That's the only relevant comparison not the generalized terror that Mr. referee likes to talk about because that's all we're talking about those two groups. In fact there is no difference in the rate of repetition between those on probation in the sense of why I don't live in California but I did talk yesterday with the executive director of the California parole board who indicated with increased parole in

California the rate of new violations by parolees has instead increased substantially. Well I don't know you talk to but we have a report of the California Department of Correction dated July 1972 which indicates it's about the same rate of repetition. Now let me ask you about Jerome Miller's. He did what you're saying shouldn't be done. He had lots of kids and he put him out of community facilities and kept 35 who were clearly dangerous. There's no increase in the crime that the ones in the community based facilities are committing. You think that's the kind of thing we ought to do elsewhere what's wrong with what Jerry Miller has done. The number of people as was pointed out by a previous witness the number of people in institutions are an exceedingly small percentage of the whole population less than one half of 1 percent of the United States population is presently in prison. Now whatever we do with them is not going to affect the crime rate dramatically increase rehabilitation will not help me here our animal matter just what I want to record here. Whatever we do with them is not going to increase the crime rate dramatically if we put them in the community if we kept them in prison it wouldn't increase the crime rate that's correct but what about the attitudes of other people

will affect the crime rate dramatics focusing on Jerry Miller step was what he did wrong. Would you reverse it if you could. Yes why I would I would reverse it because I think the general level of crime in it will take a period of time but I think the general level of crime by the ninety nine and a half percent of the population which is not presently in prison will increase if the threat of prison is removed. Just about we don't have any evidence of that do you think it will. We don't have any evidence of that at all. I have some evidence what is your at. Well evidence and I have a rather dramatic personal evidence I happen to be on the streets of Washington DC during the riots of the spring of 1968 in the police at that time were known to have been instructed not to arrest anybody and it was a free for all with people who ordinarily did not commit crimes who were looting stores and burning buildings and it was really. If that's the right use I'll never be as them. I get out of the water a lot Miss telling us what's based on that observation without any scientific model without anything to compare it to without any base that you

are going to keep 150000 men and resent is that what you're telling us. Well there have been there but there have been a few studies. If you hadn't had water in those people would be out there where there have been a few studies. But the interesting thing to me Mr. Miller is that this proposal is put forth for a very revolutionary change without studies because the work that has been done has been only on repeat offenses rate and not on general deterrence and I have evidence computer evidence that is general deterrence is far more important for the crime rate of our league I'm sorry I have to interrupt you. It's arms no I can't let you out of the blanket. As I was when I was in my for the. It was because of the rush of. Personal pleasure for me to call now and finally upon a man who has once before testified on the program I was on the Advocate's police chief Bernard Gar Mar of Miami Florida. At her. Chief garment was previously the police chief of Eau Claire Wisconsin and then subsequently of Tucson

Arizona before going to Miami. What would be the effect of tonight's proposal and by that I am forced to mean more or less the proposal to close down most prisons rather than to keep open selected ones for Jimmy Hoffa and so on that that came up as exceptions. What'll be the effect of tonight's proposal to close down most prisons on the police forces of our major cities. But today there is a critical shortage of police in America. Crime has been ratio rising steadily for the last many years. I believe the proposal tonight in my opinion at least would put a control Mendis burden on an already overburdened police community that does then include I or it imply that you would assume that there would be very considerable repeater crime among these people let out of the prisons and I want to ask you why you assume they would necessarily backslide if put into these rehabilitation programs. I think experience shows that a structure. Today except for capital offenses it's a very rare occasion when a first offender is

sentenced to prison incarcerated in any way. It's an unusual situation in many areas of this country for a second offender to be sent to work or to prison or incarcerated generally on the third fourth or fifth offense this person is incarcerated. Under the proposal they're submitted and propounded here to night even the third fourth or fifth offender would be released. I submit that this person sooner or later must be sent to prison and then released conditionally. And during that conditional release program consider the halfway house treaty. Let me see if I understand then the sequence you proposed whereas Mr. Miller's proposal of the early ones and so on is in effect a proposal for all carrot and no stick. And what might be called a hardhat approach would be perhaps all stick and no carrot. You're suggesting a combination of carrot and stick but the carrot in the terms of the rehabilitation procedure to follow a prison term. Would you spell that out just a little bit what would be in your mind the ideal

type of correct focus in my opinion. Every person who is convicted of a crime a felony should be sent to prison for a determined period of time. Of course depending upon the serious and BSM seriousness of the offense and change guard take a felony would be a fairly serious offense a felony is considered to be a very serious offense yes or there are two types of misdemeanors and felonies felonies. Much more serious. I would submit that these people should on first offense be sent away for a determined period of time and then released conditionally and part of the conditional release would include the halfway house treatment concept. I think we must remember one thing that's less than 25 percent of crime is cleared by arrest much less much fewer people are actually convicted than are arrested. Consequently we have a situation on our hands that we've got to sooner or later develop a deterrence.

In my opinion prison is it good to turn a swift and assured us with like our chief Let's turn to Mr Howard Miller. Going to ask a question to the Art Ross examination. Nice to have you with us again. Tell me in connection with the growing national trend we checked in the city of Miami and we found that the probation rate of victim felons has gone up in the last three years. One hundred sixty nine forty nine percent of convicted felons went on probation and in 19 72 72 percent went on probation I suppose that means that the crime rate has gone up in the city of Miami as well. It has Well not according to the Florida probation and the. Florida probation parole commission it reports that the crime rate per 100000 in fact is lower in 1972. That must be because of the good job you're doing don't think it. Was. The crime rate in 1970 and Miami was the highest in the nation according to the FBI statistics gasoline less than 71. It held its

own. We have a move able to make some inroads during 1972. I will check back with the commission. Test your recollection against their figures were generally does that mean trips I mean your crime rate has gone down in 1972 so far this year it's down. Yes yes despite these increased probation. We are making considerably more rest assured now but we have to know what figures we're comparing the probation rate is higher than it's ever been. The crime rate is lower. That's what we're treating more people so those are consequently the relation rate absolutely will go up. Well let me ask you about your view that any convicted felon should be sent to prison. I want to make sure you mean that anyone who convicts a felon first felony should be sent to prison in my opinion yes or so and a felony of course is anything that the shoplifter commits a felony he has to be of serious proportions before it's considered a felony you know a felony in most states is anything the sentence of which is more than one year in prison is a felony.

No the proportion of the crime. The theft must be of certain values before it's considered. So let's say you take a person who steals an automobile let's pick a figure worth two thousand dollars first crime no previous record good family. Technically he committed the felony automatically to jail. Yes I do believe sanctuary to a practice now what prison are you going to send them to would you send them to San Quentin. I don't believe that any prison that I know of today is adequately doing the job so there's no use in the present it's not one that exists. Not sure. The 2000 and. Why wouldn't you send them to the prisons that exist because I believe we need considerable reform so far as our prison what's more with the prisons that exist they are not adequately treating the person whining. What do I do I am not a correction officer and I really don't know why they're not doing oh no no just a minute you're here opposing this proposal which is a corrections proposal. So and you're saying there's something wrong with prison and you wouldn't send people to the existing prison in your opinion and

what is wrong with the existing prisons that you wouldn't send people. They are not adequately treating the people who are something. What more should they do. The big point what more should they do. I think these people are entitled to a complete analysis upon reception. I believe that each of them has some idiosyncrasy that should be treated. I believe that they should be given all sorts of the best type of treatment possible toward rehabilitating them. And now in today's world this first offender now has never committed another crime between sending him to prison or sending him to a halfway house which would you know the prisons that exist. Mr. Miller I have I said the moment of goal that's less than 20 percent or approximately 20 percent of the crime in this nation is has cleared and I am arrested in Miami at 17 nations percent in our area I would say it's approximately the same 20 to 22 percent of all crimes committed. A report reported to the police not committed are cleared by arrest but don't usually stanchly fewer ministers are implicated.

But what I want to ask you focusing on a question of prisons that we're talking about don't you think that the threat of being sent to today's prison if your rule were set up you announce the chief of police announces all offenders automatically go to today's prison wouldn't that threat the terp people from committing crimes very short in Tripoli I would think so yes why not send them things. I would like to know you write that you would send him to today's prisons at all. That's where we got the talent. Thank you thank you very much for being with us for. Especially when you present your closing argument leave scars the last remarks makes precisely the point with which I want to open my concluding remarks don't confuse tonight's issue with prison reform. Prisons will never be popular. At least I assume they will never be popular but they can be humane within reason I think. And we all things are things they should be. Tonight's proposal has quite a different origin at bottom. It is yet another aspect of the state as big brother. If you commit what the state regards as a crime you will not under

tonight's proposal have the right to serve your sentence and start afresh. Oh no you are sick and big brother must make you well. Of course this will cost the taxpayers more money. It will also result in fresh crimes by convicts who refuse rehabilitation. It will in the last effective sanction against white collar crime. It will further blur the distinction between criminal and non criminal behavior which will please our modern anti moralists as Mr Bridge has already discovered in the Soviet Union when you send somebody to a psychiatric hospital you can effectively conceive your real attitude toward it. Beyond that I suggest that tonight's proposal perpetuates the classic error of concentrating our attention and resources on the criminal rather than equally on his victims. Isn't it time that we call the crime a crime and punished it swiftly yet humanely. Isn't it time that we heard if at all on the side of the great majority of Americans ninety nine and a half percent who don't commit crimes and go to prison crime cannot be stopped altogether. But much of it can certainly be deterred by the knowledge that swift and humane punishment awaits the criminal that is much the safest course for the rest of

us and in the long run it is the soundest for the criminal himself. I urge you most respectfully to vote no. In the US of. A yet. A. I guess all we can say is great God Haven't we learned enough you know we used to send people to prison because they couldn't pay their debts we used to lock them up because they had the plague. In England they used to hang people in public because they pickpockets as an example and in Clarence Darrow the famous phrase pockets were picked in the crowd that watched the hanging. It's time that we learned the essential truth that every act of destruction is also an act of self-destruction that every criminal is his own victim as well as creating another victim that we can only the deal with the devil outside US which is our fear of crime. When we deal with the devil inside us to really understand and that people who commit crime need to be helped in the best way they can. Of course there are some people who we cannot help or don't know how to help and they will be in maximum

confinement facilities and everyone understands that. But the vast majority today we condemn not to rehabilitation not even to punish simply to warehouse to create more criminals. That's what San Quentin has done. That's why it's being closed down. And what we need to realize tonight is that St. Quentin is the right example. And what we need are more Jerry Millers and more community facilities. What. Illinois audience will be watching us on home at home to tell us how you feel on this particular issue. How do you feel about abolishing our persons those of you here in St. Paul's Chapel have been given ballots. Please mark them indicating your preference and put them in the ballot boxes which you will find at the doors as you leave. We also want to urge you would home to write us about this issue and tell us how you feel would we be safer from crime if we closed down most of our prisons. Send us your yes or no vote on a letter a postcard and mail it to the

Advocate's box one thousand seventy two Boston 21 30 for what you think is important. Because beginning January both Congress and many state legislatures will be debating the issue of prison reform. So send us your vote and do it tonight. We will tabulate them and make them known to the members of Congress to state legislative leaders and to other persons concerned with this issue. Remember that address the Advocate's Box nine hundred seventy two Boston Oh twenty one thirty four now with thanks to Mr. Miller and Mr. Rusher to their distinguished witnesses with special thanks to WAGA TV in Madison and W. MVS TV TV Milwaukee to Wisconsin public television stations who have cooperated with us in the production of this broadcast. We conclude tonight's debate. To ah. We have to complete the program takes no position on the issue debated tonight. Our job is to

help you understand both sides more clearly. This program was recorded. About.