Page images
PDF
EPUB

Senator DANIEL. Have you ever been to Washington!

Mr. BENDINELLI. I refuse to answer that on the ground it might incriminate me.

Senator DANIEL. Have you ever been to any city outside of New Jersey or New York for a purpose that had nothing to do with any illegal operation?

Mr. BENDINELLI. I refuse to answer that on the ground it might incriminate me.

Senator DANIEL. Have you ever taken a vacation

Mr. BENDINELLI. I refuse to answer that on the ground that it might incriminate me.

Senator DANIEL. Would you let me finish the question? Have you ever taken a vacation anywhere from New York or New Jersey?

Mr. BENDINELLI. I refuse to answer that on the ground it might incriminate me.

Senator DANIEL. Have you ever attended any type of meeting outside of New Jersey or New York?

Mr. BENDINELLI. I refuse to answer that on the ground it might incriminate me.

Senator DANIEL. I order you to answer that question.

Mr. BENDINELLI. I refuse to answer that on the ground it might incriminate me.

Senator DANIEL. Have you ever attended any type of meeting in Miami, Fla.?

Mr. BENDINELLI. I refuse to answer that on the ground it might incriminate me.

Senator DANIEL. I order you to answer that question.

Mr. BENDINELLI. I refuse to answer that on the ground it might incriminate me.

Senator DANIEL. Have you attended any type of meeting in Miami, Fla., that had no connection whatever with any criminal activity or violation of the law?

Mr. BENDINELLI. I refuse to answer that on the ground it might incriminate me.

Senator DANIEL. I order you to answer the question.

Mr. BENDINELLI. I refuse to answer that on the ground it might incriminate me.

Senator DANIEL. Have you ever been here in this courtroom before this afternoon?

Mr. BENDINELLI. I refuse to answer that on the ground it might incriminate me.

Senator DANIEL. I order you to answer the question.

Mr. BENDINELLI. I refuse to answer it; it might incriminate me. Senator DANIEL. Just a moment. As I say, I regret it from your standpoint in the way in which you have acted, the contempt of this committee, and I regret it from the standpoint of the United States Government, which sends out a Senate committee, that a citizen of this country would not cooperate any more than you would have in giving answers to questions of this committee, and I am now referring not to the questions which could possibly tend to incriminate you, but to questions which are relevant to this committee's business, which could not in any way incriminate you, and which you know honestly in your heart and in your mind could not incriminate you one bit in the world.

It is a regrettable occasion, and the first time it has happened in my work on an investigating committee.

You are excused.

Mr. Sayler, Mr. Kuznesof-will there be anyone else from the Federal Probation Office here that might appear to whom you might refer for any answers?

You all might as well come up here and sit in case they wish to refer anything to you.

You may all be sworn together.

Do you, and each of you, solemnly swear that the evidence you are about to give this subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. SAYLER. I do.

Mr. KUZNESOF. I do.
Mr. DEKALB. I do.

Miss PANELLA. I do.

TESTIMONY OF ARCH E. SAYLER, DEPUTY CHIEF UNITED STATES PROBATION OFFICER; MORRIS KUZNESOF, LEON DE KALB, AND EVELYN PANELLA, PROBATION OFFICERS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Senator DANIEL. Please sit down.

We appreciate the cooperation that your office has shown this committee throughout our first day's hearings up here in June, and now throughout this hearing, and we appreciate the information you have gathered at the request of this committee.

As I understand it, your office probably handles as many drug addicts who are paroled or put on probation as any office in the entire United States. Would you think that is true, Mr. Sayler?

Mr. SAYLER. I think that probably is true, Senator. I do not have the exact figures, so that I could give you that as proof.

Unfortunately, we have not had the manpower to survey our complete caseload, which is about 31,000 cases.

Senator DANIEL. You mean you have had 31,000 cases of probation, that is on all offenses?

Mr. SAYLER. Probation and parole.

Senator DANIEL. On all offenses?

Mr. SAYLER. That is right.

Senator DANIEL. Here in the southern district?

Mr. SAYLER. Since 1930 in the southern district court. We just haven't had the people available to go over all that and find out how many of those cases were actually cases involving addiction.

Senator DANIEL. About what percentage would you think might be involved, might involve drug addicts, based on whatever figures of recent years you do have?

Mr. SAYLER. Well, my guess--and that is all it is is about 20 percent of our caseload are people who are addicted or have used drugs. Senator DANIEL. Do you have any percentage on your present caseload?

Mr. SAYLER. No, I do not; I am sorry, Senator. I could get those figures and give them to you tomorrow morning.

Senator DANIEL. Very well.

Mr. SAYLER. Or send them to you.
Senator DANIEL. That will be fine.

will put them in the record.

You send them to us and we

(The additional information supplied by Mr. Sayler is as follows:)

I find that of 876 active cases under supervision on October 1, 1955, 99 or 110 percent had been active users at one time.

Senator DANIEL. Our committee in June asked you to prepare some information for us and, as I understand it, that has been done.

Do you have that report?

Mr. SAYLER. This report, which Mr. Kuznesof is handing to the reporter, is a report of a study which he made voluntarily.

He was interested in the drug addiction problem, so he studied the drug addict cases that were given to us by our judges as probationer patients to go to Lexington for a cure, and over a 5-year period he found 85 cases where people who were brought into our court for any Federal charge were found to be addicted, and were granted the special privilege by the judge of being placed on probation and sent to Lexington for a cure, and when they returned to New York, they were on the probation supervision that the judge had designated for a period of time or until they became involved in a new offense or until they relapsed to drugs or until it was necessary for us to take some

action.

And Mr. Kuznesof will discuss his findings, which are included in this report after I make my little comments about what we, as probation officers, try to do with the drug addicts who come under our supervision.

Senator DANIEL. That will be fine, and we will make that a part of the record; we will include that in the appendix of the record. (The document entitled "Probation for a Cure" will be found in the appendix on p. 2091.)

Senator DANIEL. All right; you may proceed.

Mr. SAYLER. Senator, I first want to thank you for the opportunity of appearing here. I do not know whether you have heard from probation officers before, but we feel that we are probably the people who have had, maybe not the most, but at least a great deal of experience with the problem of drug addiction because, as you know, when Lexington and Fort Worth were authorized by law over 20 years ago, there was a provision made in the law that addicts could be admitted to the hospital in four different ways.

One of those ways, besides being admitted as voluntary patients, was as a condition of the probation they would be granted in the Federal court they would be required to submit themselves to the hospital for treatment, and would be required to report to the probation officer following their period of treatment for the period of probation.

Another way that addicts get themselves into Lexington is as a part of a committed prison sentence.

Under the law which established the Federal Probation Office, the Federal Probation Act, we are required to work as parole officers for the Federal Bureau of Prisons and the United States Parole Board, so that it so happens, as a result of these laws that we do have under our supervision at various times addicts on probation or addicts who have received treatment that are on probation-I will change that

because we do not try to keep them on supervision if they are actively addicted, and we also have parolees who have been through the treatment at Lexington, and in some cases used to be before the law was changed, we had all men who, men and women who, were conditionally released on any term over a year and a day under our super

vision.

The law has been changed within the last 2 or 3 years, so we only get those men and women who are committed to over 22 years. Under that they are released on flat time, and they are not granted supervision.

During the past 2 days the committee has heard a great deal of testimony bearing on the lack of posthospital treatment. The implication was that there is no organized plan for aftercare and that addicts are turned out of the hospitals with a suit of clothes and carfare home and no plan for the future.

While this may be true in many cases, possibly a majority of the cases, it does not hold for the Federal prisoner patient or the Federal probationer patient as, ever since the hospitals were established more than 20 years ago, addict patients falling into these categories have been released under a form of supervision and control which is dictated by the type of jurisdiction which sent them to the hospital.

Here in New York City, which is probably the largest single center for supplying patients to Lexington, we have had considerable experience in supervising those men who have received the benefit of treatment at the hospital. Over the years, we have been learning how to deal with the addict personality and, as our understanding improved, our methods have changed.

I will not take up the time of this committee by an historical review of our changing viewpoint. It is sufficient to state, that at this time, we are convinced that the addict personality cannot be modified in a short period of hospitalization and that, depending on the circumstances of the particular case, the process of rehabilitation may take a long time and may involve several relapses to drugs before a final

cure.

We are in agreement with the idea expressed yesterday, that our conception of a cure should be redefined to consider abstinence from the drug as the measure of success. If, over the years, we can encourage an addict to refrain from use of drugs over longer and longer periods during which he is able to work and take his proper place in the community, we may achieve success.

Perhaps it is appropriate to insert in my remarks at this point a brief statement of our basic theory of treatment. Probation and parole work are, essentially, the application of the social casework technique to the problem of readjustment of delinquents. Social casework has been defined in a great many ways but, primarily, it is the method whereby we seek to help an individual develop the capacity to direct his life along constructive channels, and to discover the resources within his environment and personality which will permit him to derive personal satisfaction from a type of living which does not bring him into conflict with the accepted standards of decent behavior.

I realize that is a long sentence, but you cannot very well say it in much less than that.

Another way of saying this is that we try to understand each person as an individual, to seek the key to his personality and behavior problems in a study of his personal history and the influence which affected him.

We try to know him well enough to be of assistance in making important decisions, to know when we should supply emotional and possibly material support, or when we should withhold it, to know when we should supply positive, active direction, when we should remain passive and permissive and to know when a person has achieved a state of constructive self-determination from which we can withdraw.

Social casework is, in essence, a scientific process in that it uses the scientific approach for making a social study, a social diagnosis and attempts at a prognosis for the client. It is an art, in the sense that it requires in its practitioners a highly developed sensitivity to the feeling of ours, sympathy and understanding without sentimentality, patience to the extreme, a quality of unshockability which will permit the client to confide his innermost thoughts and feelings knowing that his listener will not be judgmental and will not be inclined to cast him out as a sinner.

The major tool of the social caseworker is the interpersonal relationship which is brought about by the need of the client and the objective function of the caseworker.

In the situation with which I am most familiar, that of probation and parole, the relationship is brought about by an order of the court or of the parole board and is, in that sense, involuntary as far as the client is concerned.

The defendant does not necessarily ask to be placed on probation but accepts it as the lesser of two evils. Being on probation is always better than being sent to jail. In like sense, a parolee accepts his status as being on parole is always better than remaining in prison. Always present in the background of either of these situations is the factor of authority.

One of the great difficulties which must be surmounted in developing a constructive casework relationship on probation or parole is the presence of the power of arrest. The probation-parole officer often looks to the client almost exactly like a cop and this feeling must be surmounted by the skill, tact, and personality of the officer.

The readjustment problems presented by addicts and former addicts are not, basically, any different than the readjustment problems of others, except that they are intensified. Addicts are, by and large, persons of weaker personality and somewhat more defective in their character traits than the general run of clients of social agencies who are treated for domestic difficulties, unemployment, maladjustments in school, et cetera. The addict is a social outcast as far as employment in many areas is concerned, no matter how thoroughly he has been disassociated from the drug and how sincere his intentions, he is the object of great suspicion on the part of those who deal with him and know his history, and often he has been disowned by his immediate family who, after trying for years to straighten him out, have given up in disgust and locked the door against him.

It is in the face of problems such as these that the probation or parole officer must attempt to help the addict maintain his morale, secure employment, offer financial aid if employment is not immediately forth

« PreviousContinue »