Hon. JOHN J. MCCLELLAN, STATE OF NEW JERSEY, New Senate Office Building, DEAR SENATOR MCCLELLAN: It is my sincere belief that S. 917, "The Safe Streets and Crime Control Act of 1967," is one of the most important measures before this session of the United States Congress. As you are aware, the National Crime Commission depicted in great detail the needs of law enforcement and correctional agencies at the State and local levels. Attorney General Arthur J. Sills and Commissoner of Institutions and Agencies, Dr. Lloyd W. McCorkle, have impressed upon me the need for extensive federal financial aid if the many progressive programs they, and others in their fields, consider essential are to be realized. Advanced facilities for the treatment of offenders, the establishment of regional police training schools, and the creation of a statewide communications network are but a few of the more significant advances which we anticipate as a result of increased federal aid. On behalf of all law enforcement and correctional officials, and indeed the people of this State, I am appealing to you to lend your wholehearted support to the enactment of "The Safe Streets and Crime Control Act of 1967." Sincerely yours, RICHARD J. HUGHES, Governor. Hon. JOHN J. MCCLELLAN, COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, TWELFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, Dauphin County, Pa., May 19, 1967. Chairman, U.S. Senate Judiciary Subcommittee, DEAR SENATOR MCCLELLAN: I have your letter concerning my Law Day address before the Harrisburg Rotary and other service Clubs with the Dauphin County Bar Association. Due to the pressure of my work, I was unable to reduce my address to writing. Nevertheless, I appreciate your inquiry. I read recently a statement in the press attributed to Attorney General Clark that a check of some 2,000 cases in New York City revealed that only twenty suspects requested a lawyer after having received the Miranda warning at incustody proceedings in the Police Station. I do not recall that any explanation was given as to the method employed to arrive at these statistics which are almost, if not altogether, incredible. If you have any background material as to the method by which these statistics were obtained, I certainly will be glad to learn of it. Even if they are reliable, which I doubt very much, there is still an urgent need for the passage of Senate Bill No. 674. As long as the MIRANDA doctrine remains as the last word of the Supreme Court, a most formidable stumbling block to law enforcement still exists. Last evening Mrs. Kreider and I attended a small dinner party at which some Harrisburg business men and their wives were present. All expressed amazement and anguish in regard to recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions. The ladies, though not conversant with the tortuous process of reasoning by which these decisions were reached, feel very keenly that the safety of their persons and property has been endangered thereby. In fact, this was the topic of conversation which interested them the most. I find, as I am sure you do, that this sentiment prevails in all walks of life. All present expressed their admiration for the valiant struggle you and your fellow committee members are making for the safety of all of us. Kind regards. Sincerely, HOMER L. KREIDER, Hon. JOHN L. MCCLELLAN, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, BOARD OF PAROLE, Harrisburg, May 17, 1967. Chairman, Subcommittee on Criminal Laws and Procedures, DEAR SENATOR MCCLELLAN: Replying to your letter of May 11, 1967, in reference to Pennsylvania Chiefs of Police Association Bulletin and soliciting my views on Senate Bills 674, 675 and 917, I herewith submit my views. I have devoted thirty-five (35) years in my chosen profession, Prisons, Probation and Parole. This service started as a guard, advancing to Warden. It covers a ten (10) year tour of duty in post-war Germany as Chief of Prisons and Parole (German) and directing the parole system for war criminals. I have been in my native State (Pennsylvania) directing the State parole system, since 1956. During this period of service, I have interviewed and interrogated well over 100.000 individuals who were convicted by duly established Courts. Although the general philosophy of a criminal (recidivist) is that they want to believe everyone is doing the same thing they were convicted of, but they were not apprehended. To this end, they consider themselves unlucky that they were caught. A recent parole applicant, convicted of larceny (shoplifting) had only one complaint. He felt unlucky that he was caught and convicted once for an average of fifty such criminal acts and bemoaned the fact that his mentor was convicted only once in five hundred shoplifting acts. His criminal history indicated a thirty-year pattern of shoplifting, during which period he maintained a respectable family life in his community, in which his wife and children maintained a comfortable existence all on funds derived from his pattern of criminal acts-shoplifting. This is an exceptional case, but many others fall into this pattern to a lesser degree. This fits the parisitic criminal. However, the murderer or even the rapist, when apprehended, is relieved of inner emotions and will, at this time, volunteer a confession. This confession is highly important, in that in both rape and murder, usually only two (2) persons are present; the offender and the victim. Unless there are methods to learn the facts, details are available only when the accused offender reveals it. Confessions are not unusual. Religious training by many denominations encourages confessions, even for simple or minor acts against religious vows and principles. Why should a confession of a criminal act be treated otherwise? Senate Bill 674 is necessary, if for no other reason, to permit the accused a chance to express his remorse. In many cases, this is a mental relief. The Bill incorporates sufficient safeguards to keep confessing voluntary. Without the use of voluntary confessions, we are indirectly encouraging criminal acts and the of fender never fully realizes he did any wrong. I have never experienced a true rehabilitation of the offender, without the offender realizing the motivation for his acts and with some remorse in his makeup. The Alcoholic Anonymous Program is successful because the first step in AA is to acknowledge the alcoholic addiction, i.e., "I am an alcoholic." Some of our present programs for rechanging the criminal are based on excuses for his or her acts. This the criminal absorbs like a duck to water, fits his ego and his thinking. There is no excuse for crime or criminals. There is motivation for their acts. We know that there are parents unworthy of that label. Also, poor economic conditions, but that is no excuse for committing crime. I was born at a time when my folks were struggling economically, but crime was not our way of solving our hardships. The use of electronic devices are available to the criminal and certainly the police should not have the restriction for their use. In Pennsylvania, we have a gun law-no one is permitted to carry a side arm without a special permit. The law's restrictions have no effect on those who are engaged in crime. They get them and they use them. Why then, restrict law enforcement? I am familiar with the contents in Senate Bill 917. This, I believe, is a step in the right direction. States and urban areas with major crime problems cannot finance the type of crime controls necessary for an effective program. In the past, our State and local crime control budgets increased by an average of five percent (5%) annually. This did not keep pace with the increase in population growth or crime increase. Therefore, before we stress new programs and innovations, let us review why some present programs were not effective. Take Parole Services. The President's Crime Commission advocates caseloads of thirty-five (35) when our present services are averaging close to one hundred (100) cases per agent. We had a series of innovations under LEA and other Federal subsidized or supported programs. For the funds spent, you did not receive as much in return as would have been possible in subsidizing existing services, thus providing the workable caseload as is now advocated. I am not opposed to innovations, but I feel we should first determine what programs are effective and then financially support such programs, even if they are existing ones. My only concern is Title III and I caution that the emphasis on innovations will not be the major goal. Senate Bill 917 is necessary and only with Federal funds subsidizing State and urban budgets can we meet the challenge. The part of the crime problem that disturbs me most is why are ninety percent (90%) of crimes committed unreported. This issue needs a closer study than that covered in the President's Crime Commission Report. If the unreported crimes are ninety percent (90%), then our crime rate must be increasing at a rate greater than six percent (6%) of population growth, a rate of increase based on reported crimes. But, more important, have our citizens lost faith in our Administration of Justice? If so, why? If my reading of public sentiment is correct, then I believe that the citizen has little faith in our Judicial process, including the U. S. Supreme Court. This is an important issue and in our democratic process will be reflected at the ballot box. The years ahead will verify my observations and it will be an issue in State and Federal elections. The Courts set the tone for our entire criminal justice system. This begins with law enforcement agencies and runs through the process to probation and parole. It is for this reason that the judicial process becomes the important factor. Long delays and postponements in Court trials, frequently requiring victims, witnesses and others to appear again and again until the trial is ended. This factor alone discourages citizens to appear as witnesses or even the victim, in many cases. The drawn-out delays favor the accused and not the victim. It is this very factor that brings the judicial process under public scrutiny. I have followed your hearings and believe that you are realistic in your approach to finding the facts. It is for this reason I have made this a lengthy reply to your request for my views. You have the respect of law-abiding citizens and when you speak on a subject, you instill confidence and the majority of our citizens will follow you. Law enforcement is grateful that we have in our Congress a friend in Court. Warmest regards. Sincerely yours, PAUL J. GERNERT, Chairman. JENKINS & JENKINS, Knoxville, Tenn., April 28, 1967. Senator JOHN MCCLELLAN, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. MY DEAR FRIEND: Remember me? Well, I am as active as ever, feel like a spring colt, living life with the usual zest and pursuing my "trade" with the old-time vigor-four murder cases set during the month of May. With more interest than I can possibly tell you I have read of your proposed legislation to counteract some of the decisions of the Supreme Court and which in my opinion as a criminal lawyer have resulted and will result in a traumatic effect on the administration of justice. As a criminal lawyer I would be expected to agree with some of the Court's decisions because they have afforded so many loopholes for the escape of the hardened criminal from the punishment he deserves. The reverse of this is true. As I look back over an experience of 47 years in trying cases in many Courts (now around 700 murder cases) I can think of so many cases that could have been thrown out of Court by the application of the present day rules of the Supreme Court and yet in all those cases I can't think of a single one in which there was a miscarriage of justice. The rigid rules now in effect and especially those pertaining to the questioning of suspects, their confessions and the publicity given such cases by the news media have made it impossible to secure convictions in many cases of obvious guilt, with the result that society stands aghast, confused and bewildered and suspicious of the integrity of the Courts, and the hardened criminals glory in the Champions of their cause, that is the Supreme Court of the United States. Certain members of that Court-at least five of them-apparently have their heads in the clouds. Would that they would come back to earth and give some consideration to the lives and safety of society in general. I close by saying, "God save the United States from the Supreme Court of the United States." I glory in the stand you are taking. Go to it. RAY H. JENKINS. SUPERIOR COURT OF RHODE ISLAND, Hon. JOHN L. MCCLELLAN, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MCCLELLAN: My attention has been called by the Council of Judges of the National Council on Crime and Delinquency, of which I am a member, to H. R. 5037 (Senate S 917) being a bill "To assist State and local governments in reducing the incidence of crime, to increase the effectiveness, fairness, and coordination of law enforcement and criminal justice systems at all levels of government, and for other purposes." I urge its adoption by the Congress as I believe it to be in the best interests of our Country. Sincerely yours, JOHN E. MULLEN, OFFICE OF THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY, Hon. JOHN L. MCCLELLAN, Recent Supreme Courts decisions and the report of the President's Crime Commission underline the necessity of legislation designed to achieve new plans and programs in the criminal law field. I have examined the Act and note its concern with a wide range of criminal justice, including police, courts, corrections and delinquency. I am a member of Governor Smith's State Crime Commission and a member of the Executive Committee of the National District Attorneys Association in addition to my official capacity as prosecuting attorney. I, wholeheartedly, endorse the Safe Streets and Crime Control Act of 1967 and would appreciate any activity upon your part to get this legislation passed as early as possible. Very truly yours, CHARLES M. WALKER, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY, Senator JOHN L. MCCLELLAN, DEAR SENATOR MCCLELLAN: Please allow me to express my appreciation for the very fine work you are doing in Congress in seeking to enact legislation that will give some relief to law enforcement officers and prosecutors. I am convinced that the President's commission on law enforcement and administration of justice has not found the answer to our problem as shown by the February report and supplements thereto. I have had numerous cases thrown out of Court, or otherwise dismissed, because of recent decisions of the United States Supreme Court. Throwing cases out because of slight technicalities is not good for the morale of law enforcerent officers, who in general are doing a very fine job. I am convinced that the coddling of known criminals is not the answer to our problem. The President's commission has missed the boat as far as I am concerned. Please be assured that your efforts are appreciated. W. H. JOHNSON, Jr. WILLIAM A. PAISLEY, SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK. Chief Counsel, U.S. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, D.C. JUSTICES' CHAMBERS, Brooklyn, N.Y., May 31, 1967. DEAR MR. PAISLEY: Please accept my sincere thanks for your letter of May 17th, which I have been endeavoring to answer since its receipt. The pressure of work has been so great that this is the first opportunity I have had to furnish you with the information you desire. With reference to the question of importance of confessions in criminal cases, and specifically in regard to Judge Sobel's statistical survey, I must inform you as follows: After 25 years of active participation in the enforcement of the criminal law, as Assistant District Attorney, District Attorney, and a judge presiding at criminal trials, I am convinced that confessions are by far the most reliable evidence in criminal cases. Frequently one has doubts with regard to eye-witness indentifications, and this, I believe, is an area which causes great concern to prosecutors who, like every other citizen, are most anxious not to convict an innocent person. With respect to confessions, however, a false confession is almost always easily detected, and while there are false confessions from time to time, they are usually readily recognized and disregarded. As far as Judge Sobel's figures are concerned, these figures are, in my opinion, most unreliable, as they were based upon a very small cross-section of the actual cases pending in this court during the period which Judge Sobel used as the basis for his investigation, the reasons being as follows: Shortly after the decision in the U.S. Supreme Court case of Jackson v. Denno (378 U.S. 368), which arose in this court and in this state, the Court of Appeals of the State of New York laid down certain specific rules in a decision entitled People v. Huntley (15 NY 2d 78). This decision laid down certain rules which were later incorporated in the Code of Criminal Procedure of the State of New York (Sec. 813 (f), (g), (h) and (i)). The statute and the decision required that in a case in which the People intended to offer a confession, they must serve notice thereof on the defendant prior to the trial. Defendant thereafter had an opportunity to demand a hearing to contest the voluntariness or the confession. This hearing had to be conducted prior to the trial. After the decision in Escobedo and Miranda, any objections to the confession, based upon either of these decisions, were similarly to be determined in the course of this hearing. The District Attorney of this County adopted the practice of serving the required notice upon the defendant at the time the case was assigned to a trial part-usually two weeks to a month in advance of the trial. All that was required of the defendant was that he serve a notice on the District Attorney that he desired a hearing with respect to the issue of voluntariness of the alleged confession. Judge Sobel, in the computation, used as the basis for his estimates only the cases in which the District Attorney served a notice that he intended to use the confession at the time of the trial. He failed to realize that prior to this time all of these cases had at least two preliminary conferences before the court for the purpose of disposing of the case by a plea to a lesser degree of the crime. My experience during these pre-trial discussions (I sit in a pretrial part a great percentage of the time) has been that approximately 40% of all indictments filed result in a disposition in the pre-trial part. From my experience in these parts, I have ascertained that at least 75 to 80 percent of |