The MacNeil/Lehrer Report; Ford on Crime - Miami Speech

here. This program is made possible in part by grants from public television stations, the Corporation

for Public Broadcasting, Exxon Corporation and the Ford Foundation. The day we originate in Miami Beach, where President Ford ended a weekend of southern politicking, looking like a man who actually thinks he could win this election.

His spirits have clearly been lifted by the feeling that the first debate with Jimmy Carter has given the momentum to his campaign, that elation has been increased in the eyes of his aides by successful politicking in four southern states this weekend. His strategists say that Mr. Ford intended to plant the idea that he, not Jimmy Carter, is the true southerner in spirit and political philosophy. He couldn't have found an audience more receptive to that philosophy than the International Association of Chiefs of Police and he addressed here in Miami Beach this morning. Prime is one of Ford's priority areas in domestic policy after the Republican Convention. He said he would not tolerate the kind of prime rate increases that had occurred over the last three to four years. He said he and his advisors had some new thoughts and ideas which would be announced in the

campaign. If he has such new ideas, this was the obvious place to unveil them. We must respond to the suffering of all the victims of crime in our society. Consider the great emphasis is now placed on the rights of the accused. We must pay more attention to the rights of the victim of crime. I am shocked. I am angered that our older and least advantaged citizens are too often brutally victimized day after day after day. It is equally shocking that the Congress has failed to act on my proposal to provide compensation for the victims of federal crime.

The cost of crime in America has been estimated at $97 billion a year, almost as much as the entire defense budget. But even that figure, high as it is, does not take into full account the terrible impact of crime on our society. We cannot count in dollars. We cannot count in cents the loss of a single citizen who is murdered, the humiliation of one who is raped, the pain of one who is assaulted. We cannot calculate the cost to a free society when people are forced to barricade themselves in their own homes. It is time to give the streets back to the law abiding citizens and to put the criminals behind bars. Many after study has shown that crime is not the work of many offenders, but of a relatively

small number of chronic law breakers who have chosen crime as a career. The criminal, the career criminal is a one man crime way. He commits between 50 and 80 percent of all serious crimes in Washington, D.C. One man recently confessed to 50 rates, 80 burglaries, 10 armed robberies and more stolen cars than he could remember. The LEAA has reported that 49 criminals, unbelievable, acting individually committed over 10,500 crimes. If we can bring the career criminal to a speedy trial, try him for his most serious, rather than least, serious offense, and make sure that if found guilty, he is sent to prison,

we can give the streets back to the people of the United States. Two years ago, I outlined to this association a career criminal program under the auspices of LEAA. We targeted 12 jurisdictions for an initial demonstration. In the last 16 months, those jurisdictions have singled out more than 2,000 career criminals with an average of 5 prior convictions of peace, not 5 arrests, but 5 convictions of peace. New cases involving these habitual offenders were assigned to special units of the district attorney's offices. Every right of the accused was protected, including the right to a speedy trial, with absolutely

no plea bargaining for lesser offenses the prosecutors achieved dramatic results. Of those 2,000 defendants, 95 percent were convicted. The average time between arrest and final sentencing was only 84 days. The average sentence for those convicted was 20 years in prison in most areas. The crime rate demonstrably went down. That's success. The national trend is that less than 10 percent of those convicted spend any time in jail. This is intolerable and indefensible.

Our Constitution reserves jurisdiction over most crimes, the state, and local authorities. But in offenses, where the Constitution gives jurisdiction to the federal government, and therefore gives the President some say in the matter, kidnapping, hijacking, trafficking and hard drugs. In federal crimes involving use of dangerous weapons, I have proposed mandatory sentences if convicted they go to jail. Two years ago, I made a solemn pledge to you, the police chiefs, that a high priority of my administration would be the control of crime, especially violent crime. Since 1974, we have been making real progress.

In 1974, the crime rate had increased by a staggering 18 percent over the previous year. By 1975, we had cut the rate of increase in half to 9 percent. Statistics for the first six months of this year show the increase in the rate of crime reduced to about 3 percent. Even better, the new figures reveal that the rate of violent crime has actually decreased for the first time in many, many years. The violent crimes of murder, forcible rape, robbery and aggravated assault decreased 6 percent in the first six months of 1976. I congratulate you, but we're going to do better in the future. We hear more about the rights of juvenile defenders or offenders than about the rights of

their victims, 45 percent of all violent crime is now perpetrated by juveniles. If they are big enough to commit vicious crimes against society, they are big enough to be punished by society. Too many violent and streetwise juveniles are using their age as a cloak of immunity. Detention may not help the juvenile, but it will certainly help his potential victims. In my crime message to the Congress, I call for a comprehensive federal criminal code

to serve as a model for state and local governments. I call for mandatory minimum sentences for certain federal crimes and for violent repeat offenders. I call for legislation increasing the number of federal judges. I call for the compensation of the victims of federal crime. The Congress has done nothing. Too many politicians today are underestimating the public concern about crime. Just as the police identify career criminals, American voters will examine their ballots in November and identify those candidates who have demonstrated indifference or permissiveness toward crime and they should. I serve notice today that a top priority of the first 100 days beginning with inauguration

day for the Ford administration next January will be the rallying of America behind federal anti-crime legislation. The federal government shares direct responsibility for organized crime, white collar crime and official corruption. The Department of Justice has made great strides in combating this kind of crime to ensure that this federal effort is fully coordinated. I will establish an interagency council on crime. It will include the heads of all federal agencies operating programs involved with crime. It will be directed by the Attorney General of the United States who will do a first-class job.

One of the first jobs of the council will be to review the policies of major domestic agencies and recommend changes to lower the crime rate. The council will develop a comprehensive five-year plan for crime control and criminal justice through the federal government. Crime is a terrible, terrible enemy to all of us. But we can beat it and we will beat it. But victory requires a continued, clear and predictable policy. It requires real reverence for the law. I know that I can count on you and millions of others, millions and millions of law-biting Americans who believe with you and me with us that by fighting crime we are building freedom for all Americans.

Thank you very, very much. There was some irony in Mr. Ford preaching reverence for the law at a time when newspapers are reporting that his own campaign funding in previous elections is under investigation by the Watergate Special Prosecutor. But that irony was not of much concern here. Do you feel that presidential rhetoric like this can actually make a difference? I really do. Yes, I do. For I detect that this is from the new policies to me, seeing that it's direct approach toward law enforcement and things that we should have that should be done with the law enforcement is not being done today. Have any previous presidents been saying the same things? No, not as much as I was. Like I said, we didn't have the crime that we have with other presidents that we have today. Well, I was a confirmed Democrat, but the president sort of swayed me by his speech, as

you know, where we're dedicated to law enforcement. And he has brought several programs out, which he indicated in his speech. I will out a doubt. I will vote for him. If he continues along this line, I consider reason why he won't. Did you detect anything new in the way of programs or policies? Yes, I think the strict enforcement mandatory sentencing, which we don't have now. It's a repetitive system now that's a revolving door policy. We have a criminal. He's out on the street before the officer gets back. That to me, I've been a chief for 40 years, and I guess nothing's new. We've all been trying to fight crime, and I believe that president is honest in the way he feels and the way he speaks. Do you think that crime is a political issue? It shouldn't be, but I'm sure it is. I imagine anytime you have anything that fit the needs of the people, it's a political issue.

Perhaps I'm sentimental, but I brought tears of my eyes. Mr. Ford added to his popularity with the chiefs by going out of his way to be seen with FBI Director Clarence Kelly. Ford has accused Jimmy Carter of inhumanity for suggesting that Kelly should have been fired for accepting gifts from FBI subordinates. Let's now further examine Mr. Ford's crime crusade to use his words with two police officers and attending the conference. Robert DeGrazia is police commissioner of Boston and well-known for his somewhat unorthodox views on fighting crime. Mr. DeGrazia in August, Mr. Ford promised new ideas on fighting crime. Were there new ideas in today's speech? I think generally what President Ford said today, some of the things that we've already seen, the major violators squad as an example in the District Attorney's Office, programs

that we've been talking about as far as the involvement of the community, without the use of the community, you just cannot operate in a police field. Certainly, there has to be a look at juvenile crime, and we certainly just can't say that there is no such thing as a bad boy, I think there are, and we therefore should look at those. But at the same time, we shouldn't take the very harsh and hard approach and say that there isn't something we can do with some of those people, and there also that there is something that we should maybe be looking at at the very beginning of the whole spectrum rather than taking action after it occurs. Do you think that's the line Mr. Ford was taking the harsh line, as far as juvenile crime was concerned? I think that when you say that the family has to take the lead, I think that when you say that we treat them harshly if they do something wrong, it is the hard line. I think certainly there are some aspects of that that are correct, definitely I think

that there's been problems with the families, and certainly there have been problems with some of our bad juveniles where they haven't had the facilities for them. But at the same time, I think that we have to take an approach of helping people, and particularly young people if we can. You've been critical in the past of politicians telling people that they can reduce crime because as you've said, there's so little politicians can actually do about it. Is that what Mr. Ford was doing here today, largely do you think? Well, the police have a difficult part of playing in removing or eliminating crime. As police departments, we can do a very good job of displacing crime. Hopefully, in other words, if we in Boston do a good job, we'll send crime out to the suburbs, but we will not eliminate it. It's the politicians that better start facing the whole situation and recognize that we need legislation that's going to help the police.

But more important than that, we need legislation that's going to address itself to where the crime breeds. And this is, I think, we have to get away from the law and order rhetoric and look at what we can possibly do to get the crime before it gets to the stage of the police. Maybe we're talking about something that we could call a shock vaccine for crime. Thank you. Ed Davis is Chief of Police of the City of Los Angeles. On Wednesday, Chief Davis will become president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, which Mr. Ford addressed today. Chief Davis, what did you hear that was new in Mr. Ford's speech today? Well, I heard that that's new in terms of it not being a common insight. And I think that's the most important thing that he could have said. And he did say it is that we can never be delivered from crime without a tremendous involvement of the public and the family.

Now, we've tried that in some places, but it has not been a general insight. Most frequently, everything has been placed on one side, the liberal rhetoric of getting rid of the so-called root causes of crime poverty. And we saw the John Sony in years where that didn't work, or strictly a hard approach and doing it through the criminal justice system. And I think Mr. Ford's excellent insight that crime can only be controlled with a great participation in the public is a real insight. And I think it's really new in terms of it coming from the leader of a country. I think that his insight that people are not safe on the streets and that we ought to give the streets back to the people and take them away from the criminals. And as pointing out that the criminal population was a microscopic percentage of society, just a very, very few bad guys who have to be locked up. He didn't advocate a hard line in locking everyone up.

But he advocated a hard line on the dangerous repeater offenders being kept off the streets. And again, I thought that was very good, and I think that is insightful. Chief DeGrancia mentioned the juvenile offenders' proposals of more strict punishment for juvenile offenders if they commit adult crimes, how do you evaluate that proposal? I think the president is absolutely on target as every police chief knows, who's had gang violence problems when someone who's 15 and 16 years old kills or kills repeatedly, there's only one way to go, and that is to isolate that person from society. And to think in terms of some kind of rehabilitation at that particular point is absolutely fallacious. So I think the president has great insight. I think there was more insight in his talk than I have ever heard from a president of the United States or government.

Let me ask both of you, the president seemed to be claiming credit today for his administration for the fall in violent crime statistics. That is the slower rate of rise in violent crime, which is reported by the FBI last week for the first six months of this year. Do you think he's entitled to claim credit for that Chief DeGrancia? Well, I think that that is the politicians approach to the hard work of a lot of police officers. But I guess the question is, has the federal government, particularly the foreign administration, done anything particular, which has significantly contributed to this downturning in the figures for which he's entitled to claim credit? I don't believe, as a direct question and direct answer I can say, yes, certainly there is a program that I appreciate that came forth from President Ford, and that is the major violators squad, which allows district attorney personnel to be right in headquarters with

our personnel. He calls it career criminals. That's right. And I'm all for that. There are some people you just cannot rehabilitate and you should warehouse those people. But I really can't say that that has turned things around, it's too early. We've seen some terrific action in the city of Boston, 132 I think convictions out of 136 of the last count, because we did have cooperation with the district attorney's office. And that's what we're back to, criminal justice system, instead of a criminal justice unsystem, with the help of the district attorneys and the police together, then we might put somebody away. But to say that someone from a certain level should take the credit for reduction of half of the increase of crime, which I just can't quite buy that. How do you feel about that, Chief Davis? Well, you can look at... I mean, we're in the middle of an election campaign, after all. Okay. Did you feel your organization, your organization, you're about to become president of was being a little bit used in a way today, when you heard him claim?

Well, you know, I looked at that decrease in violent crimes, and I look to see if we have fewer people of the crime prone age group, and the number in that 15 to 29 crime prone age group was the same last year, this year, same next year, same year before. And so it wasn't any change in the demographics that caused it. Then I looked regionally, and it's a general increase all over the country. So we can't say that, you know, Boston or Los Angeles, or some particular state, did something. And if there was some influence, it tended to reduce it. It would probably tend to be a national or international influence. I don't know what the influence is, but I think there's nothing in the data that would say the president forward couldn't take credit for the tone of his administration being one that is tough on crime. What about is the president being realistic in promising during an election campaign that to use his phrase, we can give the streets back to the people, or is that just campaign

rhetoric? I think he can absolutely, you know, make that as an authoritative statement that if he can't produce the tough judges and the tough U.S. attorneys within his power in the federal system, and if he can influence a national leadership, the governors to appoint the judges who, when they look at someone who's committed a violent offense, say to themselves, somebody is going to be imprisoned. Now, it's either going to be this fellow who committed the crime, or it's going to be a whole bunch of victims who are going to be afraid of him if I turn him loose. If he can induce a national leadership posture that will get us those kinds of judges, so we have some toughness in the system, then we can't take their streets back. There's no reason we shouldn't be able to. I think it's like within months, within a year, you know, we can not only cut crime down. If we all got behind what he said today, but we could cut crime down appreciably.

Yeah. Chief Tegratzi, do you think he's being realistic in making that statement? Well, I think that you have to face the fact that crime is on a local level. It's not on a federal level to that degree. What the crimes, as people are concerned about, are at a local level, and if there's going to be federal input, it's not the crime fighting input. That's going to have to be at the local level. If there's going to be any change in crime, it's what I've been saying all along, that the federal government has to start looking at the social situation, the economic situation, the education situation, and if we can turn that around, then we as police, you know, will have less of a battle on our hands, and therefore, meaning that the citizens that we serve and protect will have less of a problem on our hands. Chief Tegratzi, thank you very much, Chief Davis, thank you. This concludes the latest in our series of extended campaign reports. We will be doing others periodically as the campaign goes into its final weeks. Jim Lara and I will be back tomorrow night.

I'm Robert McBeele from Miami, good night. For a transcript, send $1 to the McNeill Lair Report, box 345, New York, New York 10019. The McNeill Lair Report was produced by WNET and WETA. They are solely responsible for its content. The program was made possible in part by grants from public television stations, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Exxon Corporation, and the Ford Foundation.