U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

56–273 PDF 2010

S. HRG. 111–411 

EXPLORING THE NATIONAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE 

COMMISSION ACT OF 2009 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME AND DRUGS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JUNE 11, 2009 

Serial No. J–111–31 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

(II) 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

JON KYL, Arizona 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

MATT MINER, Republican Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME AND DRUGS

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

HANIBAL KEMERER, Democratic Chief Counsel 

WALT KUHN, Republican Chief Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page 

Durbin, Hon. Richard J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois .................... 4 

Graham, Hon. Lindsey, a U.S. Senator from the State of South Carolina ......... 5 

Specter, Hon. Arlen, a U.S. Senator from the State of Pennsylvania ................. 1 

WITNESSES 

Bratton, William, Chief, Los Angeles Police Department, Los Angeles, California ..................................................................................................................... 5 

Nolan, Pat, Vice president, Prison Fellowship, Lansdowne, Virginia ................. 12 

Ogletree, Charles J., Professor, Harvard Law School, Cambridge, Massachusetts ....................................................................................................................... 8 

Walsh, Brian W., Senior Legal Research Fellow, The Heritage Foundation, 

Washington, D.C. ................................................................................................. 10 

Webb, Hon. Jim, a U.S. Senator from the State of Virginia ................................ 2 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

American Federation of Government Employees, AFL–CIO, Beth Mothen, 

Legislative and Political Director, Washington, DC., statement ..................... 28 

Bratton, William, Chief, Los Angeles Police Department, on behalf of Major 

Cities Chiefs Association, Los Angeles, California, statement ......................... 31 

Burnett, Arthur L., Sr., Senior Judge, National Executive Director, National 

African American Drug Policy Coalition Inc., Washington, DC., statement ... 43 

Cowan, Jon, President, Third Way, Washington, DC., letter and attachment ... 61 

Capazorio, Greg, President, Criminon International, Glendal, California, 

statement .............................................................................................................. 75 

Clarke, Harold W., Commissioner, Massachusetts Department of Correction, 

President, American Correctional Association and formal President, Association of State Correctional Administrators, Boston, Massachusetts, statement ...................................................................................................................... 79 

Federal Cure, Incorporated, Mark A. Varca, J.D., Acting Chairman, Plantation, Florida, letter ............................................................................................... 84 

Goodwill Industries International, Jim Gibbons, President and Chief Executive Officer, Rockville, Maryland, statement and attachment ......................... 85 

Hawley, Ronald P., Executive Director, Search, The National Consortium 

for Justice Information and Statistics, Sacramento, California, statement .... 105 

Human Rights Watch, David C. Fathi, Director, US Program, Washington, 

DC., letter and attachment ................................................................................. 107 

Hynes, Charles J., District Attorney, Kings County, Brooklyn, New York, 

statement .............................................................................................................. 110 

Just Detention International, Lovisa Stannow, Executive Director, Washington, DC., statement ......................................................................................... 113 

Murray, Don, National Association of Counties, Washington, DC., statement .. 116 

National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, John Wesley Hal, President, Washington, DC., statement ...................................................................... 121 

NCCD, Center for Girls and Young Women, Washington, DC., statement ........ 123 

Nolan, Pat, Vice president, Prison Fellowship, Lansdowne, Virginia, statement ...................................................................................................................... 125 

Ogletree, Charles J., Professor, Harvard Law School, Cambridge, Massachusetts, statement .................................................................................................... 130 

Rand Corporation, Greg Ridgeway, Santa Monica, California, letter ................. 158 

Page

IV 

Simmons, Russell, Co-Founder, Def Jam Records, Founder, Rush Communications, New York, New York, statement .............................................................. 159 

Stewart, Julie, President, Families Against Mandatory Minimums, Washington, DC., ........................................................................................................... 160 

Walsh, Brian W., Senior Legal Research Fellow, The Heritage Foundation, 

Washington, D.C., statement .............................................................................. 166 

Webb, Hon. Jim, a U.S. Senator from the State of Virginia, statement ............. 182 

ADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Submissions for the record not printed due to voluminous nature, previously 

printed by an agency of the Federal Government, or other criteria determined by the Committee, list: 

Rand Corporation, Technical report 

(1) 

EXPLORING THE NATIONAL CRIMINAL 

JUSTICE COMMISSION ACT OF 2009 

THURSDAY, JUNE 11, 2009 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME AND DRUGS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:01 p.m., Room SD– 

226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Arlen Specter, Chairman 

of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Klobuchar, Durbin, and Graham. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ARLEN SPECTER, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Senator SPECTER. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. The 

hour of 3:00 having arrived, we will proceed with this hearing before the Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs of the Committee on 

the Judiciary. 

Today we have a very important hearing to explore the legislation introduced by Senator Webb on the National Criminal Justice 

Commission, to take up a great many topics of great importance. 

The Commission is structured to take up a comparison of United 

States incarceration policies with those of other similar political 

systems, including western Europe and Japan, take up the costs of 

incarceration policies, including those associated with gangs and 

drugs, the impact of gang activity in our country, drug policy and 

its impact on incarceration, crime sentencing and reentry, policies 

regarding mental illness, the historic role of the military as it impacts on these criminal law issues, and any other subjects which 

the Commission might deem appropriate. 

Our criminal justice system continues to be one of perplexing 

complexity in terms of how we deal with it, a tremendous amount 

of violent crime, a tremendous amount of drug-related crime, very, 

very heavy statistics on incarceration. My work in the field has 

been extensive, and I have long believed that if we approached the 

criminal justice system with two principal objectives, that a great 

deal could be done to restrain it: with respect to career criminals 

who commit 70 percent of the crimes, separating them from society; 

with respect to the others who are going to be released, have realistic policies of rehabilitation, detoxification, literacy training, job 

training, reentry. We have an enormous problem on recidivism, 

which has a very high cost on property damage, and an even higher cost on human suffering. 

2 

Senator Webb approached me some time ago, a few months ago, 

and told me about his ideas and asked if I would co-sponsor his legislation, and I did so gladly. He was looking for bipartisan support. 

I am sorry I cannot give that particular quality to him. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SPECTER. But I can give him considerable support on the 

merits. 

Senator Webb came to the Senate, with his election in 2006, with 

an extraordinary record: a graduate of the Naval Academy in 1968, 

a law degree from Georgetown in 1975, commended for his excellence at the Naval Academy. Chose the Marine Corps. Finished 

first in a class of 243. Got Marine Corps officers’ basic training in 

Quantico, served in Vietnam in heavy combat, two Purple Hearts, 

heavily decorated with the Navy Cross and the Silver Star medal, 

two bronze medals. Served as Secretary of the Navy, so he has an 

extraordinary background coming to the position of U.S. Senator 

from Virginia. 

Senator Webb, we look forward to your testimony. I put that in 

the plural because, as I stated to you earlier, you could either sit 

here and testify or you could sit there. You can sit there and then 

come up here and join me as we move to the next panel of witnesses. 

The floor is yours. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JIM WEBB, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE 

STATE OF VIRGINIA 

Senator WEBB. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to take 

about 5 minutes and just explain a little bit about my concerns in 

this area. I would begin by thanking you for being, originally, my 

lead Republican co-sponsor on this measure, and also for your leadership in calling this hearing and helping to move the legislation 

forward. 

Also, Ranking Member Graham was an original sponsor on the 

bill. I think we had nine members of the Judiciary Committee who 

were sponsors on this legislation. I know full well your work in this 

area over many, many years, and appreciate your support in this 

endeavor. I look forward to continuing to work with this Subcommittee, and also the full Committee, and hopefully to move this 

legislation this year and to get to the business of the commission 

that we’re attempting to form here. 

Mr. Chairman, we find ourselves as a Nation in the midst of a 

profound, deeply corrosive crisis that we have largely been ignoring 

at our peril. The national disgrace of our present criminal justice 

system does not present us with the horrifying immediacy of the 

9/11 attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, which in the 

end rallied our Nation to combat international terrorism. It is not 

as visibly threatening as the recent crash in our economy. 

But the disintegration of this system day by day, year by year, 

and the movement toward mass incarceration with very little attention being paid to clear standards of prison administration or 

meaningful avenues of reentry for those who serve their time, is 

dramatically affecting millions of lives in this country. It’s draining 

billions of dollars from our economy. It’s destroying notions of 

neighborhood and family in hundreds, if not thousands, of commuVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:04 May 18, 2010 Jkt 056273 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\56273.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
3 

nities across the country. Most importantly, it is not making our 

country a safer or a fairer place. 

I believe it is in the interests of every American, in every community across this land, that we thoroughly examine our entire criminal justice system in a way that allows us to interconnect all of its 

different aspects when it comes to finding proper approaches and 

solutions to each different component part. I am convinced that the 

most appropriate way to conduct this examination is through a 

Presidential-level commission, tasked to bring forth specific findings and recommendations for the Congress to consider and, where 

appropriate, to act. 

This particular piece of legislation is a product of long years of 

thought, research, and reflection on my part as an attorney, as a 

writer, including time as a journalist 25 years ago where I examined the Japanese prison system for a cover story for Parade magazine, and finally as a government official. 

In the Senate, I am grateful that Senator Schumer and the Joint 

Economic Committee allowed us the venue of that committee to 

conduct hearings over the past 2 years on the impact of mass incarceration and of drugs policy. I also appreciate working with the 

George Mason University Law School to put together a comprehensive symposium that brought people from across the country and 

to talk about our drug policy, and also collaborating with a number 

of other institutions working on such issues, including The Brookings Institution. 

Once we started examining this issue over the past 2 years, people from all across the country reached out to us, people from every 

political and philosophical perspective that comes into play, and 

from all walks of life. Since I introduce the National Criminal Justice Commission Act 2 months ago, we’ve seen an even greater outpouring of interest in, and support for, this approach. My office, 

just in the past 2 months, has engaged with more than 100 organizations, representing prosecutors, judges, defense lawyers, former 

offenders, advocacy groups, think tanks, victim rights organizations, academics, prisoners, and law enforcement officials. In the 

Senate, I am very grateful at this point that 28 of my colleagues 

have joined me on the bill—as I said, I believe 9 from the Judiciary 

Committee. 

The goal of this legislation is to establish a national commission 

to examine and reshape America’s entire criminal justice system, 

the first such effort in many, many years. Mr. Chairman, you laid 

out the areas that we believe should be focused on. I won’t reiterate 

them here. I have a full statement that I would ask be submitted 

for the record at this point, if I may. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Webb appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator WEBB. I would like to say that we worked, along with 

staff on this Committee, to bring a panel today that I think is truly 

extraordinary in its breadth and in its depth of understanding. It 

would be of great benefit for every American to consider what 

they’re about to hear from this panel. Again, I appreciate you having moved this legislation as quickly as you have and called this 

hearing, and it is my earnest hope that we can enact this legislation by the end of this year. 

4 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator SPECTER. Senator Webb, thank you for that opening 

statement. I have already applauded your work in the initiation of 

the legislation, and join you in it. I believe it’s going to receive 

widespread support. I can assure you that as Chairman of this 

Subcommittee I will move it promptly, and will press to have it 

moved by the full Committee, and press to have it considered by 

the full Senate and try to get it done. I think from a vantage point 

of mid-June, it could be done. A lot of work needs to be done in 

this field and this commission is a very, very good projection point. 

It’s not a starting point, it’s a projection point. 

Let me welcome the arrival of Senator Durbin, and again express 

my thanks to him for yielding to me the gavel. He had been chairman of this—— 

Senator DURBIN. I thank the chair and am looking forward very 

much to the testimony you are going to receive from this panel. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator SPECTER. Senator Durbin, you’ve arrived just in time to 

question the witness. Senator Durbin, in lieu of questioning the 

witness, is now a fugitive. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SPECTER. Would you care to make an opening statement? 

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD J. DURBIN, A U.S. SENATOR 

FORM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Senator DURBIN. I’ll just make a brief statement. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman, for this Subcommittee hearing. When I handed the 

baton over, it was with the request that you honor my commitment 

to Senator Webb for this hearing, and Senator Specter quickly said, 

‘‘But I’m already a co-sponsor of his bill.’’ I said, ‘‘Well, then I think 

we’re going to do quite well here.’’ 

I had an occasion a few weeks ago. We have an annual dinner 

with justices of the Supreme Court and I had an occasion to sit 

with one—I won’t name names—and I said, now, if you were to 

pick a topic for the Crime Subcommittee of Judiciary, what would 

you pick, having given your life to law and being in the highest 

court of the land? He said, ‘‘You’ve got to do something about our 

corrections system. If you set out to design a system, you would 

never come up with what we have today.’’ 

I think it is a challenge to all of us to come up with a sensible 

way to keep America safe, yet to treat prisoners humanely and to 

do our very best to make sure that no additional crimes are committed. Recidivism means another crime and another victim, and 

we have to make certain that our system, as Senator Webb has led 

us into this conversation, really addresses so many aspects that 

need to be considered. 

I’ve talked to Senator Specter about one of particular concern to 

me, and that is the question of mental illness and incarceration, 

both sides, the mentally ill who go into prison, how they are treated, if they are treated, and what happens in a prison that may aggravate or create mental illness. 

Dr. Atil Gowonday wrote a recent article in The New Yorker 

about the impact of solitary confinement on people who are in prisVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:04 May 18, 2010 Jkt 056273 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\56273.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
5 

on, most of whom were likely to be released, and in what psychological condition they go back into the world. It’s time for an honest 

appraisal and I think Senator Webb’s proposal for a Presidential 

look at this issue is long overdue, a commission that will take a 

look at every aspect of it, give us sound advice, and I hope that we 

have the political courage to follow it. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator SPECTER. Thank you, Senator Durbin. 

I will now call our panel. Chief Bratton, Professor Ogletree, Mr. 

Brian Walsh, Mr. Pat Nolan. 

We’ve been joined by the distinguished Ranking Member of the 

Subcommittee, Senator Lindsey Graham. Senator Graham, would 

you care to make an opening statement? 

STATEMENT OF HON. LINDSEY GRAHAM, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA 

Senator GRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very quickly. I understand that Senator Webb testified. I regret I was not here when 

he was testifying. I have joined forces with him and other Senators 

to take a good, hard look at this. I want to applaud Senator Webb 

for bringing this to our attention. It’s something he’s been passionate about for a long time, I think. It’s not about being tough 

on crime, it’s just being smart as a Nation. 

We have a lot of people in jail in this country, more than most, 

and we’ve got to figure out who needs to be there, and are there 

other ways when it comes to some prisoners. I believe there are alternatives out there available, and make sure that our criminal 

justice system is not over-burdened and overloaded with people 

that could maybe survive in some alternative system. So, I welcome 

this hearing, and thank you for holding it, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator SPECTER. Thank you very much, Senator Graham. 

Our first witness is the Chief of Police of Los Angeles, William 

J. Bratton, who also served as Chief of Police in New York City and 

in Boston. He comes to this witness table with very, very extensive 

experience in law enforcement. During his tenure at the Los Angeles Police Department, Part One crimes have been reduced by 33 

percent and homicides have decreased by 41 percent. In New York 

City, he was commissioner, working with Mayor Guiliani’s policy 

reforms and the unique Combat Stat Crime Tracking System. 

He has a bachelor of science in law enforcement from Boston 

State University. He’s a graduate of the FBI Executive Institute 

and is about to receive a very unusual title: Honorary Commander 

of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, one step below 

knighthood—and I’m sure it’s just a stepping stone. Thank you for 

joining us, Chief Bratton. We look forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF CHIEF WILLIAM BRATTON, LOS ANGELES 

POLICE DEPARTMENT, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 

Chief BRATTON. Chairman Specter and distinguished members of 

the Subcommittee, in my capacity as president of the Major City 

Chiefs Association and—— 

Senator SPECTER. Is your microphone on? 

Chief BRATTON. Excuse me. My apologies, sir. 

6 

Senator Specter, distinguished members of the Subcommittee, in 

my capacity as president of the Major City Chiefs Association and 

Chief of the Los Angeles Police Department, I am pleased to be 

able to contribute to the discussion and debate on what I view as 

some of the most important issues facing our society today. 

The most important message that I want to leave with you is 

that we must focus on preventing crime before it occurs rather 

than respond to it after it does. This has been the focus of my entire career, from a rookie cop in Boston, to now chief of the Los Angeles Police Department. 

One of the great failures of the President’s Commission on Law 

Enforcement, Administration and Justice was the acceptance of the 

widely held belief at that time that police should focus their 

professionalization efforts on the response to crime and not the prevention of it. They mistakenly believe that the so-called societal 

causes of crime—racism, poverty, demographics, the economy, to 

name a few—were beyond the control and influence of the police. 

They were wrong. Those causes of crime are, in fact, simply influences that can be significantly impacted by enlightened and progressive policing. The main cause of crime, human behavior, certainly is something that is a principal responsibility and obligation 

of the police to influence. The challenge in our democratic society 

is always to police constitutionally, consistently, and compassionately. 

The main criminal justice concerns in 1965 seemed to revolve 

around the hostile relationship between police and the AfricanAmerican community, organized crime, a dearth of research, problems with the growing juvenile justice system, gun control, drugs, 

individual rights of the accused, police discretion, civil unrest, and 

a broken and isolated correction system struggling to balance rehabilitation and custody issues. Sound familiar? Here we are, 40 

years later. 

The supervised population at the time was quoted as hovering 

around one million people. That number has now swollen to an estimated seven million. While we failed to effectively address the 

tremendous increase in crime and violence in the 1970s and 1980s, 

we finally started to get it right in the 1990s. 

Young police leaders were encouraged and financed in their pursuit of education—and I am a product of an LEAA grant in the 

1970s—and that exposure led to the change in the way we do business. We had been focused on a failed reactive philosophy, emphasizing random patrol, rapid response, and reactive investigations. 

In the late 1980s, we began to move to a community policing 

model characterized by prevention, problem-solving, and partnership. We turned the system on its head and we were successful in 

driving significant crime reduction through accountability, measuring what matters, partnership with the community, and policing 

strategies that emphasized problem-solving, and broken-windowsquality-of-life initiatives. 

We developed Comp Stat in New York, with its emphasis on accountability, and use of timely, accurate intelligence to police 

smarter, putting cops on the dots. The results, as reflected by the 

dramatic crime declines of that period, continue to this day in New 

York, Los Angeles, and many other major American cities. 

7 

The main criminal justice concerns for policymakers today 

revolve around the threat posed by gangs rather than traditional 

organized crime, continued problems with the corrections system in 

general, and with the seemingly intractable problems of mass incarceration, a fractured and unrealistic national drug policy, and a 

lack of protection of the individual rights and treatment of the 

mentally ill. 

George Kelling has noted, ‘‘The jailing and imprisonment of the 

mentally ill is a national disgrace that once again puts police in the 

position of having to do something about a problem created by bad 

1960s ideology, poor legislation, poor social practice, and the failure 

of the mental health community to meet their responsibilities.’’ 

The Obama administration’s new drug czar, Gil Kerlikowske, has 

said that he wants to banish the idea that the U.S. is fighting a 

war on drugs and a shift to a position favoring treatment over incarceration to try and reduce illicit drug use. I agree with Gil and 

would go a step further by suggesting that strong enforcement and 

effective prevention and treatment programs are not mutually exclusive, they actually go hand in hand. It is possible, from a responsible enforcement agenda, without driving incarceration rates 

through the roof. 

This bill recognizes what cops know and what the experience of 

the past 40 years has shown, that we cannot arrest our way out 

of our gang and drug crime problem. We recognize that arrest is 

necessary to put hardened criminals away, however, we will fall far 

short of our overall goal if this is all we do. 

Our problems are systemic, widespread and growing and only a 

singularly focused blue ribbon commission comprised of informed 

practitioners, scholars, policymakers, and civil rights activists can 

adequately address the calculated formulation of intervention and 

prevention strategies. America’s system of justice is overworked 

and overcrowded. It is under-manned, under-financed, and very 

often misunderstood. 

It needs more information and more knowledge, it needs more 

technical resources, it needs more coordination among its many 

parts, it needs more public support, it needs the help of community 

programs and institutions dealing with offenders and potential offenders. It needs, above all, the willingness to reexamine old ways 

of doing things to reform itself, to experiment, to run risks: it needs 

vision. This was true when it was penned 42 years ago by the 

President’s commission, and I think we can all agree that it still 

holds true even more so today. 

Thank you, sir. 

Senator SPECTER. Thank you very much, Chief Bratton. 

Our next witness is Professor Charles J. Ogletree, the Jesse 

Clemenco Professor of Law and Director of the Charles Hamilton 

Houston Institute for Race and Justice at the Harvard Law School. 

Professor Ogletree edited a book released in January entitled, 

When Law Fails: Making Sense of Miscarriages of Justice. 

He was recently presented with a 2009 Spirit of Excellence 

Award from the ABA Commission on Racial and Ethnic Diversity, 

and served as Deputy Director of the DC Public Defender system. 

He has a bachelor’s and MA in Political Science from Stanford, and 

a law degree from Harvard. 

8 

Welcome, Professor Ogletree. The floor is yours. 

STATEMENT OF PROFESSOR CHARLES J. OGLETREE, 

HARVARD LAW SCHOOL, CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS 

Professor OGLETREE. Thank you so much, Senator Specter and 

Senators Durbin and Graham. I’m very happy to be here today to 

speak on behalf of the Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race 

and Justice. 

I just want to say a quick paraphrase. It was 42 years ago in a 

room like this that President Lyndon Johnson said about Thurgood 

Marshall, ‘‘It was the right time, the right place, the right person, 

the right thing to do.’’ His words 42 years ago ring true today because it is the right time to look at the criminal justice system and 

reform it. 

It’s the right place—the center of Congress—and the right people—this body of Congress can make that happen—and it’s the 

right thing to do, because the one thing we’ve learned in the course 

of examining our criminal justice system over many, many decades 

is that it has been a failure. 

I hope that one major thing we can achieve is to retire the 

phrase ‘‘a war on crime’’ and replace it with the phrase ‘‘being 

smart on crime’’, because we’ve fought a war and we’ve been unsuccessful. We have too many people in prison, more than any other 

developed nation. Too many of them are black and brown and 

young. We have too much money being spent on punishment and 

not enough on treatment and early intervention. 

Finally, we have not looked at real alternatives to the criminal 

justice system. I prepared an extensive report with data and research that I hope will be part of the record that will be considered 

as well. Also, this is a propitious time to think about this because 

you have never had, in my view, so many people on the same side 

on this issue. 

For most of my career, I remember feeling like I’m crying out in 

the wilderness as the only one talking about repair in the criminal 

justice system. As I look at this table today, there are people with 

extensive experience who have come to the sensible view that what 

we are doing now is just not working. It’s not working in terms of 

making safety a priority or thinking of alternatives so that people 

won’t find themselves in the criminal justice system. 

The other important thing is that Senator Durbin mentioned a 

member of the U.S. Supreme Court who he talked with. It’s not difficult to figure out who that person might be, and that person is 

not just a ‘‘he’’. There aren’t many ‘‘shes’’ there, but the reality is, 

there are a number of people who, every day, apply our criminal 

justice system and it’s very difficult. 

Yesterday I saw a dear friend of mine, Paul Freedman, a former 

prosecutor, a tough prosecutor, who is on the Federal District 

Court in Washington, DC, on his own volition, reacting to another 

Federal court judge, decided to impose a one-on-one penalty for 

crack cocaine and powder cocaine, because his point was, there’s no 

sensible reason for me to do anything differently when I realize 

that what I’ve been doing for many years is just wrong. That’s the 

judiciary taking it into its own hands. 

9 

At the same time, it’s very important to think about the idea of 

a commission that has as its goal to figure out a system that is 

smart, creative, progressive, and forward-looking. The most important thing that I hope you’ll hear over and over and over again 

with our testimony today, and I say it extensively in my report: it’s 

a cost-effective way of doing it. You can be smart on crime and save 

a lot of money. We see that now when we think about the way that 

we’re treating those who are mentally ill, treating those who are 

impoverished and under-educated, and they become the fodder for 

our criminal justice system. 

Also, I want to say this in terms of the challenges we face today. 

Bill Bratton is a terrific police officer. I have known him from his 

days in Boston, New York, and Los Angeles. The one thing that 

he’s always done is to stand up to fight crime, but also insist on 

fairness. The fairness means, let’s come up with a policy that 

makes sense, not just for police officers who have to, every day, put 

on that uniform and defend all of us, but who also have the tools 

to make sure Senator Specter says focus on the most serious and 

important crimes and make sure we don’t have our jails full of people who are largely non-violent drug users, and that money becomes exorbitant. 

The final point I want to make here, and I’ll be happy to answer 

questions later on, is that we at the Institute have approached this 

issue with the idea of providing information to those who are trying 

to solve this problem. When we look at one particular problem, the 

problem of gangs, we wrote a report more than a year ago called 

‘‘No More Children Left Behind Bars’’, and I’d like to submit that 

as part of the record. 

That became the impetus for Congressman Bobby Scott’s new 

proposed bill, the Youth Promise Act. Our goal was to look at 

whether or not treatment and prevention should be priorities rather than simply punishment, and they are. They’re cost-effective. 

They’re effective in many, many ways, and I think it’s the best way 

to go. Ultimately, as we know, we’ve heard it said before, in the 

words of Ohio Governor Ted Strickland. He said, ‘‘You don’t have 

to be soft on crime to be smart in dealing with criminals.’’ If we’re 

driven by being smart and creative, we can solve this problem. 

Thank you. 

Senator SPECTER. Thank you, Professor Ogletree. The report you 

referenced will be made a part of the record, without objection. 

[The report appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator SPECTER. We’ll also move all of the testimony and all of 

the reports into the record, without objection. 

Our next witness is Mr. Brian Walsh, Senior Research Fellow, 

Center for Legal and Judicial Studies of The Heritage Foundation, 

where he works on criminal law, and also on national security and 

civil liberties. He has recently released research on the so-called 

COPS program, Federal hate crimes legislation, and public corruption prosecutions. He had been an associate with Kirkland & Ellis. 

He has a bachelor of Science in Physics from the University of Colorado and a law degree from Regent University School of Law. 

We appreciate your coming in today, Mr. Walsh, and the time is 

yours. 

10 

STATEMENT OF BRIAN W. WALSH, SENIOR LEGAL RESEARCH 

FELLOW, CENTER FOR LEGAL AND JUDICIAL STUDIES, THE 

HERITAGE FOUNDATION, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. WALSH. Chairman Specter and Ranking Member Graham, I 

appreciate this opportunity to address the National Criminal Justice Commission Act. As you said, criminal justice reform is a central focus of my research and reform work at The Heritage Foundation. I’ll just note briefly that my views are my own and not those 

of The Heritage Foundation. 

I commend and am encouraged by Senator Webb’s attempts to 

date to overcome the political and ideological boundaries that have 

caused many of the problems in our criminal justice systems, and 

I appreciate the Senator’s efforts to reach out across those same 

boundaries, seeking input to help improve and shape the Act. 

Over the past few years, we’ve worked with hundreds of individuals and scores of organizations across the political spectrum in an 

attempt to build consensus for principled, nonpartisan criminal justice reform. My colleagues, allies and I have gathered substantial 

evidence that the criminal justice system is in great need of principled reform, particularly at the Federal level, and have come to 

a consensus that this reform should not be driven by partisan politics. We’ve heard a little bit already about the problem of being 

considered ‘‘soft on crime’’ and how difficult it is for legislative bodies to go against that stream. 

And while I think improvements are needed to S. 714 to make 

it sufficiently principled and nonpartisan to garner widespread support, it does include positive provisions. In particular, the commission should undertake to identify just, effective alternatives to incarceration for some categories of first-time non-violent offenders, 

explore and report on the successes and failures that the States 

have encountered with drug courts for non-violent offenders 

charged with possessions of small amounts of drugs, and study effective programs for easing offenders’ entry back into society after 

they are released from incarceration. 

For the remainder of my time I will focus on the needed improvements to the bill. The goal of each improvement and each recommendation is to help ensure that the commission would investigate and report in a principled and nonpartisan manner, and that 

its findings and recommendations would be considered useful and 

authoritative by Americans across political and ideological boundaries. 

First, the composition of the commission should be modified to 

ensure that the members of the commission adequately represent: 

1) the diversity of views, backgrounds, and expertise needed to address all of the criminal justice issues covered by the commission; 

2) the interests of the 50 States in protecting their sovereignty over 

criminal justice operations, a core State responsibility; and 3) the 

criminal justice interests and expertise of the executive branch. I’ve 

made further recommendations about that in my written statement. 

Second, the Act includes unstated assumptions that are not necessarily well-founded. One such assumption is that incarceration 

rates need to decrease across the board. Section 6 of the Act would 

11 

direct the commission to make recommendations to reduce the 

overall incarceration rate. 

While it may be true that some prison sentences are longer than 

necessary to fulfill the needs of justice, a directive to decrease the 

overall incarceration rate strongly suggests that all prison sentences are too long. This is simply not borne out by the best available evidence and does not take into account the recidivism problem, particularly with violent offenders, and the need to make sure 

that those who have committed violent crimes and are at high risk 

to recidivate are actually kept incarcerated where they are incapacitated from committing further crimes. 

I have made similar recommendations about the drug policy— 

that the recent public discourse on national drug policy has been 

dominated by those who are broadly opposed to enforcement and 

often favor drug decriminalization. The Act itself appears to be premised on assumptions about drug enforcement policy that are not 

entirely well founded. 

Nothing in the Act mentions, for example, the successes the 

States and the Federal Government have had in the fight against 

drug abuse, and my written statement briefly addresses the destructive effects of family drug abuse on children and the correlation between the criminal history of incarcerated offenders and 

their own history of drug abuse and dependence. 

Although such facts do not justify all current drug policy, this information about the national fight against drug abuse should be 

granted its full weight by the commission in order for its drug policy recommendations to be granted the type of weight and authority that we would hope that they would warrant. 

Finally, I just want to address that my greatest concern with the 

Act as currently written is that it does not guide the commission 

to address the many-faceted problems of over-criminalization, 

which include federalizing crime that should remain under the jurisdiction of State and local law enforcement, criminalizing conduct 

that no one would know is criminal unless they both scoured and 

understood tens of thousands of pages of statutory and regulatory 

law, and eliminating the intrinsic safeguard requiring proof beyond 

a reasonable doubt of criminal intent, which formerly protected 

from criminal punishment Americans who never intended to violate 

the law. 

Working with the coalition that crosses political and ideological 

spectrum, we came to substantial consensus before the November 

elections about a proposal for both hearings and reform proposals 

in the House, in particular, and we hope that we will continue to 

be able to address those things in a principled, non-partisan manner. 

The overall goal, again, of all of these recommendations is to 

make sure that the commission’s work is widely respected and understood to be something that is not favoring a particular group or 

class of offenders, but all those Americans who could be subjected, 

and have been subjected, to criminal penalties. Our organization, 

working in concert with others, have catalogued a number of examples and stories of those who acted in ways that none of us would 

necessarily perceive as being criminal, and yet found themselves in 

Federal prison or State prison for substantial prison sentences. 

12 

With that, I look forward to your questions, and thank you again. 

Senator SPECTER. Thank you, Mr. Walsh. 

Our final witness is Mr. Pat Nolan, vice president of the Prison 

Fellowship, who comes to the witness table with a really extraordinary record. He heads the Justice Fellowship, the wing of Prison 

Fellowship that seeks to reform the criminal justice system based 

on the Bible’s principles of restorative justice. He served in the 

California State Assembly for 15 years and was the Republican 

leader for 4 years. He began his work on criminal justice reform, 

as noted in his volunteered information in his resume, after serving 

29 months in Federal custody for accepting campaign contributions 

that turned out to be part of an FBI sting. 

He authored a book released by Prison Fellowship on the role of 

the church entitled, When Prisoners Return. He has a bachelor’s 

degree in Political Science and a law degree from the University of 

Southern California. 

Thank you for coming in, Mr. Nolan. You present an extraordinary diversity of experience for the benefit of this Subcommittee. 

You may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF PAT NOLAN, VICE PRESIDENT, PRISON 

FELLOWSHIP, LANSDOWNE, VIRGINIA 

Mr. NOLAN. It’s an honor to be included on this panel and to 

have a chance to address you. We strongly support Senator Webb’s 

proposal for a National Commission on Criminal Justice. As you 

pointed out, I was very active on criminal issues in the California 

legislature, especially on victims’ rights. I was an original sponsor 

of the Victim’s Bill of Rights and received the Victim’s Advocate 

Award from Parents of Murdered Children. But as you pointed out, 

my life took an unexpected turn, and after I was convicted of racketeering for a campaign contribution, I went to Federal prison and 

served in Federal custody for 29 months. 

What I saw inside prison really troubled me. Little was being 

done to prepare the inmates for their return to society, and the 

skills that the inmates learned to survive inside prison made them 

more dangerous after they were released. My role at Prison Fellowship is to work with government officials to try to fix our broken 

criminal justice system. It’s taken me to 35 States, where I have 

worked with Governors, attorneys general, secretaries and directors of corrections, and legislators to try to change the system. 

I serve on the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission and 

I was a member of the Commission on Safety and Abuse in America’s Prisons. I was appointed by Governor Schwarzenegger to his 

strike team on rehabilitation, and I currently serve on Virginia’s 

Task Force on Alternatives to Incarceration. 

I tell you all this because this work has given me a chance to 

see up close what is going on in our prisons. Frankly, it’s not working. They’re in crisis. First, I’d like to make three very important 

points. The first, is that our justice system needs to keep us safe. 

That’s the priority, and that will result in fewer victims. 

Second, we need prisons. There are some people that are so dangerous, they need to be incapacitated and separated from society, 

some of them for the rest of their lives. 

13 

The third, is that the crisis in prisons wasn’t created by corrections officials. There are dedicated corrections officers and law enforcement that are merely trying to implement the policies that 

they did not make. The report on the Commission on Safety and 

Abuse in America’s Prisons put it well: many of the biggest socalled prison problems are created outside the gates of the correctional facility. 

Congress and State legislatures have passed laws that dramatically increase prisoner populations without providing the funding, 

or even the encouragement, to confine individuals in safe and productive environments where they can be appropriately punished, 

and for the vast majority who are released, emerge better citizens 

than when they entered. 

Our current policies have resulted in over-crowded prisons where 

inmates are exposed to the horrors of violence, including rape, infectious disease, separation from their family and friends, and despair. Most offenders are idle in prison, warehoused with little 

preparation to make better choices when they return to the free 

world. When they leave prison, they’ll have great difficulty getting 

a job and it’s very likely that the first incarceration won’t be their 

last. 

The Pugh Center on the States has chronicled the magnitude of 

the prison system and the challenges it faces: 2.3 million Americans behind bars as this very moment, 1 out of every 100 adult 

Americans. Including those that are under correctional supervision, 

another 5 million, that comes to 1 in every 31 adults is either in 

prison or being supervised on release. The cost to taxpayers is a 

whopping $68 billion. 

On average, corrections are eating up 1 out of every 15 discretionary dollars at the States and the spending on corrections last 

year was the fastest-growing item in State budgets. We just can’t 

sustain this continued growth of prisons. Corrections budgets are 

literally eating up State budgets, siphoning off money that could go 

for roads, schools, and hospitals. 

But the dilemma we face is, how do we spend less on corrections 

while keeping our people safe? My work in the States has shown 

me that there are several that are doing a terrific job of that and 

that Senator Webb’s legislation could be helpful to the others in 

doing the same thing. 

Most social scientists agree that the drop in crime, some allege 

that it’s only due to the mass incarceration. In reality, the experts 

agree about a quarter of it is, the rest is a variety of factors, many 

of which Chief Bratton has already talked about. 

As I said before, we need prisons, but not for everyone that commits a crime. Prisons are meant for people we are afraid of, but we 

fill them with people we’re just mad at. Check kiters can be safely 

punished in the community while holding down a real job, repaying 

their victims, supporting their families, and paying taxes. A drug 

addict who supports his habit with petty offenses needs to have his 

addiction treated. Sending him to prison, where less than 20 percent of the addicts get any treatment, does not change the inmate. 

When he’s released, he’ll still be an addict. 

Our object should be to get him off drugs. Spending $30,000 a 

year to hold him in prison without any drug treatment is just plain 

14 

wasteful. We can learn a lot from New York City under the strong 

leadership of Chief Bratton. Most people are aware that the crime 

rate dropped dramatically in New York, far more than most other 

large cities. 

For instance, the murders in New York dropped from 2,600 in 

1990 to 800 in 2007. From 2,600 to 800. That’s an astounding fact. 

Also, the one crime statistic that can’t be fudged are bodies in the 

morgue. That was a real drop there. 

What is not well known is that drop in crime occurred while New 

York was cutting its prison population, making better decisions 

about who they put in prison and for how long. They looked at the 

tipping point, where sentences do not buy any more public safety. 

That is really our object: how do we get the most public safety for 

the dollars that we have? Sadly, I don’t think we’re getting the 

bang for our buck from our corrections spending. 

Several States have succeeded in separating the dangerous from 

low-risk offenders, and the results are impressive. They’ve shown 

it’s possible to cut the cost of prisons while keeping the public safe. 

Last year, Texas—not exactly a soft-on-crime State—made sweeping reforms in their prison system. They reserved expensive prison 

beds for the dangerous offenders and treat the rest in community 

facilities, and they’ve taken the plans for building more prisons off 

the table, saving hundreds of millions. 

Senator SPECTER. Mr. Nolan, how much more time would you 

like? 

Mr. NOLAN. Okay. I have three quick things that I think are 

really important that the commission take up. The first, is to treat 

the non-dangerous mentally ill in community treatments. The police don’t want to arrest these folks. They do what they call ‘‘mercy’’ 

bookings because they’re on the street, but there are no beds to put 

them in. It’s so much cheaper to keep them in a community treatment facility. It’s about $29 a day versus $65 or so that it costs to 

keep them in prison. It also makes management of prisons impossible, or jails. How does a mentally ill person follow the orders. 

The second thing is—— 

Senator SPECTER. Mr. Nolan, how much more time would you 

like? 

Mr. NOLAN. It’ll be like 2 minutes. 

Senator SPECTER. OK. 

Mr. NOLAN. The second thing is, have swift and certain sanctions 

for probation and parole violations. Now a vast number of prisoners 

going to prison are for parole violations, some of them serious, but 

a lot of them technical violations—they missed an appointment 

with their probation officer, they failed to report certain income, or 

they had a dirty UA. Sending them back to prison at a cost of 

$30,000 a year isn’t the way to handle it. 

The Pugh Center has studied a program in Hawaii by former 

Federal prosecutor, now a judge, Stephen Ohm that brings them in. 

If they have a dirty UA, they go straight to jail, but not for years, 

for 24 hours, to hit them up the side of the head. Some of these 

are knuckleheads that just can’t follow the rules, and this is a way 

to say we’re serious about it: get back in drug treatment, get back 

meeting your parole officer. The results have been dramatic in that 

they have 85 percent fewer missed appointments and 91 percent 

15 

fewer positive drug tests. So, it’s working and it’s saving the taxpayers a bundle. 

The third thing is, match the parole supervision to the risk. Now 

a lot of States have every parolee being supervised. Instead, it 

should be focused on those that are a danger. 

The last is a really ridiculous policy that limits mentors that 

work with prisoners inside prisons from staying in touch with them 

when they get out. Most of the States have this policy and it interrupts the very good relationships of the volunteers that are helping 

these inmates change their lives, it cuts them off from the very 

people that could protect them. 

It’s just astounding that the States would have that. These are 

the type of issues that the commission can address. The States desperately need the help looking at these things. They’re so busy coping with the number of new prisoners that come in from these long 

sentences and stronger crimes so they can’t look at these themselves. The commission can do that. 

I thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and Senator Webb and the 

other co-sponsors, for carrying the bill. 

Senator SPECTER. Thank you, Mr. Nolan. 

Chief Bratton, you commented about preventing crime and you 

have the unusual system of CompStat. I think this would be a good 

forum to explain that. Other chiefs may be listening to what we say 

here. Exactly how does it work and describe its success rate. 

Chief BRATTON. The success in New York, which is fairly well 

known, which is now continuing in Los Angeles with many fewer 

police resources, is based on a system of timely, accurate intelligence, the idea that gathering up your crime information, both serious as well as minor—broken windows—every day, analyzing it, 

and as quickly as possible putting your police officers, whether in 

New York City with a lot of cops where I could cover all my dots 

all the time, or in Los Angeles I have to prioritize, where do I put 

my very small number of cops on what dots. The very act of staying 

on top of your crime information really allows you to rapidly respond to emerging patterns and trends and stop them at a second 

or third event rather than the 15th or 20th. 

Then what we have also focused on is relentless follow-up, the 

idea that the Federal Government in particular, and to a lesser extent State and cities, are like ‘‘one-eyed Cyclops’’, to quote my 

friend Dean Esserman from Providence, that we look at an issue, 

we think we solve it, and we move on, and like the carousel, we 

never come back to it again. 

In policing, we stay on crime all the time. It never goes away, 

so we never go away. So the CompStat model is very simplistic, if 

you will, but it works. But what fuels is it the idea, better to prevent the crime than expend resources, not just police resources, but 

societal resources. So the statistics that the gentleman to my left 

referenced, in New York City what was not widely known, was during the Guiliani time, my time as his commissioner, we purposely 

increased incarceration rates for a period of time to get the attention of the public and the criminal element, both serious and 

minor, and the prison population rose from 18,000 to 22,000, the 

capacity of Ryker’s Island. 

16 

Right now, Ryker’s Island houses around 11,000 inmates. There’s 

almost as many corrections officers on Ryker’s Island as there are 

prisoners. What happened? Police controlled behavior, both quality 

of life, broken windows, as well as more serious crime, CompStat, 

to such an extent we changed behavior. So the failed philosophy of 

the last Presidential crime commission that pointed police in the 

wrong direction for 30 years was that you, the police, society will 

figure out what to do about the causes of crime, you go work on 

the results of it. Well, we did that for 30 years and we saw the results: crime went through the roof, peaking in 1990 with huge increases, particularly fueled by crack. 

The good news was that in the 1980s and the 1990s, American 

police, working with political leadership, yourself included, we got 

the crime bill of the 1990s, the first comprehensive omnibus crime 

bill, and we changed America. Violent crime went down 40 percent, 

overall crime 30 percent, and but for 9/11, which sucked up so 

many resources that had been focused on traditional crime, we 

would have kept it going down at an even more dramatic rate. 

So the idea now going forward to the new commission is that certainly incarceration is a critical area, but if that’s all you focus on, 

if you don’t focus on police practices, if you don’t focus on probation/parole practices, you are effectively going to end up 30 years 

from now where we were in the 1990s as a result of what occurred 

in the 1960s. 

Senator SPECTER. Do you think the 1994 crime bill was effective? 

Chief BRATTON. I’m sorry, sir? 

Senator SPECTER. Do you think the Federal legislation in 1994, 

the crime bill, was effective? 

Chief BRATTON. It was effective in some respects. I’m an example 

of that. Most of American police leadership today, my predecessor 

and my two successors in the Boston Police Department, for example, we all received educations in the 1970s as young police officers 

and sergeants entering the police business where we were exposed 

by going to college in the daytime, and at nighttime working as police officers. We didn’t get wrapped up in the blue cocoon of that 

era, which was all about ‘‘hook’em and book’em’’. We understood 

that—the first book I ever read for a promotional exam was Herman Goldstein’s Policing a Free Society. We ended up more progressive. 

The leadership of American policing today, which created 

CompStat, quality of life policing, problem-solving policing, focus on 

prevention, and within five years, sir, we’ll be into predictive policing. The next era is, we will be able to predict with great certainty 

where crime is going to occur and be more focused on preventing 

it. It’s coming about because the focus back then had some good results. It provided leadership within policing that benefited the policing system and allows us to also appreciate that it’s not all about 

us, it’s about what part we play in the larger system. We are one 

element—only one element—but I would argue one of the most effective if we get it right. 

Senator SPECTER. Professor Ogletree, you emphasized the treatment aspect. We call it a correctional system, but we all know it 

doesn’t correct. The tremendous cost of recidivism. One of the factors which has been so difficult is to get sufficient public support 

17 

to make the system correctional on the steps of detoxication or literacy training or job training. What suggestion would you make to 

how you get sufficient public support to get the funding to do it? 

Professor OGLETREE. Senator Specter, I think this is an idea 

where the public would actually support the idea of what I would 

call a sane criminal justice policy if the public understood something as simple as the collateral consequences of punishment. You 

don’t only go to jail when you commit a crime in most cases, put 

aside minor crimes, but also you lose your right to vote, you lose 

your right to hold a license, you can’t get a job, you can’t travel, 

and you can’t live in certain communities. Therefore, the only thing 

you do is return to crime, so the community is punished a second 

time because we haven’t thought carefully about what to do with 

this person once they’ve served their time. 

A couple of sensible things are going on with the mayor I know 

in Oakland, a former member of the Congress, Ron Dellums, and 

with another mayor, I know in Newark, Corey Booker. Both of 

them are making contact with corrections officials before people are 

released to get a sense of where they’re going to go, what treatment 

they need. It’s a form of the second chance, but the idea is that I 

don’t want my community impacted by someone being released 

today whom I know can’t get a job, doesn’t have a license, doesn’t 

have a place to live, and they’ll be committing crimes within 48 to 

72 hours. So reaching those people before they’re released and 

working with corrections is one thing. 

The second thing is to think about our policies that disenfranchise people in terms of working and to let the public know that 

we’re not saying that we’re going to give the best and most expensive jobs, the most revenue generating jobs to criminals. That’s not 

the right idea. But the idea now is that someone who has a record 

can’t get a job cutting grass or painting a fence. Okay. Not a child 

care center, not in certain sensitive areas, not in national security, 

fine. But the kinds of work that they could do where they would 

be taxpaying, wage-earning citizens is important. 

I recall the line from Chief Justice Earl Warren’s position on 

Brown. Brown had a lot of interesting things to say, but one thing 

said was that the most important thing was education. He said, 

‘‘The very foundation of education is that it creates citizenship.’’ 

People consider themselves citizens, which makes a big difference. 

What I would suggest that we would have to do, and what this 

commission could do very effectively, is to figure out a way that 

people—like the old system, you have both a time of punishment, 

but also a time of treatment and release, and that we would make 

sure that we have a policy, a sane policy which enforces that. 

Senator SPECTER. Professor Ogletree, in terms of attacking the 

underlying causes of crime, we talk about education, rehabilitation, 

realistic rehabilitation, job training, during your tenure in this field 

do you think we made any progress in the last three decades on 

the underlying causes of crime? 

Professor OGLETREE. We have. To be fair, we have, because what 

we’ve done is to get people, on their own initiative with their own 

resources, to come up with creative alternatives for education. If 

you look at what is being done right in New York with the Harlem 

Enterprise Zone, you will see that this has taken a community that 

18 

would otherwise be viewed as crime, drugs, violence, but in fact 

Jeffrey has taken this community and said, you know, this is our 

community. We have to clean it up; we have to respect it. So people 

from parents to children are invested in it in some way that makes 

an enormous amount of difference. 

At the same time, James Bell in Oakland has the Byrnes Institute which works with young people to make sure that we’re very 

careful about things like expulsion and suspension, because when 

kids are out of school, all they do is commit crime. All of our laws 

that talk about curfews at 9, the crime is happening, as Chief 

Bratton will tell you, from 3 to 6, these latchkey kids who don’t 

have anyone supervising them. 

The third example that’s a pretty significant one is resource-serious, but Chief Bratton will tell you, in Boston what we had was 

a voluntary effort of clergy, the Ten Point Coalition, the Black Minister Alliance, not meeting kids at the church, but going out on the 

streets of Boston in Dorchester, Mattapan, and Roxbury at midnight and talking to them, and taking them to have some coffee 

and so they had something to do. What I’m saying is that the community can address crime. It shouldn’t be a burden just on police, 

just on the criminal justice system, but we have to use the resources that are already there. 

If we can replicate examples of the Ten Point Coalition and the 

Black Minister Alliance in communities across this Nation, ministers, retired teachers, senior citizens, all of us have an interest 

in crime prevention, and we do that by telling children we love 

them, they do have some future, we can help them, and it doesn’t 

cost the government money. 

The idea is to make the community responsible for its own, but 

do that in a sense that gives the community some power to make 

sure that children have some alternatives other than the idea that 

all they can do is hang out in the streets because they can’t get a 

job, they can’t go to school, and they don’t have many ideas of success within their homes. 

Senator SPECTER. How important do you think mentoring is on 

that kind of community support? 

Professor OGLETREE. It’s critical. It’s absolutely essential. You 

know that President Barack Obama and his wife Michelle Obama 

were my students, and I think about both of them. People see them 

and what they’ve done today, but Barack Obama is a guy whose 

father was largely absent from his life. His mother was pregnant 

as a teenager. He was moved around, not the country, but the 

world as a young kid. 

Yet, he had mentors who kept him in check, who made him get 

away from bad influences, and led him to see that his life could be 

different. The same thing with Michelle: a father who was a working-class guy who had multiple sclerosis, but he took care of his 

children. I think mentoring is perhaps the most significant single 

factor. 

And here is the point that we forget about: it’s the problem that 

we don’t appreciate the fact that mentoring has nothing to do with 

race and gender, that if we think, because I’m white I can’t mentor 

a black kid from Harlem, or I can’t mentor an Hispanic kid from 

19 

Houston, we’re wrong. If we don’t see this as our problem and our 

children and our community, that’s the problem. 

Mentoring should be a global effort by everyone that everyone 

can contribute, and that makes an enormous amount of difference 

for these children to see somebody who loves them, who has spent 

some time with them, and it’s cost-effective because it lets people, 

like senior citizens, let kids know what it means to read a book, 

to think about a job, to be self-sufficient. 

Senator SPECTER. Senator Klobuchar? 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you to our witnesses. Before I had this job I spent 8 years 

as a prosecutor in Hennapin County, heading up that office. I saw 

firsthand how the criminal justice system can work well, and then 

some of the issues that we have with it as well. 

I will tell you that my experience—Minnesota has a lower incarceration rate than most States: we use probation more, we hang 

sentences over people’s heads, we have a functioning drug court 

that has been improved and has some merit to it, I would say, but 

we also have focused in recent years strongly on tough sentences 

against people, felons who commit gun crimes and things like that. 

So I will say that despite many people who completely decry our 

criminal justice system, I think there have been some improvements in recent years. I can tell you that I come from a city that 

was once called ‘‘Murderopolis’’ in the mid-1980s, and because of 

some tougher sentences, but also some more work on drug rehabilitation in our country, we actually saw vast improvements, a very 

strong decrease in the amount of murders, so no one is calling us 

‘‘Murderopolis’’ anymore. 

So I have interest in trying to make improvements, but also 

wanting to make sure that while we fix what is broken, that we’re 

not going to hurt the good that has come out of some of the tougher 

sentences for certain crimes as we go ahead. 

I had questions, first of all, for you, Mr. Bratton. I think we met 

once at a prosecutor’s conference where I heard you speak back 

then many years ago. But I know you’re a fan of community policing. I also think we could build on that with community prosecution. We did some of that in our county that was very successful. 

I do want to talk about whether you think this commission should 

also be looking into community policing. 

Chief BRATTON. Community policing is, in fact, being quite frank 

with you, what saved America in the 1990s. The Federal Government entering into the partnership with State and local agencies 

for the first time in an effective way, the omnibus crime bill, some 

meaningful gun regulation, but its support of the concept of community policing, the emphasis on partnership, community, criminal 

justice system partnership within the system, prosecutors working 

with police, working with probation/parole, judges, et cetera, and 

the return to the focus on prevention of crime. What we focused on 

in the 1970s and 1980s was, as I was talking about earlier, was 

the response: response time, arrest rates, conviction rates, all important, but that’s part of it. 

The totality of it is, how do we prevent it in the first place? How 

do we prevent people from becoming drug addicts? How do we prevent people from being incarcerated? In the 1990s, we learned a 

20 

lot; the New York experience, CompStat, was a tool to facilitate 

community policing. We resourced appropriately on the police side 

of the house in that we had a lot of police, 100,000 more than we 

have now. 

We also built a lot more prisons, but in the building of the prisons, when we filled them up as the police put them there, we in 

effect compounded the problem rather than, as policing was doing, 

reducing the problem in terms of the reduction of violence. There 

are too many people in jail that don’t need to be there, many who 

could be in treatment centers, certainly the homeless, or what have 

come to be known as the homeless, the majority of whom are in 

fact having mental issues. 

That half-million population in prison should not be there. 

They’re only there because there’s no place else to house them. 

Those half million in the 1960s and 1970s were in other forms of 

prison: they call them mental institutions. We literally dumped 

them from one place into another, and along the way a lot of them 

became the homeless populations we see on the streets. 

So, effectively, your point that we not throw everything out, but 

examine what has been working, what is continuing to work, and 

what can we add to it, and let’s get rid of what is not. There’s a 

lot that is not working. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. OK. 

Mr. Nolan, I appreciate your work. For many years I visited— 

I think 10 years—a woman who was incarcerated in Minnesota before I was a chief prosecutor. It got a little more difficult then. But 

she had killed her pimp, and I got a sense of the population. I went 

there about once a month and saw her and got to know some of 

the inmates in the facility. I will say that one of the things that 

I noticed, there were some people there with severe mental illness. 

One of the things that you’ve suggested that Mr. Bratton just 

mentioned was to provide funding for providing more community 

health facilities where non-dangerous mentally ill people—I know 

we worked with the Mental Health Court for a while when I was 

a prosecutor to take some of the urinating in public cases, some of 

the cases that were non-violent, and tried to make sure that these 

people were taking medication, and working with them, and we 

had some success with that. 

Could you talk a little bit about this idea of having a place that 

is different from the prison for people who are mentally ill to be 

incarcerated or to get treatment? 

Mr. NOLAN. Yes. First of all, it’s wonderful you’ve gone and visited the woman in prison. As I said, it’s a lonely time, and anybody 

that wants to turn their life around, having somebody that comes 

and shows love for them and cares about them, gives them hope. 

So, thank you. 

The mentally ill population, as Chief Bratton said, we closed our 

mental hospitals, but didn’t build the community facilities that 

were promised to take care of them, so they ended up on the street 

and with the mercy bookings of the police, they ended up in jail. 

The idea is to get them in a stable environment. Ofttimes they’re 

off their medications. If they’re on their medications, getting three 

squares a day, they’re totally functioning. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Exactly. 

21 

Mr. NOLAN. They’re not a danger to anybody. LAPD and LASO, 

the sheriff’s office, have a great program, crisis intervention teams 

that are trained, specially trained officers that go out when a mentally ill person is found in front of Denny’s worshipping the news 

rack, or whatever, that’s the public nuisance. What it does, is free 

up the patrol officer to continue doing his work. These are specially 

trained and they try to defuse the situation. Then they’ve worked 

out contracts with local mental health facilities. They get first call 

on the beds. That’s what the need is. They need a bed that can give 

them the acute care that they need, stabilize them, and then they 

can go to a regular mental health facility. 

The problem is, they don’t have enough money. I don’t know 

about LAPD, but LASO has one shift, 8 hours out of the 24, and 

they’ve had to choose the times to have that special team just during 8 hours. The problem is, people don’t act out during set times 

of the day. If they had 24-hour coverage, it would be much better. 

The second thing, is that they have a bed to put them. I’ll give 

you a quick story of an incident that shows how absurd this situation is. A deputy, before this program, arrested a mentally ill person. Again, they were causing a disturbance. He took them to the 

county hospital. 

The L.A. county hospital refused to accept him and said, take 

him to jail. The deputy said, this man is not a criminal, he’s sick. 

He belongs here. The hospital said, get off the property, we’re going 

to arrest you for trespass if you stay here, and tried to arrest the 

deputy for trying to get the guy the treatment he needed. It became a big—the watch commander of the sheriffs and the commander at the hospital got involved and they defused the situation, 

but that’s how absurd the situation was. You had a deputy that 

knew this man didn’t belong in jail. 

Also, the mentally ill are horribly abused in prison. They’re 

taken advantage of, and then sometimes they also act out and 

abuse people. The last thing is, it just makes management impossible. Jails and prisons run on order, following set patterns. That’s 

how they control the population. By definition, a mentally ill person can’t follow the rules so they end up in detention, solitary confinement, which exacerbates their mental illness. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Are you familiar with the Mental Illness 

Court that they had in Milwaukee where they actually have—— 

Mr. NOLAN. Yes. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. They have a place that people go and they 

take their medication, the sentence is hung over their heads. 

Mr. NOLAN. Right. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. I think it was an interesting model to look 

at. So, again, for lower-level offenders. 

Mr. NOLAN. That’s exactly it. There are some mentally ill that 

need to be—Charlie Manson needs to be locked up. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you. 

Mr. NOLAN. But a lot of folks don’t. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. All right. I’ll come back. 

Senator SPECTER. Go ahead. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. You want me to keep—— 

Senator SPECTER. Yes. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Okay. All right. 

22 

The other thing, Mr. Walsh, I want to thank you also for being 

here. I appreciated your testimony where—I don’t know if you said 

it today, but in the written testimony where you talked about how 

State and local governments are responsible for 96 percent of those 

individuals that are either incarcerated or on parole. 

As we look at this commission and the setting up of the commission, I’m very concerned that the people that are paying for 96 percent of this have a voice, because I can tell you what my impression was, being on the front line, managing an office of 400 people, 

is that the people in Washington love to put mandates down on us 

and put it in their brochures, and then we got stuck with all the 

work without any funding. 

So could you talk a little bit about helping local governments 

have a voice with this commission? 

Mr. WALSH. Yes. Thank you. And thank you for your interest in 

this, too. You know, the principle which I mention in my written 

statement is often called the Principle of Subsidiarity, which is that 

those government officials who are closest to the affected populations are typically in the best position, like you were as a prosecutor in Hennapin County, to know what the needs and the priorities should be for that particular community. 

So often when drug policy is made or other policy is made at the 

Washington level, it doesn’t necessarily reflect the values, the interests, and the priorities of the local community. So who those 

persons are who are ending up being incarcerated—or mental 

health, perhaps, issues that are being dealt with—in the population in that local community is being dictated by a very broad, 

and not necessarily very nuanced, policy that’s being made in 

Washington. 

So those who are on the ground, as I’ve learned in other experiences that I had, including doing Katrina relief where I was involved in getting the private sector on the ground very quickly 

right after the hurricanes hit, one of the things you learn is that 

the government officials who are closest to the situation are the 

ones who understand what is happening on the ground. They recognize it. It’s very difficult for anyone in Washington to really see 

those nuances. 

So from that standpoint, I think one of the things that the commission really needs is to have a robust representation from the 

States. It’s good that the commission right now has two members 

who would be appointed, one by the chairman of the Democratic 

Governors Association, the other by the chairman of the Republican 

Governors Association. But it would be helpful to have language in 

the statute which specifically states that those interests need to be 

taken into account. And whether those members are appointed by 

Congress or, as I also recommend, that some of them be appointed 

by the executive branch, that those be people who are staunch proponents of the State and local law enforcement officials who right 

now comprise 91 percent of all of the law enforcement officials 

across the Nation. 

So those are some of the ways that I think we can do it, but part 

of it is just elevating the discourse and making sure that we recognize that the States really do have the huge burden. One percent 

of the arrests, I think, in 2003 were made by Federal officials; 99 

23 

percent of the arrests were made by State and local officials. That’s 

something that gets lost in the national publications, the national 

media. 

It’s important that we continue to bring that issue to the fore because otherwise we end up with some of the guidance that we were 

given—even, I hate to say it, but through the Sentencing Reform 

Act—from the Federal Government, which suggests that this is the 

best way, necessarily, to do sentencing. 

A lot of the States will follow that in, sometimes, lock-step or 

rote, especially if there’s money attached to it. So from that standpoint I think it makes a lot of sense to get the communities that 

Professor Ogletree was talking about well engaged and to have 

them well-represented, with their voices from the very beginning of 

the process—community leaders, ministers, others—talking about 

what they’re really seeing and how to make sure that what we plan 

actually works. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Right. 

Then the other thing you commented about was just the sentencing, and how there are sentences that we should look at changing, and we had a good hearing here on the crack/powder disparity. 

I support changing that, and I think a number of the other Senators do as well. But I am concerned—I will be honest with this— 

I saw in our State some major improvements when it came to, especially, some of the Federal gun laws that went on the books that 

allowed for some of the worst criminals with guns, that allowed 

that to be up to the Federal level. 

I think that was very helpful in many cases for us, even when 

they didn’t go to the Federal level, the fact that those sentences 

were out there. It gave us some leverage to enforce the laws on the 

State basis. I think some of the changes in sexual assault law have 

been helpful, I think some of the changes in domestic abuse laws 

and those longer sentences have been helpful. 

So some of the rhetoric surrounding this bill, that the entire system is broken, when in fact we have made strides in many areas, 

does bother me. It is not to say that we don’t need changes to the 

criminal laws, we do. I come at it with these 8 years of experience 

of seeing the good side of using rehabilitation and having programs 

that work, but I also come at it as someone that has seen also the 

benefits of having some of the strength of a strong criminal justice 

system with those sticks out there. 

Do you want to comment briefly on that? 

Mr. WALSH. Yes, I would. I think you’re right. In gun crime in 

particular, there’s an instance where—I hate to say it again— 

there’s a tenuous connection to interstate commerce in many instances for those Federal crimes. That doesn’t mean that the States 

can’t put in place the same type of laws, because they have wide 

latitude to criminalize gun possession in similar circumstances. 

Now, the issue becomes, is there funding available and is there 

a mandate available? So one of the ways that we—and I think part 

of what the commission needs to do, is to recognize that the average person has gotten to the place where they do begin to look to 

Washington for all the solutions and to recognize that the State 

capital is often the place where those crimes can be put into place, 

24 

those offenses can be put into place, and then also look at how is 

money being allocated? 

Some of the cost-savings measures that have been mentioned 

here could be reallocated for, like, gun enforcement, as an example. 

The benefit being that there is, again, a more nuanced approach 

and it’s more tuned to the gun offenders in that particular State, 

that locality, whatever it is, and is not necessarily as harsh as 

some of the cases I saw when I clerked, for example, in the Federal 

court system, where basically an offender had a single shell casing 

or a few shell casings in a residence where he was staying, not 

even his shell casing. It was undisputed. But he either knew that 

they were there or had constructive possession of them and ended 

up spending time in prison because that supposedly was sufficient 

to show that he had possession. 

So there’s an instance where, at the State level, those types of 

stories, I think, have a greater impact on the electorate and they 

can begin to re-tune the policy. But I think mental illness is an 

other example. It is good for Washington to lead in terms of understanding what best practices are, doing the thorough investigations, and then bringing everyone to the table to begin to discuss 

it very openly. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Yes. And I always just think about the effects that these changes will have, and I think there are some very 

good things we can do here. But I always remember, it’s not going 

to be on the gated communities, it’s not going to be where a lot of 

my colleagues live, it’s going to be, the effects of these policies, good 

and bad, in the criminal justice system affect people in the Falwell 

neighborhood in north Minneapolis where they depend on us to 

make sure we’re making the right decisions here. 

I just want to end, because the Chairman has been so nice to let 

me go on here, with Professor Ogletree. Thank you very much for 

your work. I was very interested in your focus on patrol officers— 

we call them probation in our State—better monitoring using those 

compliance tools. We found that to be tremendously effective and 

a good use of resources, and they sometimes get left behind where 

someone, as long as they’re monitored, it has been a big help to 

know and to use some of that sentence hanging over their head and 

to have probation officers, especially if they’re willing to be out in 

the community. 

Do you want to expand on that some more? 

Professor OGLETREE. I agree. When I was practicing here, one of 

the great things was the great Probation and Parole Division, not 

with guns, but with the idea to help people get the jobs, make sure 

they kept their appointments, make sure they treated their families respectful, and it created a real partnership because you were 

in the halfway house. Right? You were out of jail, but if you didn’t 

follow my rules strictly you would go back to jail. That was an important lever over their head. 

I think we need a lot of those, not just the idea of probation and 

parole officers and other social workers and people in the community, but as I said earlier, we need the community to be invested 

in some reasonable way. 

Here’s the one thing that I would slightly disagree with on both 

the inferences, yours and Mr. Walsh’s. Here’s the problem. EveryVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:04 May 18, 2010 Jkt 056273 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\56273.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
25 

body has their own idea of how much to add to punishment, so you 

may want to do it on guns, someone else on sex offense, someone 

else on the elderly. What happens is, you get a 24-year-old who 

gets a sentence, not of 8 years, but of 30 years, and he comes out 

54 years old, doesn’t have a high school diploma, doesn’t have a job, 

doesn’t have a license. 

Then he goes out, because he can’t work, doesn’t have a place to 

stay, and 3 weeks later he’s back. You say, what happened? Well, 

no one did anything to prepare him for the life that he’s going to 

experience. My sense is that we’ve got to think of not just the role 

of prosecutors, defense lawyers, and police, but who are the problem solvers? No one has that role in the criminal justice system. 

No one has to say, ‘‘my job is to resolve the problem, and my job 

is to do it in a smart and creative way.’’ 

It’s being done by Chief Bratton and others, and police now are 

more creative about it. It’s being done by judges, as I mentioned 

earlier, who are looking at the disparities between two penalties 

and saying, well, let me do what I think makes the most sense, and 

still be punitive. 

One hundred and thirty months is still a lot of time, as opposed 

to 160, no one is walking free. But I think the real goal here is to 

figure out if we can have some group of people who can step back 

and say, our job is to solve this problem in a cost-effective way, and 

if we can’t punish everyone as severely as we’d like, how can we 

make them accountable? 

My sense is, you’ve got to get a job, you’ve got to go to work, 

you’ve got to earn a salary, you’ve got to pay your taxes, you’ve got 

to respect the community. I mean, there are a whole series of 

things that we think that can be done, and we’ve seen that happen. 

I should say, if you look at the testimony submission, virtually 

every single program that I mention in here is an organic one. 

Some community person said, I want to do this for these kids, and 

then they got a little bit of money, then they got a little State 

money, and then they got some Federal money. 

So it was somebody locally who couldn’t go to the mayor, the 

Governor, or the city council or the legislature, but somebody in 

Washington said, that’s a very good idea, the youth bill. That’s a 

very good idea, L.A. is best when kids are in school and staying off 

the streets. So my sense is that the Federal Government shouldn’t 

tell the local government what to do, but it seems to me the Federal Government should find ways to support creative programs. 

It’s a competition. You don’t get it just because you’re there, you 

have to prove to me that you’re doing something that makes a substantive difference in the quality of life, not just of those in the 

criminal justice system, but those who are fearful of walking down 

the streets, shopping in the supermarket, living in the neighborhood. That’s what we have to do to have a comprehensive and sane, 

and I would smart and creative, criminal justice policy. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Very good. And I hope you didn’t believe 

that I was against looking at this, because I come from a State 

which, I didn’t always like to say, has the lowest incarceration rate 

in the country, but pretty much so. We use probation all the time 

in a very positive way, and I think a lot can be learned from that, 

especially at the Federal level. But one thing you mentioned that 

26 

I think is really important to note is that a lot of times politicians 

don’t want to pretend people are going to get out, and some offenders should never get out, do never get out, but many offenders do 

get out. 

I think the willingness to focus on that part of the time, what 

education they get when they’re in prison—no one wants to say 

they’re getting out, but they are, so the more we can do to equip 

them with those skills and to help them get jobs when they get 

out—we have a great program in the Twin Cities called Twin Cities Rise that has actual numbers. 

This is one of these things that bugs me with programs, is a lot 

of times you have no idea what works and what doesn’t. I think 

that we really need to have a focus on that as well. But they have 

the numbers to show that they’re willing to take people in, train 

them, and get them out there in workforce. And certainly at this 

difficult time in the economy it’s even harder for ex-inmates to 

come out and get jobs, and so I appreciate that focus, and it must 

be a focus of this commission. Thank you. 

Professor OGLETREE. I should also say that you know Cathy 

Rickman, who is the co-chair with me of the Juvenile Justice Section of the Criminal Justice Section of the ABA, and we’ve been 

doing this very much. Donald Lewis, who’s a classmate of mine, the 

new dean of Hamline—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. From Minnesota, yes. 

Professor OGLETREE. All of us have been talking about, how do 

we do something for children? That is, we can’t save everybody, but 

if we can prevent something early, that makes an enormous 

amount of difference. Minnesota is one of those States that we’ve 

seen as a model of intervening in people’s lives at an early point 

and staying there until the problem is solved, and it’s made a tremendous difference in the recidivism rate and the crime rate. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you. And I do think the other thing 

that made some difference, because we were called ‘‘Murderopolis’’, 

was that we had some tough sentences that we were able to use. 

Professor OGLETREE. Right. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. And I think the key is to have it be a chisel 

and not a hammer in trying to get to the right place. We’re never 

going to be perfect, but maybe because I had to play that voice in 

our State for so long, we have been called the land of not just 

10,000 lakes, but 10,000 treatment centers. 

Professor OGLETREE. Right. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. So I believe that it’s important to have 

both, and I appreciate the work that you’ve all done. Thank you 

very much. 

Senator SPECTER. Thank you, Senator Klobuchar. 

We will make a part of the record letters, statements, and reports from The Rand Corporation, Human Rights Watch, National 

Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Council of Prison Locals, 

AFGE, AFL–CIO, Federal Cure, Inc., Crimeon International, Goodwill Industries International, Russell Simmons, Kings County D.A. 

Charles Hahns, Families Against Mandatory Minimums. 

[The letters, appear as a submission for the record.] 

[Annditional material is being retained in the Committee files, 

see contents.] 

27 

We thank you all very much, Chief Bratton, Professor Ogletree, 

Mr. Walsh, and Mr. Nolan. 

That concludes our hearing. 

[Whereupon, at 4:25 p.m. the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Submissions for the Record follow.] 

28 


56273.001
29 


56273.002
30 


56273.003
31 


56273.004
32 


56273.005
33 


56273.006
34 


56273.007
35 


56273.008
36 


56273.009
37 


56273.010
38 


56273.011
39 


56273.012
40 


56273.013
41 


56273.014
42 


56273.015
43 


56273.016
44 


56273.017
45 


56273.018
46 


56273.019
47 


56273.020
48 


56273.021
49 


56273.022
50 


56273.023
51 


56273.024
52 


56273.025
53 


56273.026
54 


56273.027
55 


56273.028
56 


56273.029
57 


56273.030
58 


56273.031
59 


56273.032
60 


56273.033
61 


56273.034
62 


56273.035
63 


56273.036
64 


56273.037
65 


56273.038
66 


56273.039
67 


56273.040
68 


56273.041
69 


56273.042
70 


56273.043
71 


56273.044
72 


56273.045
73 


56273.046
74 


56273.047
75 


56273.048
76 


56273.049
77 


56273.050
78 


56273.051
79 


56273.052
80 


56273.053
81 


56273.054
82 


56273.055
83 


56273.056
84 


56273.057
85 


56273.058
86 


56273.059
87 


56273.060
88 


56273.061
89 


56273.062
90 


56273.063
91 


56273.064
92 


56273.065
93 


56273.066
94 


56273.067
95 


56273.068
96 


56273.069
97 


56273.070
98 


56273.071
99 


56273.072
100 


56273.073
101 


56273.074
102 


56273.075
103 


56273.076
104 


56273.077
105 


56273.078
106 


56273.079
107 


56273.080
108 


56273.081
109 


56273.082
110 


56273.083
111 


56273.084
112 


56273.085
113 


56273.086
114 


56273.087
115 


56273.088
116 


56273.089
117 


56273.090
118 


56273.091
119 


56273.092
120 


56273.093
121 


56273.094
122 


56273.095
123 


56273.096
124 


56273.097
125 


56273.098
126 


56273.099
127 


56273.100
128 


56273.101
129 


56273.102
130 


56273.103
131 


56273.104
132 


56273.105
133 


56273.106
134 


56273.107
135 


56273.108
136 


56273.109
137 


56273.110
138 


56273.111
139 


56273.112
140 


56273.113
141 


56273.114
142 


56273.115
143 


56273.116
144 


56273.117
145 


56273.118
146 


56273.119
147 


56273.120
148 


56273.121
149 


56273.122
150 


56273.123
151 


56273.124
152 


56273.125
153 


56273.126
154 


56273.127
155 


56273.128
156 


56273.129
157 


56273.130
158 


56273.131
159 


56273.132
160 


56273.133
161 


56273.134
162 


56273.135
163 


56273.136
164 


56273.137
165 


56273.138
166 


56273.139
167 


56273.140
168 


56273.141
169 


56273.142
170 


56273.143
171 


56273.144
172 


56273.145
173 


56273.146
174 


56273.147
175 


56273.148
176 


56273.149
177 


56273.150
178 


56273.151
179 


56273.152
180 


56273.153
181 


56273.154
182 


56273.155
183 


56273.156
184 

Æ 


56273.157