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) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

20–388 PDF 2005

GANG DETERRENCE AND COMMUNITY

PROTECTION ACT OF 2005

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, 

AND HOMELAND SECURITY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

H.R. 1279

APRIL 5, 2005

Serial No. 109–50

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/judiciary 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., Wisconsin, Chairman 

HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee 

CHRIS CANNON, Utah 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina 

JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana 

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

DARRELL ISSA, California 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

ADAM SMITH, Washington 

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

PHILIP G. KIKO, Chief of Staff-General Counsel 

PERRY H. APELBAUM, Minority Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina, Chairman

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

JAY APPERSON, Chief Counsel 

MICHAEL VOLKOV, Deputy Chief Counsel 

ELIZABETH SOKUL, Counsel 

KATY CROOKS, Counsel 

JASON CERVENAK, Full Committee Counsel 

BOBBY VASSAR, Minority Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

APRIL 5, 2005

OPENING STATEMENT 

Page 

The Honorable J. Randy Forbes, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Virginia ................................................................................................... 1

The Honorable Robert C. Scott, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Virginia, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, 

and Homeland Security ....................................................................................... 3

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Michigan ................................................................................................. 5

WITNESSES 

Mr. Patrick J. Fitzgerald, United States Attorney, Northern District of Illinois, U.S. Department of Justice 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 8

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 10

Mr. Paul A. Logli, State’s Attorney, Winnebago County, Illinois, and President Elect, National District Attorneys Association 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 18

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 20

Ms. Michelle Guess, Edgewood, MD 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 24

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 25

Mr. Robert E. Shepherd, Jr., Emeritus Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law, Richmond, VA 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 26

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 27

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee 

on the Judiciary ................................................................................................... 42

Responses to Questions for the Record submitted by the Honorable Patrick 

Fitzgerald, U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, U.S. Department of Justice ..................................................................................................... 44

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Texas .................................................................. 46

Letter from James D. Fox, Chief of the Newport News Police Department 

to the Honorable J. Randy Forbes (March 29, 2005) ........................................ 48

Letter from Kenneth C. Bauman, member of the Board of Directors for 

the National Association of Assistant United States Attorneys to the Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (April 29, 2005) ........................................... 50

Letter from Michael A. Fry, General Counsel, Major Cities Chiefs Association 

to the Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (april 15, 2005) ...................... 52

Letter from Roy L. Burns, President, Association for Los Angeles Deputy 

Sheriffs to the Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (April 20, 2005) ....... 54

Letter from Wesley D. McBride, President, California Gang Investigators 

Association to the Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (April 25, 2005) . 55

Page

IV

Letter from Eddie J. Jordan, Jr., District Attorney of New Orleans to the 

Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (April 18, 2005) ................................. 56

Letter from Donald Baldwin, Washington Director, Federal Criminal Investigators Association to the Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (April 

22, 2005) ................................................................................................................ 57

Letter from Chuck Canterbury, National President, Fraternal Order of Police 

to the Honorable J. Randy Forbes (April 4, 2005) ............................................. 58

Letter from Dennis Slocumb, International Executive Vice President, International Union of Police Associations to the Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (Arpil 26, 2005) ............................................................................... 59

Letter from James J. Fotis, Executive Director, The Law Enforcement Alliance of America to the Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (April 

19, 2005) ................................................................................................................ 60

Letter from Sheriff Michael J. Bouchard, Vice President, Legislative Affairs, 

and Sheriff James A. Karnes, President, Major County Sheriffs’ Association 

to the Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (April 20, 2005) ...................... 61

Letter from Richard Delonis, President, National Association of Assistant 

United States Attorneys to the Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. 

(May 2, 2005) ........................................................................................................ 62

Letter from William J. Johnson, Executive Director, National Association 

of Police Organizations to the Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. 

(April 15, 2005) ..................................................................................................... 63

Letter from Felipe A. Ortiz, National President, National Latino Peace Officers Association to the Honorale F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (April 18, 

2005) ...................................................................................................................... 64

Letter from Thomas N. Faust, Executive Director, National Sheriffs’ Association to the Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (April 19, 2005) .............. 66

Letter from Casey L. Perry, Chairman, National Troopers Coalition to the 

Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (April 19, 2005) ................................. 67

Letter from Tyrone Parker, Laura W. Murphy, et al. to the Honorable Howard Coble and the Honorable Robert C. Scott (April 11, 2005) ........................ 68

Letter from National Hispanic Organizations to the Honorable F. James 

Sensenbrenner, Jr. and the Honorable John Conyers (April 20, 2005 and 

May 10, 2005) ....................................................................................................... 71

Letter from the Association of Oil Pipe Lines, Business Civil Liberties, Inc., 

et al., to the Honorable Howard Coble and the Honorable Robert C. Scott 

(April 12, 2005) ..................................................................................................... 75

Letter from Laura W. Murphy, Tonya McClary, et al., to the Honorable 

Howard Coble and the Honorable Robert C. Scott (April 4, 2005) .................. 79

Letter from Laura W. Murphy, Director, and Jesselyn McCurdy, Legislative 

Counsel, American Civil Liberties Union to the Honorable Howard Coble 

and the Honorable Robert C. Scott (April 15, 2005) ......................................... 82

Letter from Julie Stewart, President, and Mary Price, General Counsel, Families Against Mandatory Minimums to the Honorable Howard Coble and 

the Honorable Robert C. Scott (April 8, 2005) ................................................... 87

Letter from the Thomas W. Hiller, II, Federal Public Defender, and Chair, 

Legislative Expert Panel, Federal Public and Community Defenders to the 

Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. and the Honorable John Conyers 

(April 21, 2005) ..................................................................................................... 89

Letter from Members of Congress to the Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, 

Jr. and the Honorable John Conyers, Jr. (April 19, 2005) ............................... 92

Letter from Leonidas Ralph Mecham, Secretary, Judicial Conference of the 

United States to the Honorable Howard Coble (April 1, 2005) ........................ 95

Letter from Janet Murguia, President and CEO, National Council of La 

Raza to the Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. and the Honorable 

John Conyers (April 13, 2005 and May 9, 2005) ............................................... 99

Letter from Virginia Coalition for Juvenile Justice to the Honorable J. Randy 

Forbes (April 4, 2005) .......................................................................................... 103

Letter from Coalition of National and Regional Organizations to the Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. and the Honorable John Conyers (April 

8, 2005) .................................................................................................................. 106

Letter from Morna A. Murray, Co-chair, National Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Coalition to the Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, 

Jr. and the Honorable John Conyers (April 8, 2005) ........................................ 109

‘‘Caught in the Crossfire: Arresting Gang Violence By Investing in Kids,’’

a report submitted by Fight Crime: Invest in Kids ........................................... 110

Page

V

Jason Ziedenberg, ‘‘What works to deter gangs?’’ The Detroit Free Press, 

April 12, 2005 ....................................................................................................... 141

‘‘DOJ Youth Violence and Youth Gang Prevention Best Practices Protocols 

By Age’’ ................................................................................................................. 143

QuickTime presentation, ‘‘Adolescent Brain Development’’ ................................. 147

‘‘Estimates of Prison Impact of H.R. 1279, ’’ submitted by the United States 

Sentencing Commission ....................................................................................... 153

‘‘Childhood On Trial: The Failure of Trying & Sentencing Youth in Adult 

Criminal Court,’’ a report submitted by Coalition for Juvenile Justice .......... 156

Letter from David G. Wilson, Executive Director, Association of Former Federal Narcotics Agents to the Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (July 

23, 2005) ................................................................................................................ 255

Nancy Bartley, ‘‘Lawmakers rethinking hard line on sentencing of young 

offenders,’’ The Seattle Times, April 14, 2005 .................................................... 256

(1)

H.R. 1279, GANG DETERRENCE AND 

COMMUNITY PROTECTION ACT OF 2005

TUESDAY, APRIL 5, 2005

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM,

AND HOMELAND SECURITY

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m., in Room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. J. Randy Forbes presiding. 

Mr. FORBES. I would like to call this meeting of the Subcommittee to order, and let me first of all say good afternoon to everyone who’s here. I want to welcome you to this important hearing 

to examine the issue of the problem of gang violence in America. 

The bill we are considering today sends a clear message to gangs, 

which is basically this: It stops now. Gone are the days of the 

Sharks and the Jets from the ‘‘West Side Story.’’ No longer are fists 

and jeers the weapon of choice. Now, drive-by shootings with semiautomatics, brutal group beatings, and machete attacks are the 

standard. 

No longer are gangs loosely-knit groups of wayward teens. Today’s criminal gangs are highly organized, highly structured bodies 

whose ages range anywhere from elementary school to middle-age. 

They are trained in military techniques and their primary purpose 

is to commit illegal violent criminal activities in furtherance of 

their gang organization. They are in our schools, on our streets, 

and in our communities. 

The problem of gangs is not a new one, but today it’s a different 

one and a bigger one and one that is growing more rapidly and 

more uncontrollably than ever before. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, there are currently over 25,000 gangs that are 

active in more than 3,000 jurisdictions across the United States. 

Today, the FBI and the U.S. Justice Department estimate that 

there are somewhere between 750,000 and 850,000 gang members 

in our nation. 

Let me put this in perspective for you. Today, in our Army and 

Navy combined, there are 859,000 active duty members. This is virtually a one-on-one ratio to gang members in the United States. 

You can even add the Air Force and the Marine Corps to that figure and we would not reach a two-to-one ratio of military personnel 

to criminal gang members. In fact, if the criminal gang members 

in the United States were a military force located in another counVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:20 Oct 19, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\CRIME\040505\20388.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
2

try, they would comprise the sixth-largest military in the world in 

terms of soldiers. 

Gangs have declared war on our nation. They are ravaging our 

communities like cancer, urban, rural, rich, and poor, and they are 

metastisizing from one community to the next as they grow. 

There is no overriding societal value to being a member of a 

criminal gang, and if you are part of a criminal gang, this bill says 

two things. First, this bill puts the full force of our nation’s Federal, State, and local law enforcement officers and prosecutors behind apprehending criminal gang members. If you ask our nation’s 

law enforcement officers what they need to combat gangs, they will 

tell you this: our Federal law enforcement officers have the resources, but not the intelligence system to combat the gang problem, and our local law enforcement officers have the intelligence 

network, but not the resources to combat the problem. This bill will 

marry the two and authorize the funding to make this partnership 

successful. 

Second, this bill says that if you are a member of a criminal gang 

and you commit a violent gang crime, you are going to jail for a 

minimum of 10 years, period. While some may criticize mandatory 

minimum penalties as unduly harsh, such penalties are invaluable 

tools to use against gangs to secure cooperation from gang members and infiltrate tightly-knit organized crime syndicates operating as sophisticated street gangs. 

Moreover, in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in 

Booker and Fanfan, rendering the guidelines as only advisory, 

mandatory minimums are the only effective means to ensure that 

fair and consistent sentences are imposed, and we will see more of 

them unless something is done to reimpose a mandatory guideline 

system. 

This bill will create new criminal gang prosecution offenses, enhance existing violent crime penalties to deter and punish criminal 

gangs, and enact violent crime reforms needed to effectively prosecute gang members. This is a tough bill. Make no mistake about 

it, we recognize there are those who want it softer. But criminal 

gangs in America are not soft, and the crimes they commit are real, 

and they are hard. Only a tough bill will stop these gangs and protect innocent victims from the hard pain of these vicious crimes. 

We are saying that the following is not acceptable in America: 

gangs that fuel their activity with narcotics trafficking, carjacking, 

and illegal gun trafficking; gangs that engage in human trafficking, 

rape, and prostitution; gangs that use firearms and other deadly 

weapons in the commission of crimes; and gangs that brutally rape, 

kill, and maim. 

This bill, when enacted, will bring a new force to bear on gang 

activity in our country. It will provide increased Federal effort to 

assist local law enforcement in targeting and federally prosecuting 

violent criminals who are associated with criminal gangs. The bill 

will encourage partnerships across all levels of government and ensure the success of these partnerships through the expansion of resources and intelligence. 

I want to take a moment to recognize Congressman Frank Wolf, 

who has been a leader in Congress in the war against gangs and 

gang violence. We owe him a great debt of gratitude for his comVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:20 Oct 19, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\CRIME\040505\20388.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
3

mitment to raising awareness of this problem and laying out solutions. 

I also want to thank Chairman Coble for agreeing to hold this 

hearing and offer my sincerest condolences to him and his family 

on the passing of his mother. 

Finally, I want to recognize those on the front lines of the gang 

wars, our law enforcement officers who are out there day in and 

day out. They are the foot soldiers of this battle, and to them we 

are very grateful. 

I am anxious to hear from our distinguished panel of witnesses 

and now yield to the Ranking minority Member of this Subcommittee, the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Bobby Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m pleased to join you in 

convening the hearing on H.R. 1279, the ‘‘Gang Deterrence and 

Community Protection Act of 2005.’’ I also join you in expressing 

our heartfelt sympathy for our Chairman and friend, Chairman 

Howard Coble, and his family in their hour of bereavement. 

Now, I just want to start off by saying, Mr. Chairman, that we 

are going to work together against base closings, funding aircraft 

carriers, NASA research, and other programs, but we must part 

company on this bill due to my concern that we not waste money 

and increase crime. 

This bill is chock-full of new mandatory minimum sentences, 

ranging from a mandatory minimum of 10 years to mandatory life 

or death and other provisions, which have been solidly proven to 

be counterproductive in the fight against crime. They are not criticized because they are harsh. They are criticized because they are 

counterproductive. We have known that mandatory minimum sentences disrupt order and proportionality in sentencing. They discriminate against minorities and waste taxpayers’ money, compared to sentencing schemes where the court can look at the seriousness of the crime and the offender’s role in the crime and background. 

The Judicial Conference of the United States, which sees the impact of mandatory minimum sentences on individual cases, as well 

as the criminal justice system as a whole, has told us time and 

time again that mandatory minimum sentences create more harm 

than good from any kind of rational evaluation. In its recent letter 

to Members of the Subcommittee on Crime regarding this bill, the 

Conference noted that mandatory minimum sentences create, 

quote, ‘‘the opposite of their intended effect.’’ Continuing to quote, 

‘‘Far from fostering certainty in punishment, mandatory minimums 

result in unwarranted sentencing disparities. They treat dissimilar 

offenders in a similar manner although those offenders can be 

quite different with respect to the seriousness of their conduct or 

their danger to society.’’ And they finally say that ‘‘they require the 

sentencing court to impose the same sentence on offenders when 

sound policy and common sense call for reasonable differences in 

punishment.’’

Both the Federal Judicial Center in its report entitled, ‘‘The General Effects of Mandatory Minimum Prison Terms: A Longitudinal 

Study of Federal Sentences Imposed,’’ and the United States Sentencing Commission in its study entitled, ‘‘Mandatory Minimum 

Penalties in the Federal Criminal Justice System,’’ found that miVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:20 Oct 19, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\CRIME\040505\20388.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
4

norities were substantially more likely than whites under comparable circumstances to receive mandatory minimum sentences. A 

Rand Corporation study entitled, ‘‘Mandatory Drug Sentences: 

Throwing Away the Key or the Taxpayers’ Money?’’ showed that 

mandatory minimum sentences are far less effective than either 

discretionary sentences or drug treatment in reducing drug-related 

crime and, thus, far costlier than either. 

Just how costly this bill will be is yet to be seen, but, in response 

to an inquiry by my office, the U.S. Sentencing Commission estimated that the prison impact of H.R. 1279 would require an additional 23,600 prison beds over the next 10 years. At $75,000 a cell, 

that amounts to prison construction costs of almost $2 billion, in 

addition to annual upkeep of about $750 million based on $30,000 

per inmate per year. That is over and above what we are already 

scheduled to spend on prison construction and prison inkeep in a 

country where the prison population per person is higher than anywhere else in the world. For proven juvenile crime prevention and 

intervention programs, we are spending about half, about $400 million, of the annual inmate upkeep this bill will cost. 

The worst problem with this bill is it provides for far more juveniles being tried as adults. For years now, every study of juveniles 

tried as adults has shown that juveniles commit more crimes, more 

violent crimes in particular, when they are released, if they are 

treated as adults. This is easy to understand when you consider 

that juveniles who go to prison will have as their role models hardcore murderers, rapists, and robbers, whereas in the juvenile detention system they will receive education and training, counseling, 

drug treatment, and other assistance. 

On March 14 of this year, coincidentally the same day that H.R. 

1279 was introduced, the Coalition for Juvenile Justice released its 

study, ‘‘Childhood on Trial: The Failure of Trying and Sentencing 

Youth in Adult Criminal Court,’’ showing that even more definitively that trying—showed even more definitively that trying juveniles as adults increased rather than decreased the prospects that 

they would reoffend when released and that with more serious offenses, as compared with the youth tried in juvenile court. The 

study revealed that over 250,000 youth are charged as adults every 

year. Just as with the application of mandatory minimums, the application of adult court to juveniles falls heaviest amongst minorities, about 82 percent of youths tried as adults are youth of color. 

For years, we have known that a continuum of services geared 

toward the needs of at-risk youths prevents crime from occurring 

in the first place. Many such proven crime prevention programs 

have saved more money than they cost. Head Start and other quality early childhood education programs, Boys and Girls Clubs, and 

after-school recreational programs, Job Corps and other intensive 

job training programs, all prevent crime and save more money than 

they cost. 

At a meeting I had with students at Monument High School in 

South Boston, Massachusetts, last month, I told them about this 

upcoming hearing and asked them what was needed to prevent 

gang crime. They said kids join gangs for reputation, protection, to 

feel wanted, to have friends, and to get money, and what is needed 

to prevent them from joining gangs was ample recreation for boys 

5

as well as girls, jobs and internships for training and money, and 

assistance to allow their families to live in a decent home. 

Interestingly, I asked the same question to a group of law enforcement officials I met in my district yesterday, and they had 

very similar advice. Neither group said anything about the need for 

more mandatory minimums or trying more juveniles as adults. 

So we know what works to prevent crime. Unfortunately, we also 

know how to play politics. H.R. 1279 has been nicknamed 

‘‘Gangbusters.’’ It reflects the politics of crimes where you come up 

with a good slogan and try to codify it. It doesn’t matter whether 

it does anything to reduce crime or is counterproductive, but, if it 

sounds good, it must work. 

We have had the greatest success by putting aside the politics of 

crime in favor of sound policy in the area of juvenile justice, until 

this bill. Three years ago, we passed a bipartisan juvenile crime 

prevention and bipartisan juvenile early intervention bill. These 

bills were based on the advice of judges, administrators, researchers, advocates, and law enforcement officials, representing the entire political spectrum. They all said the same thing, that the best 

way to reduce and prevent juvenile crime and ultimately adult 

crime is through prevention and early intervention programs 

geared at at-risk youth. None of them said that we need more mandatory minimum sentences nor that we need to treat more juveniles as adults. 

Both bills passed virtually unanimously in both the House and 

the Senate, and yet the funding in these bills has been cut in half 

since they passed, including the gang resistance funding, and now 

we wonder why we have increases in gang violence after we’ve cut 

all the funds to prevent it. We must get back to the bipartisan, evidence-based, universally agreed-upon approach to preventing juvenile crime and gang violence and abandon the sound bite-based, politically-charged approaches which cost billions of dollars and actually increased crime and violence. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. FORBES. Thank you, Congressman Scott. 

Now, I would like to recognize Mr. Conyers of Michigan for an 

opening statement. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this opportunity and note that this is your bill that we’re hearing here today, 

right? 

Mr. FORBES. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CONYERS. Yes, sir. Thank you, sir. 

Well, obviously, there are two schools of thought in criminal justice. One is that mandatory minimums have not been discredited 

and the other is that mandatory minimums sentencing, where they 

have been studied extensively, have been proven to be ineffective 

in preventing crime, proven to distort the sentencing process and 

proven to be a considerable waste of taxpayers’ money. 

And so I’m asking at least three of the witnesses who may feel 

inclined to respond to this part of my observation, something’s gone 

wrong in America. What we do is incarcerate more people for 

longer periods of time than anybody else in the world, 14 times 

that of Japan, eight times the rate of France, six times the rate of 

Canada. $40 billion to go into imprisoned offenders who could be 

6

at Yale University, where I’m going to be Friday, at less cost and 

I’m sure a greater benefit to them. 

So in a way, the die has been cast. Those who still believe in 

locking them up and throwing away the key in the face of any evidence to the contrary are going to advocate the ideas that are 

found in the measure that is being examined before us today. The 

costs keep going through the roof, and I’m struck by the fact that 

now, in our State and Federal prisons, a tenth of all of those incarcerated are serving life terms. In New York and California, it’s 

really almost 20 percent of those incarcerated are serving life 

terms. 

It seems to me that we’re neglecting what the gentleman from 

Virginia, Mr. Scott, has pleaded in his opening statement. What 

about prevention? Is prevention so minimized that it doesn’t require us to give it any consideration here and that we come up 

with a bill that is hugely distorted one way? 

We lost, and tomorrow he will be memorialized, the late Johnny 

Cochran, perhaps the most widely known trial lawyer in this country at this moment. The interesting thing about Johnny Cochran 

is that he was once a prosecuting attorney. In L.A. he had the job 

of prosecution. He later became a defense attorney. I had the privilege of having him before this Committee many times. 

So we’ll be comparing your comments—and I urge that you 

stretch for reasonableness and thoroughness. Is there something 

about advocating mandatory minimums that would lead you not to 

want to do that? I hope that you will. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and return the time. 

Mr. FORBES. Thank you, Mr. Conyers. 

Before I swear in the witnesses, I’d like to also introduce a Member of the full Committee but not a Member of the Subcommittee, 

Mr. Adam Schiff, who has done a lot of work in the gang area both 

before he got to Congress and also here, and we are glad to have 

him with us this afternoon. 

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, might I inquire, Mr. Schiff is a 

former U.S. Attorney, and I would ask for your consideration of 

unanimous consent that he be permitted to make a few brief remarks. 

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Conyers, I’d love to do that, except as you know, 

I’m a substitute Chairman. I’m not the full Chairman. And the 

rules that I was given under which Mr. Schiff was allowed to sit 

here was that he could be a part of the Subcommittee, but that the 

rules of the Committee were that if you’re not a Member of the 

Subcommittee, you cannot address questions. They have to come 

through the Members. And I’d love to do it, but they’re not the 

marching orders that I’ve been given, so Adam, I’m sure you’ll be 

able to say whatever you want at the full Committee meeting when 

we go at that particular point in time. 

So it’s the practice of the Subcommittee to swear in all witnesses 

appearing before it, and I’d, at this time, ask the witnesses if you 

would please stand and raise your right hand. 

Do each of you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about 

to give this Subcommittee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and 

nothing but the truth, so help you, God? 

Mr. FITZGERALD. I do. 

7

Mr. LOGLI. I do. 

Ms. GUESS. I do. 

Mr. SHEPHERD. I do. 

Mr. FORBES. Let the record show that each of the witnesses answered in the affirmative, and please be seated. 

We have with us today four distinguished witnesses. Our first 

witness is Patrick J. Fitzgerald, United States Attorney for the 

Northern District of Illinois. As U.S. Attorney, Mr. Fitzgerald 

serves as the District’s top Federal law enforcement official. He 

manages a staff of approximately 300 people, including 149 Assistant U.S. Attorneys who handle civil litigation, criminal investigations, prosecutions involving public corruption, white collar fraud, 

narcotics trafficking, violent crime, money laundering, and other 

matters. Prior to this position, Mr. Fitzgerald served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the United States Attorney’s Office for the 

Southern District of New York, where he participated in the prosecution of United States v. Osama bin Laden and others. He is also 

a recipient of the Attorney General’s Award for Distinguished Service in 2002. Mr. Fitzgerald is a graduate of Amherst College and 

Harvard Law School. 

Our second witness is Paul A. Logli, President Elect of the National District Attorneys Association. Mr. Logli is currently serving 

as an elected State Attorney in Winnebago County, Illinois, where 

he also serves as Vice President of the Winnebago County Bar Association. Previously, he served as an Associate Judge for the 17th 

Judicial Circuit in Illinois. Additionally, he is a faculty member of 

the National College of District Attorneys and Northwestern University’s Center for Public Safety. Mr. Logli previously served as a 

member of the Governor’s Commission on Gangs in Illinois. He is 

a graduate of Loras College and the University of Illinois College 

of Law. 

Our third witness is Michelle Guess. Ms. Guess is the mother of 

nine children and lives in Maryland. Three years ago, she moved 

with her late husband to Maryland from Philadelphia in order to 

escape the crime and gang-infested neighborhood of Philadelphia in 

which they lived. Ms. Guess and her family suffered firsthand a 

horrible tragedy when her husband was murdered by a gang member in Maryland. Ms. Guess works now as a single mom supporting 

her nine children in the home restoration business. She is also an 

advocate for law enforcement and community efforts to eliminate 

gangs and the threats they pose to our children and communities. 

Our final witness is Mr. Robert E. Shepherd, Jr., Professor 

Emeritus of Law at the University of Richmond. For his introduction, I turn to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 

Scott, to make a few remarks. Bobby? 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you giving 

me the opportunity to introduce Professor Shepherd. I’ve known 

him a long time and we’ve worked on a number of issues going 

back to my days in the Virginia General Assembly. 

Professor Shepherd received his B.A. and L.L.B. at Washington 

and Lee University. He served in the JAG Corps from 1962 to 1964 

and was in private practice of law in Richmond from 1964 to 1971. 

He was an Assistant Attorney General from 1971 to 1975, an Associate Professor of Law and Director of the Juvenile Court Clinic at 

8

the University of Richmond from 1975 to 1978, and a full professor 

from 1978 to 2001, directing the Youth Advocacy Clinic from 1978 

to 1990. He is presently Emeritus Professor of Law at the University of Richmond. 

He has served in leadership positions in juvenile justice issues 

with the Virginia Bar Association, the American Bar Association, 

the National Center for Juvenile Justice, the Virginia Commission 

on Youth, and the Federal Advisory Committee on Juvenile Justice. 

Let me just—he’s received all kinds of awards. We’d be here all day 

if I were to list them all, but let me just say that he is the number 

one recognized leader in juvenile justice policy in the Commonwealth of Virginia, and we are welcomed and honored to have him 

here today. 

Mr. FORBES. Thank you, Mr. Scott, and I thank all the witnesses 

for being here. 

I also want to recognize two Members that have joined us, Representative Lungren from California and Representative Feeney 

from Florida and we are glad to have them with us. 

And now, I’d like to recognize Mr. Fitzgerald for 5 minutes. And, 

as you know, based on the little indicators in front of you, you’ll 

get a warning light when you’ve got about a minute left, and then 

the red light goes on. If you could try to wrap it up after that time, 

as close as you can, we’d appreciate it. 

Mr. Fitzgerald, thank you for being here. 

TESTIMONY OF PATRICK J. FITZGERALD, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Mr. FITZGERALD. Thank you, Congressman Forbes, Ranking 

Member Scott, the Members of the Subcommittee and the Committee. 

To give you a sense of the scope of the gang problem in Chicago, 

it’s estimated that there are approximately 70,000 to 100,000 gang 

members in Chicago. That compares with a police force of roughly 

13,000 police officers. So a multiple size of the Chicago Police Department would give you an approximation of the size of the gang 

problem in Chicago. 

Two examples bring it home to me. In 1995, a list was seized by 

the FBI from a Gangster Disciples. The list was a list of the number of workers who sold drugs in Chicago. The Gangster Disciples 

were highly organized. They had a board of directors for inside 

prison, a board of directors for outside prison. Under the directors, 

they had governors. Under the governors, they had regents, and 

the lowest level was soldiers. This list of people selling drugs was 

39 pages long and had 7,700 members on it. So this Gangster Disciples drug organization was larger than half the size of the Chicago Police Department. 

The other thing to bear in mind about gangs, another example 

is the Black Disciples, who we recently arrested in 2004. They took 

over a housing project, and I mean that very literally. They put up 

a fence, an iron fence around the project. They put barriers to block 

people from entering. They frisked everyone who came into the 

building to make sure that they weren’t wearing bulletproof vests 

and therefore might be police. They put snipers on the roof. The 

9

snipers on the roof had night vision goggles and had police scanners. And basically, they took over a building. 

At one point, we obtained probable cause to obtain search warrants for 47 of 134 apartments in that public building. That meant 

that more than one-third of that building could be searched because there was reason to believe that there were drugs or drug 

proceeds there. When we think about that building, we think not 

of the third of the apartments that were occupied by people dealing 

drugs, but the two-thirds of the apartments where the people lived 

there were basically imprisoned—a fence around their building, 

snipers on the roof, night vision goggles, and being frisked if they 

wanted to go into their home. 

The Black Disciples also took over a Christian radio station and 

pirated it so that someone listening to the radio station driving 

through the neighborhood would hear gang messages broadcast 

over the radio as to law enforcement activity. 

When we arrested the Gangster Disciples last year, we arrested 

47 members, the highest ranks in the Black Disciples, and followed 

2 weeks later, by the arrest of the Mafia Insane Vice Lords, who 

operated 47 separate open air drug markets in Chicago. At the 

same time we charged the 48 Federal defendants in the Mafia Insane Vice Lords, 57 defendants were charged with the State. I 

think that gives you a sense of what we are talking about when 

you think about gangs that almost rival the size of a police department and effectively take occupied territory, which is federallyfunded public housing projects in Chicago, and make them off limits and effectively jail the people who are not committing crimes. 

Let me tell you about the Chicago approach. The first approach 

has been to focus on Project Safe Neighborhoods, which my colleague, Paul Logli, will talk some about, which is to jointly have 

ATF, CPD, and the State’s Attorney’s Offices work on guns. We 

next take gang strategy teams, which use the local police departments, which have the best intelligence as to where the gang problems are, to tell us where the most violent and dangerous offenders 

are in the areas and form a joint Federal-local strategy to attack 

those targets. 

In the four most crime-ridden areas in Chicago, there are monthly meetings involving Federal, State, and local officials, and from 

that, a ‘‘Top 20’’ list is formed in Chicago where we sit down with 

the Chicago Police Department, the Federal law enforcement agencies, and make sure we go after the 20 most dangerous and most 

violent gangs in Chicago, and already in 1 year, we have arrested 

and detained ten of the top 20 targets. 

There is also another aspect of it which involves marketing deterrence. We, too, believe we would rather have people not commit 

crimes than incarcerate them, and one of the things we do is send 

letters from Project Safe Neighborhoods to each felon who is released in the State of Illinois. Every single one receives a personalized letter that lets them know that the Federal Government is 

watching, that they face heavy penalties should they pick up a gun. 

Secondly, we conduct parolee forums in the four most dangerous 

areas inside Chicago. Thirty parolees at a time are brought to a 

forum. They’re randomly selected. They have no choice but to go. 

And they face a carrot and stick approach. They meet people from 

10

the U.S. Attorney’s Office, from the State’s Attorney’s Office, from 

the Federal law enforcement and local police agencies who let them 

know the heavy penalties they are facing if they mess up and carry 

a gun and commit a crime. At the same time, in the same meeting, 

they meet people who offer detox counseling, job training, employment, education. At the end, they’re told, you have a choice. You 

can meet with the law enforcement again and go to jail for a long 

time, or we can try something different. 

And we found some remarkable results to date in two of the districts where the recidivism rate was 23 percent with people who 

didn’t attend the forums. It’s 4 percent for those who do. For gun 

offenses, it goes from 3 percent to 1 percent. In two other districts, 

the numbers are even better. 

In addition to that, we’re focusing on juvenile education in the 

hot zones, where each of the children going to junior high school 

are put through an 8-week program to educate them about the 

dangers of drugs, and with that, I’ll just end by noting that the 

homicide rate in Chicago has paid dividends. It was 666 in 2001. 

Just a few years later, 2003, it was under 599, which was the first 

time it went under 600 since I was 7 years old. And a year later, 

the homicide rate dropped—I’m sorry? 

Mr. SCOTT. What are those numbers? 

Mr. FITZGERALD. In 2001, there were 666 homicides. In 2003, 

there were 599, which was the first time in 36 years it went under 

600. And last year, in 2004, it went past 500 all the way down to 

448, which was a 25 percent drop in a single year. So it’s gone from 

666 to 448 in 3 years. 

And with that, I would simply say that it’s not a problem that’s 

limited to Chicago. Gangs are a problem that affect various regions 

of the country, and we seek to work together to do our best to take 

down the rate of violence as a result of gangs. Thank you. 

Mr. FORBES. Thank you, Mr. Fitzgerald. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Fitzgerald follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PATRICK J. FITZGERALD

Chairman Coble, Ranking Member Scott, and Members of the Subcommittee, I am 

Patrick Fitzgerald, the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois. 

It is an honor to appear before you today to discuss the terrible problem of gangs 

that grips the nation’s third largest city, Chicago, as well as other areas in our nation, and to discuss how the Department of Justice is partnering with other law enforcement and the community to address this problem. 

THE NATURE OF THE PROBLEM

It is easy to underestimate the grip that gangs have on some or our cities. But 

the sad reality is that their grip on urban life is lethal. First, the sheer number of 

gang members is staggering. In Chicago alone, there are estimated to be 70,000 to 

100,000 gang members—compared with about 13,000 Chicago police officers. Several 

‘‘super gangs’’ dominate: the Gangster Disciples, the Black Disciples, the Vice Lords, 

the Black P Stones, the Mickey Cobras, the Latin Kings, the Spanish Cobras, the 

Maniac Latin Disciples, and the Satan Disciples. Each of these gangs controls large 

amounts of territory, engages in large-scale drug trafficking, and uses gun violence 

to control its territory and drug trade. 

One may get a rough sense of the magnitude of the gang problem by looking at 

the Gangster Disciples (GD’s). The GD’s have been the target of a series of cases 

brought by the United States Attorney’s Office in Chicago beginning in the mid1990’s and continuing to today. Over two hundred high ranking members, including 

its chairman, have been convicted, with many receiving life sentences. The undisVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:20 Oct 19, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\CRIME\040505\20388.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
11

puted leader of the gang was Larry Hoover, who is serving a life sentence after a 

federal conviction. 

Under Hoover, the GD’s had a very sophisticated structure and hierarchy. There 

were two Boards of Directors: one for gang members in prison and one for those outside. (The existence of a separate board in prison speaks powerfully both to the control that gangs can exert even within a prison and to the fact that gang members 

anticipate incarceration, but are not deterred by it.) Serving under the out-of-prison 

Board of Directors were 14 ‘‘governors.’’ Each governor had a geographic area assigned to him, and in turn, between 5 to 16 ‘‘regents’’ who were assigned a smaller 

geographic area within his governor’s area. Then, under the regents were ‘‘coordinators,’’ who controlled even smaller geographic areas within a regent’s area; and finally, the ‘‘soldiers.’’ Other ranks included the Chief of Security, who was responsible for obtaining firearms for the soldiers and making sure that armed soldiers 

guarded each drug selling location, to protect against both rival gangs and the police. 

This sophisticated hierarchy was used to sell drugs and control drug trafficking. 

Each soldier participated in the sale of illegal drugs and was required to pay a portion of his profits to the gang’s leadership. In return, the gang provided its members 

with a source for illegal drugs; assured the members of a monopoly in drug sales 

in GD-controlled territory; provided bail, attorney fees, and commissary money for 

arrested or jailed members; and used gang discipline to prevent arrested members 

from cooperating with law enforcement. Under the gang’s rules, cooperation with 

law enforcement was punishable by death. 

In 1995, FBI agents recovered in a search a computer-generated organizational 

chart for the GD’s. The chart went on for 39 pages. It listed all governors and regents by street name and the number of soldiers who were ‘‘on count’’ to each regent 

and therefore reporting to the gang’s hierarchy. Each of the governors and many 

of the regents have been convicted. There were over 7,700 soldiers. Thus, the GD’s alone were half as big as the Chicago Police Department. 

The GDs also had a political action committee which contributed to favored political candidates and, on occasion, sponsored its own political candidates—they 

achieved genuine political access and influence. 

There should be no mistake that gangs are violent. It is conservatively estimated 

that 60% of the 448 homicides in Chicago in 2004 were gang-related. In any given 

year, gangs in Chicago are responsible for far more murders than traditional organized crime in Chicago (known as the ‘‘Outfit’’) has committed over the course of 

decades. And if raw violence is not enough, the gang problem poses unique threats 

of corruption. The gangs that control drug trafficking in Chicago have at times corrupted police and other law enforcement—some members actually have become police officers and corrections officers. Those gang members who corrupt law enforcement undo the hard and honest work of the overwhelming majority of law enforcement officers. 

Perhaps a better way to measure the harm gangs cause is to appreciate what one 

gang did to a housing project in Chicago—and people who tried to live there. The 

Black Disciples (BD’s) a violent, well-organized street gang, controlled buildings at 

certain public housing projects. They actually put an iron fence around the buildings, barricading the rear alley entrance, posted snipers on the roof, and used police 

scanners and night-vision goggles to monitor police activity. Persons entering the 

building were searched to make sure that they were not law enforcement. Drug sellers wore ski-masks to prevent being identified by undercover officers. At one point, 

law enforcement obtained probable cause to search 47 of 134 occupied apartments 

in the project building, and many other apartments were searched with the consent 

of the tenants and housing authority. I recall being struck that at the very time that 

American military forces fought valiantly to establish a presence in Tora Bora, Afghanistan, a public housing project in the city of Chicago was largely off limits because it was occupied by a gang. The non-gang members were effectively jailed by 

the gang. 

A near fatal example of the lengths the BDs went to protect their drug selling 

occurred in May 2001. An undercover Chicago Police Officer approached a public 

housing building controlled by the BDs for drug selling purposes. A BD member protecting the drug operation began to search the officer and felt his safety vest. The 

BD pulled a gun, fought with the officer, then shot the officer twice in the back. 

Miraculously, one of the bullets lodged in the officer’s vest, but the other shot hit 

him, resulting in extensive medical treatment. 

The BD gang even operated a pirate radio station to broadcast information relating to gang activities—using a frequency belonging to a Christian radio station. One 

defendant paid Donnell Jehan, one of the BD ‘‘kings’’ and a federal fugitive, $80,000 

per month for the heroin franchise at one of the public housing buildings. 

12

WHAT LAW ENFORCEMENT IS DOING: THE CHICAGO EXAMPLE

The Chicago story is not one without hope. Law enforcement in Chicago—federal, 

state, and local—recognized the severity of the problem and has fought back. We 

are making strides, though there is much more to do. 

PROJECT SAFE NEIGHBORHOODS IN CHICAGO

The first step was to focus on guns as part of Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN), 

a national enforcement program, discussed further below, whose greatest strength 

is that it is adapted to the needs of each individual district. Through PSN in Chicago, we have substantially increased federal prosecution of convicted felons caught 

carrying a gun and have placed a special emphasis on areas of high violence and 

on offenders who are gang members. There is an unprecedented partnership between the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), the Chicago 

Police Department (CPD), the U.S. Attorney’s Office, the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office, the Illinois Department of Corrections, and local grass roots organizations serving their communities. Whenever a convicted felon with a gun is arrested 

by Chicago police in targeted police districts, state and federal prosecutors and ATF 

agents sit down together and decide in which court to prosecute cases. We tap every 

federal and local law enforcement agency that has relevant knowledge in order to 

coordinate our attacks on the gangs to which the offenders belong. 

The second step was to organize ourselves to address the gang problem. In my 

own office, we reorganized to recognize the reality that gangs are the drug distribution network for the Chicago area. The Narcotics and Gang section is split in half 

between prosecutors investigating national and international narcotics rings and 

those prosecuting the gangs dealing drugs in the Chicago area. We have found that 

the wiretaps on the gangs have led to wiretaps on members of Mexican cartels who 

use the gangs to distribute their drugs, and that the wiretaps on international drug 

traffickers regularly lead to their street gangs who control the wholesale and resale 

distribution of their drugs in the region. Similarly, ATF, FBI, and DEA have dedicated squads to combat gangs and the Chicago Police Department has formed a 

gang intelligence section. ATF alone has dedicated two full-time groups that focus 

exclusively on long term investigations of gangs in Chicago. Working side-by-side 

with the Chicago Police Department officers assigned to these groups, they utilize 

a variety of investigative techniques to pursue RICO and complex conspiracy cases. 

GANG STRATEGY TEAMS

A third step was the formation of neighborhood-based Gang Strategy Teams made 

up of all the law enforcement units—state and federal—that investigate and prosecute gangs. Their mandate is to share more gang intelligence on a regular basis, 

make greater use of technology, and make coordinated, strategic decisions about 

how and where to use our limited resources. Law enforcement partners who might 

otherwise be tempted to compete instead put some of their crown jewels—key informants—on the table to share in this battle. 

Once a month, gang experts from CPD and each of the federal agencies meet at 

the headquarters of the four gang-plagued police regions (called ‘‘Areas’’) in Chicago 

to build a consensus about the top gang targets in each Area, based on shared, filtered intelligence, and to strategize about how to attack these targets (including 

what resources are available to do so). Each Area has a separate Gang Strategy 

Team. Since one of the primary goals of the Teams is to establish trust and relationships so that the maximum amount of intelligence is shared, each agency typically 

has the same participants come to each monthly meeting for a particular Area. Our 

office has assigned two Assistant United States Attorneys in the Gang Unit to each 

Area, and we work closely with the Cook County State’s Attorney’s office. There is 

also an analyst from HIDTA (High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area) assigned to 

each Team. The analysts work with CPD analysts to map the gang territories, to 

do research on the top gang targets, and to look for connections to other gang investigations. 

The Gang Strategy Team’s consensus on top gang targets usually takes the form 

of a ‘‘Top 10 Gang Target’’ list, showing the worst gang leaders in the Area, along 

with a determination as to the top 3 organizational gang threats in the Area. If individuals on the Top-10 list or gangs in the top 3 threat list are not being investigated 

by anyone, the Team discusses which of the agencies at the table can begin investigating the target. An investigation usually begins with CPD dedicating a team to 

gather additional intelligence. The Team discusses whether the target can be taken 

down by a simple investigation (e.g., an ATF or CPD confidential informant can buy 

guns or drugs from the target, who would qualify for a mandatory minimum senVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:20 Oct 19, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\CRIME\040505\20388.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
13

tence under federal drug or firearms laws), or whether a more sophisticated investigation is required (e.g., the organization is sophisticated and a wiretap is probably 

necessary). The top targets from the Gang Strategy Teams serve as a type of ‘‘minor 

league’’ for the citywide ‘‘Top Twenty Gang Target,’’ discussed next. 

THE TOP TWENTY LIST

A fourth step was the creation roughly one year ago of a ‘‘Top Twenty’’ list of violent gang offenders. In January 2004, the U.S. Attorney’s Office, FBI-Chicago, DEAChicago, ATF-Chicago, IRS-Chicago, the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office, and 

CPD formed a ‘‘Top 20 Gang Target’’ list for Chicago. The list was based on a consensus from the Gang Strategy Teams and the various agencies as to the worst gang 

leaders in Chicago. The group meets once a month to discuss the investigations 

against the top 20 targets. Each of the federal agencies takes turns taking responsibility for the federal part of a joint investigation into each target. At times, there 

are cases in state court that can be adopted and proved in federal court which will 

incapacitate that gang member for a long stretch of incarceration. Other times we 

must start from scratch and develop a case based upon informants, undercover officers, and wiretaps. 

The Top Twenty Gang Target list and the regular meetings around it have proven 

very helpful in several respects. They help to focus everyone’s efforts on the worst 

gang leaders. They add urgency and purpose to investigations because of the acknowledged importance of the targets and the attention paid to the investigations. 

And they foster an atmosphere of cooperation and partnership among all the agencies that work on attacking gangs—an invaluable resource when problems or disputes arise in gang-related investigations. Since the list started a little more than 

one year ago, 10 of the top targets have been charged federally and detained (including the heads of the Black Disciples and the Mafia Insane Vice Lords, two investigations discussed below). The tenth was detained last week. They are then removed 

from the list. When a target is removed, the group votes on a replacement based 

on shared intelligence as to the top gang leaders. 

MARKETING DETERRENCE

An equally important part of our strategy for ending the violence caused by street 

gangs is to focus directly on our ultimate goal, which is not merely sending people 

to jail but deterring young men from joining gangs and carrying guns. For many 

gang members, their affiliation draws attention that passes for respect on the street. 

We are letting them know that being in a gang will get attention in the police station and the federal courthouse and, then, far less attention in a federal prison in 

a state far away from their gang. If the word spreads that we are targeting gang 

members on parole who carry guns in the neighborhoods where people fear going 

out at night, we can make a difference in the futures of these neighborhoods. 

To that end, the Illinois Department of Corrections mails personalized letters to 

every parolee in the state upon their release from prison, advising them that they 

are being watched, and if arrested with a gun that they face strict federal sentences. 

Additionally, the Chicago Police Department’s community service arm, Community 

Alternative Police Strategy (CAPS), has placed thousands of posters in targeted 

neighborhoods warning felons: ‘‘Don’t Let This Happen To You!’’ In stark terms, the 

posters provide details about specific felons from their neighborhoods who were 

caught carrying guns and are now serving long federal prison sentences. Our PSN 

team has placed ads on billboards and buses. Indeed, we have undercover recordings 

of gang members discussing the ads—genuinely wrestling with the risks they face 

by carrying guns. Given that gang members live in an environment in which their 

instinct is to fear walking the streets without a gun, we are successful when they 

start thinking of a gun as risk, not safety. 

In addition, in four designated police districts, the PSN partners regularly conduct 

‘‘parolee forums.’’ Some 30 felons at a time, each convicted of a gun crime and recently paroled into these districts, sit at the same table with law enforcement representatives and community leaders. For many of these parolees, when they leave 

prison, they return to the only things that they know—their neighborhoods, their 

gangs, their drug dealing. But at the parolee forums, they are presented with a 

straightforward message that they have a choice in life: They can return to the guntoting criminal life, or they can turn to a constructive, non-criminal life. They hear 

from the law enforcement community—the local police, state prosecutors, federal 

agents, and federal prosecutors—who explain that we are focusing on felons with 

guns, and that they face a lengthy sentence in a federal prison if they pick up a 

gun. And they are given examples of PSN defendants in their neighborhoods who 

are serving lengthy sentences. Not infrequently, there are loud groans when they 

14

hear of a neighborhood felon serving 20 years in a federal prison in Kansas for the 

crime of possessing a gun. The idea of law enforcement telling each person directly 

that if he returns to that way of life, the whole law enforcement community will 

be watching is a direct and difficult message. 

At the same time, they hear community leaders speak about ex-offender job programs, educational opportunities, and substance abuse programs that are available 

to them. They also hear from a convicted felon, someone who has stood in their 

shoes, who reiterates the message that felons can succeed in turning their lives 

around, showing them by his example that success is an option. These presentations 

are often met with keen interest and follow-up questions from the parolees about 

who they should call and what they should do. 

A final, but important, part of our PSN program in Chicago has been the involvement of researchers from the University of Chicago and Columbia University, who 

are studying the program’s effectiveness. Law enforcement policies often are driven 

more by instinct and experience than rigorous, statistically-based analysis. Because 

the stakes in combating gang and drug violence are literally lives and neighborhoods, we want to know everything we can about the effectiveness of our efforts so 

that we can understand which strategies work and which do not, and then adapt 

our tactics to use our limited resources as effectively as possible. The researchers 

brief the PSN partners regularly on their statistical analyses of homicide, gun violence, and recidivism rates in the targeted PSN neighborhoods. 

One startling result of the research to date concerns the effectiveness of the parolee forums. The persons who are summoned to attend the forums are randomly 

selected from the group of felons paroled into the districts, and they all attend. Yet, 

when comparing the recidivism rates of felons attending the forums with those who 

do not, the results so far are staggering: 23% of those released between 2001 and 

2004 who did not attend the forums were convicted of another crime, while only 4% 

of those who attended the forums were convicted. The rate of recidivism was thus 

less than a fifth of what it would have been. As to recidivism rates for gun crimes, 

the numbers are as follows: 3% of those who did not attend the forums were convicted of another gun crime, while fewer than 1% of those who attended the forums 

were convicted. The rate of gun crime recidivism was thus less than one third of 

what it otherwise would have been. The key to the forums is the synergy between 

the ‘‘stick’’ of citing specific examples to the felons of persons who have been prosecuted for firearms offenses and offering the ‘‘carrots’’ of alternatives to a life of 

crime. We recently recorded a gang member in jail speaking to a gang member outside jail about the crackdown on gang members and guns in Chicago; both gang 

members agreed that the bottom line was that the member outside of jail needed 

to go get a job. 

We have learned that gang involvement begins at an early age and the more work 

we can do with the juveniles in our community to intervene when they make poor 

choices, the more likely we are in successfully preventing their involvement in 

gangs. As such, we have started a comprehensive juvenile education program in our 

‘‘hot zones’’ where literally every junior high and high school student participates 

in an eight-week program designed to increase their awareness about the risks of 

gang involvement, encourage independent decision-making, and enhance one’s self 

image in order to increase the likelihood that they will reject the lure of the gangs. 

If one of the juveniles makes that first bad judgment call, we have partnered with 

the Chicago Police Department and the Juvenile Justice System in Chicago to create 

a program that will replace ‘‘station adjustments’’ for first-time offenders who commit violent or gang-like crimes. Rather than allowing them to slip through the 

cracks with a slap on the wrist, a behavior that later escalates into more egregious 

offenses, we have implemented a program in the new Juvenile Intervention and Assessment Center that will require that each juvenile who commits an offense indicative of violence or gang involvement to enter a 90-day program designed to come 

down hard on the first offense and enlighten the juvenile regarding the harmful impact that his or her decision will have not only on his own life but on the lives of 

his family and community. Each juvenile must sign a contract of commitment to the 

anti-violence program that includes private counseling groups, public participation 

in anti-gang presentations at schools, and acknowledgment of the harm that they 

have inflicted upon their victims. Failure to successfully complete the program results in prosecution in the Juvenile Court System. 

For adult offenders who may have committed their first gun offense and have received a sentence of merely probation, we have also expanded our parolee forums 

to probationers. Here the probationers hear the same message as the parolees: ‘‘if 

you pick up a gun, you will be prosecuted.’’ But again, we offer them opportunity 

for development. Our commitment to combating the problem at the earliest glimpse 

of potential gang involvement and escalating our attack as gang behavior increases 

15

reflects our commitment not simply to incarcerate those who offend but to actually 

decrease the number of offenders. 

In talking about the effect law enforcement is having, let me return to discuss 

the reign of terror at the public housing buildings occupied by the Black Disciples. 

That reign ended in spring 2004 with a 47-defendant takedown, that included the 

arrest of the gang’s entire top leadership. The case was jointly investigated by the 

FBI, CPD, and IRS. Our office worked closely with the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office on the investigation and prosecutions, with an Assistant State’s Attorney being designated as a SAUSA for the investigation and cases. 

Less than two weeks later, we also charged the Mafia Insane Vice Lords (MIVLs) 

street gang, one of the three most powerful factions of the Vice Lords street gang. 

The MIVLs controlled 47 open-air drug markets on the west side of Chicago, selling 

primarily heroin but also powder and crack cocaine. Each drug spot earned $5–8,000 

per day. A total of 48 defendants were charged in the federal case, including the 

‘‘King’’ of the gang, Troy Martin, and most of the remaining top leadership. An additional 57 defendants were charged by the state at the same time in closely coordinated prosecutions. This case was investigated by DEA, CPD, and IRS. 

THE EFFECT ON THE HOMICIDE RATE

One of the best measures of the work being done in Chicago to attack gangs, 

guns, and drugs—the homicide rate—shows very positive results: in 2001, there 

were 666 homicides in Chicago. Two years later, in 2003, there were 599 homicides, 

the first time in 36 years that there were fewer than 600 murders in Chicago. A 

year later, in 2004, there were 448 murders in Chicago a staggering 25% drop in 

one year, though as noted, 60% of these were gang-related. After taking nearly four 

decades to break the 600 mark, it took one more year to reduce homicides to well 

below 500. And thus far in 2005, homicide numbers have decreased another 25%. 

Something is clearly working. But law enforcement in Chicago is not satisfied: gangs 

and guns still pose a lethal threat to Chicago and most starkly to the honest people 

who live in the neighborhoods where gang members vastly outnumber police and 

who are the real victims of gang violence. 

On that note, the fight against gang violence in Chicago has not been a partisan 

effort. Persons of different party, ethnic, and governmental backgrounds have been 

setting aside parochial interests to address this problem. Our city and its law-abiding residents are safer for that. 

THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE’S RESPONSE TO GANGS

Chicago is not alone in taking on the problem of gangs. I know from my colleague 

United States Attorneys that gangs threaten many other cities and many other districts and that nationwide, the gang problem is growing. Accordingly, federal, state, 

and local law enforcement have been teaming up with community partners to take 

action in the way that best suits each district. The Department of Justice (DOJ) is 

taking notice of the threat posed by gangs and by encouraging these collaborative 

efforts. 

DOJ is constructing a national infrastructure that will continue to enable reductions in violent crime. In October 2004, the Deputy Attorney General established the 

Subcommittee on Violent Crime and Gangs of the Department’s Strategic Management Council to ensure that DOJ is fully coordinating its efforts to fight violent 

crime and gangs. The Subcommittee consists of heads of key offices within DOJ, as 

well as each of its component law enforcement agencies. Just last month, at the direction of the Attorney General, a symposium on gangs was held at the Department 

of Justice attended by United States Attorneys, officials from ATF, DEA, the Marshals Service, FBI, the Bureau of Prisons and, most importantly, police chiefs and 

sheriffs from different cities around the country plagued with gang problems. In 

preparation for that conference, I had an opportunity to review materials submitted 

by those various districts and was struck by the extent to which areas not commonly 

associated with gangs—such as Phoenix and Northern Virginia—are experiencing 

the gang problem, normally associated with Los Angeles, Chicago, and other large 

cities. At the symposium, best practices were shared, and the gathered officials discussed what worked and what did not work in different regions of the country. 

Two things were clear from the symposium: the gang problem is affecting many 

different regions of the country and there is no one way to do it right that applies 

to every district. Fighting the Black Disciples in Chicago is different than dealing 

with the Hells Angels and the Outlaws motorcycle gangs in Arizona, the Bloods and 

Crips in Los Angeles, or the MS–13 in Northern Virginia. One constant that did 

emerge is the need for good intelligence and teamwork between federal, state, and 

local partners. 

16

No single initiative, no single investigative technique, no single statute, and no 

single preventative measure will always be the most effective. Therefore, the Department is taking a multi-disciplined approach that allows each component agency 

to utilize the investigative strategies and statutes to which a particular criminal organization is vulnerable, as adapted for the local conditions in the relevant district. 

As a first step, the Subcommittee amassed a comprehensive catalogue of DOJ’s gang initiatives and enforcement efforts throughout the country, so that the Department can ensure that all of those efforts are operating in a coordinated, consolidated, and integrated fashion. The Department recognizes the need to partner with 

state and local law enforcement and prosecutors, as well as with community organizations and leaders. State and local law enforcement officers, and the communities 

they serve, will always be the first to detect when gangs take root and when gang 

violence threatens the safety of a neighborhood. The U.S. Attorney’s Office (USAO) 

in each judicial district is frequently the conduit to facilitate different agencies coming together, coordinating their enforcement efforts by attacking the gang problem 

from different sides, allowing each agency to use its investigative expertise and legal 

authority to leverage the gang’s vulnerabilities to various statutes: firearms, narcotics, fugitive, and immigration violations. 

Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN) is a great example of the Department’s success in partnering with state and local law enforcement, prosecutors, and community organizations. PSN was based upon the concept of creating a task force in each judicial district that focused on identifying the unique violent crime problems of that 

region and then directing the available law enforcement and community resources 

toward eradicating those problems through a data-driven strategic plan. The PSN 

task force coordinates strategy and resources to focus on 1) dismantling violent organizations, 2) stopping illegal gun traffickers, and 3) enforcing the law against prohibited persons possessing firearms. PSN, from its inception, recognized that violent 

criminal organizations, such as gangs, are frequently the most disruptive force in 

many neighborhoods, and that responses to gangs among various law enforcement 

agencies need to be coordinated and proactive. 

The PSN strategy used by a number of districts to reduce gang violence is to identify and prosecute the gang members who pose the greatest threat to the community. In some districts, the strategy involves prosecutions of the individual gang 

member on firearms and drug charges. Other districts use the PSN infrastructure 

to focus on the entire street gang, bringing Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization (RICO) Act and drug conspiracy charges. The PSN Task Forces regularly apprize the Department’s leadership of their activities. In July 2004, 54 of the teams 

considered gangs to be one of the key elements of their gun violence problem, 25 

considered gangs to be one of the two most important elements of the problem, and 

37 reported a focus on gangs and criminal organizations. PSN has served as a catalyst to develop localized strategies through the vigorous enforcement of existing firearms laws. 

During the spring of 2004, the Department of Justice identified 15 cities where 

homicide rates remained at unacceptable levels. ATF responded with the creation 

of a Violent Crime Impact Team (VCIT) concept, customized to mitigate the causes 

of each city’s entrenched level of violence. In the majority of the cities, gangs were 

identified as a key component of the communities’ violence problems. ATF leads 

these teams, joined by other DOJ components. The U.S. Marshals Service’s participation allows these teams to leverage the fugitive status of gang members. The 

DEA’s participation allows the teams to capitalize on the DEA’s investigative expertise and statutory authority when investigating gangs whose primary focus in drug 

distribution. 

The VCIT concept was modeled on the collaborative successes of PSN through the 

efforts of ATF and other federal, state, and local law enforcement, with additional 

resources redirected from across the United States. The VCITs target specific individuals and specific locations for law enforcement operations, empowered through 

use of technologies, such as the National Integrated Ballistic Identification Network 

(NIBIN)—an ATF championed initiative, which matches shell cases from unsolved 

shootings—and crime mapping from synthesized firearms trace results. The use of 

additional resources and new technologies are producing results: during the sixmonth pilot period of operation, VCITs have recovered more than 3,000 firearms 

and arrested more than 500 of the 900 identified as serious offenders. Collateral to 

these focused efforts have been the seizure of over $2 million, the arrest of more 

than 2,500 other offenders, and the apprehension of nearly 400 felony fugitives. 

Based on preliminary results, the VCIT pilot program may be contributing to a 

decrease in homicides. Firearms homicides in the targeted areas dropped in 11 of 

the 15 cities when compared to the same six-month period the prior year. And in 

total, overall homicides with firearms for targeted areas in all fifteen cities dropped 

17

to 9%. In specific cities, the results in targeted areas were even more dramatic: 77% 

drop in Greensboro; 67% drop in Chattanooga; 61% drop in Pittsburgh; 59% drop 

in Tulsa; 50% drop in Albuquerque; and 46% drop in Tampa. 

As a result of the success of the six-month pilot program, the VCIT program has 

been expanded and is now employed in a total of 20 cities. ATF participates in task 

forces nation-wide that investigate gangs as their primary focus, as well as those 

ATF groups dedicated exclusively to gang investigations. 

Firearms trafficking, the illegal diversion of firearms out of lawful commerce and 

into the hands of prohibited persons (such as convicted felons, drug dealers, and juvenile gang members), is often the method by which gangs arm themselves. By 

using ‘‘straw purchasers,’’ who are individuals not prohibited from legally purchasing weapons, gang members acquire firearms from federally licensed dealers. 

ATF’s firearms trafficking investigation efforts prevent gang violence by investigating and prosecuting individuals who are illegally supplying firearms to the 

criminal gang organizations committing firearms-related crimes. 

The Safe Streets Violent Crimes Initiative (SSVCI) is another collaborative drive 

to combat gangs. Initiated in 1992, it is a FBI-sponsored, long-term, proactive task 

force program focused on investigation of gangs acting as criminal enterprises crossing state and international borders. The SSVCI encompasses 144 Safe Streets Task 

Forces (SSTFs) across the nation charged with bringing the resources of all participating agencies, federal and local, to bear on the respective area’s violent crime and 

gang problems. While local and state law enforcement can obtain assistance in making an arrest across state lines, the FBI has the ability to instantaneously cover a 

lead anywhere in the country. SSTFs across the country enhance state, local, and 

other federal law enforcement agencies by utilizing the FBI’s developed Enterprise 

Theory of Investigation (ETI). The ETI is an approach supported by technology, 

which facilitates multi-subject investigations of significant enterprises involved in 

patterns of criminal activity, rather than concentrating resources on individuals or 

separate acts. 

Of the current 144 SSTFs, 108 of them are Violent Gang Task Forces (VGTFs) 

located in 33 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, which focus exclusively on FBI National Gang Strategy targets. The VGTFs utilize a variety of investigative methods to identify and attack a gang’s hierarchy, including undercover operations, surveillances, wiretaps, and controlled purchases of drugs, guns, and other 

contraband. Wiretaps are frequently used by VGTFs in an effort to capture criminal 

conversations, which can later be used as evidence to prosecute the gang members 

for their criminal activities. In addition to obtaining evidence for prosecution, wiretaps have proven to be effective in preventing violent acts, including murders, from 

being committed. VGTFs are effective at building federal and state cases against 

gang members by applying the same methods used in the FBI’s successful war on 

traditional organized crime. VGTFs are developing racketeering and continuing 

criminal enterprise cases to remove the leadership and the most dangerous members of violent street gangs and seize their assets. This investigative approach has 

been successful around the nation, and it has had long-term, positive impact on 

communities plagued by gangs. 

The United States Marshals Service (USMS) is involved in numerous gang-related 

law enforcement efforts as well, including sponsorship of 83 District Fugitive Task 

Forces throughout the country, plus five regional fugitive task forces. These task 

forces include representatives from hundreds of federal, state, and local agencies. 

Violent fugitives with ties to gangs receive priority attention for investigation. From 

2003 to the present, the USMS has arrested more than 600 gang members and associates. Of those arrested, approximately 37 percent were Hispanic gang members, 

23 percent were members of Crips and Bloods gangs, and 11 percent were members 

of outlaw motorcycle organizations. In Chicago alone in 2004, U.S. Marshals arrested 353 gang fugitives. The USMS coordinates with federal, state, and local agencies to focus on specific gang-related fugitives that are a high priority because of 

their history of violence, threat to the community, or risk of flight. 

In an effort to prevent gang-related crimes within Bureau of Prison (BOP) facilities, the Department participates with federal, state, and local law enforcement 

agencies in support of task forces and intelligence units. Through the Central Office 

Intelligence Section, BOP oversees and supervises multiple intelligence teams assigned to FBI task forces throughout the United States, as well as conducts other 

intelligence-related functions. The BOP also provides indirect support and shared 

resources through its Special Investigative Staff, members of which are assigned to 

each prison facility. The staff conducts or manages complex criminal investigations 

involving gang-related activities, such as homicides, assaults, and drug trafficking. 

The BOP’s primary focus on gangs revolves around threats to the safety of inmates 

and BOP personnel, and the suppression of illegal activity within BOP facilities. 

18

H.R. 1279

I state my general support for the goals of this bill. I would also note that it is 

important to maintain heavy penalties on gang members—particularly higher echelon members and those engaging in violence—to deter violent activity and to leverage cooperation from gang members who are already conditioned to understand they 

will do some prison time but often cooperate when faced with heavier prison time. 

Cases against gangs proceed most effectively when the heavy penalties cause key 

members of the gang to work with authorities to dismantle the organization. Ultimately, severe sentencing of gang members results more quickly in greater freedom 

for the community victimized by gangs. 

As an example, during the BD investigation, several BD members and associates 

were arrested on state drug or gun charges. When informed that they would be 

prosecuted in the federal system for that conduct, they agreed to cooperate, and provided extensive assistance in gathering evidence against BD leaders, many times recording meetings and conversations at great personal risk to themselves. This phenomenon continued following the arrest and indictment of the BD leadership. A 

large number of those indicted, including some of the highest ranking members, 

have cooperated in the hopes of receiving a lesser sentence. This cooperation has 

resulted in additional evidence against both charged and as yet uncharged BD leaders, their drug suppliers, gun suppliers, and money launderers. It also produced 

safer neighborhoods for some of Chicago’s most vulnerable residents. As I noted, 

much of our work in Chicago depends on our ability to scare offenders into going 

straight with the threat of mandatory sentences for drug and gun crimes. 

Along with my colleagues at the Department of Justice, I look forward to working 

with you in the future on this legislation and its particulars. 

CONCLUSION

I applaud this Subcommittee’s efforts to address the war waged against our communities by gangs. Thank you for your time and attention. I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this important and timely matter. I would be pleased to answer 

any questions the members might have.

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Logli, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF PAUL A. LOGLI, STATE’S ATTORNEY, WINNEBAGO COUNTY, ILLINOIS, AND PRESIDENT ELECT, NATIONAL DISTRICT ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION 

Mr. LOGLI. Congressman Forbes and Congressman Scott, thank 

you for this opportunity, and Congressman Forbes, thank you for 

sponsoring the Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act of 

2005. 

Since the 1980’s, the National District Attorneys Association has 

endorsed the concept of Federal and State law enforcement agencies and prosecutors working together to address threats such as 

we are now facing with gangs. We believe that what you’ve begun 

here, Mr. Forbes, would establish a bedrock upon which to build a 

united effort to end gang violence across the United States. 

As with every problem, we’ve had our successes and failures and 

we’ve learned in our dealings with gangs that plague our communities that what works in one community may not necessarily work 

in another community, but we know that working together with 

our Federal partners, and I have the privilege of being a local elected State’s Attorney within the jurisdiction of the Northern District 

of Illinois. Mr. Fitzgerald is the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois. And we have, in fact, worked together on Project 

Safe Neighborhood and other initiatives to stem violence and gang 

activity in my jurisdiction. 

We know that we have come to look at stateless terrorists as our 

enemy and we’re developing ways to stymie those attacks. And I 

would advance to you the theory that we are facing about the same 

19

challenge and threats with the transnational gangs that are almost 

freely operating within our borders. In my jurisdiction, we have recently seen an increase of Hispanic or Latino gangs that are now 

engaging in the typical turf wars and war for drug dealing in our 

community. As a result of this type of conflict, we’ve had 

firebombings and murders that are scarring my community. 

Now, the problem would have been worse in Rockford, Winnebago County, Illinois, but were it not for the fact that my local jurisdiction worked in unison with Federal authorities in the mid1990’s and we took on a task of going after the leadership of the 

Vice Lords and the Gangster Disciples and the Latin Kings. We 

have eviscerated the leadership of those gangs. And now, even 10 

years later, our community is safer because many of those leaders 

were rounded up in a joint operation and we turned many of them 

over to the Federal authorities and they were sentenced then under 

very tough sentencing guidelines. Many of them went away for 

very long periods of time. And that message that went out to the 

people in our community, that the leaders were rounded up and 

sent away for very long periods of time, lives on today as a positive 

anti-gang message in our community. 

We note—and nothing I say is to take away our support for this 

bill, Mr. Forbes. We strongly recommend, however, that the bill 

specifically contain language that would suggest to U.S. Attorneys 

that they coordinate their efforts with local prosecutors so that 

there is no left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing. We 

would like to see language in there that would reduce the possibility of conflict by not clearly delineating a process to resolve Federal and local responsibilities as we combat gangs together. 

We also note that the Act calls for the establishment of High Intensity Interstate Gang Activity Areas. I think that’s a good idea. 

I also believe, however, that many of those areas would probably 

be the same areas as what we currently have under High Intensity 

Drug Trafficking Areas, that gangs and drugs go hand in hand, 

and we would suggest that the bill allow perhaps the Attorney 

General to say that this gang, this High Intensity Gang Activity 

Area, could be contiguous with the High Intensity Drug Trafficking 

Area so that we could combine resources. Our local prosecutors’ offices are already spread thin. Instead of having two separate 

groups, we think that there should be some mechanism that they 

could be combined, since gangs and drugs operate hand in hand. 

We’ve recently seen a spate of attacks on judges and prosecutors 

and witnesses. We believe that this has been going on for years as 

another form of trying to destabilize the criminal justice system, 

and that deals with witness intimidation. We note that your Act acknowledges the need to provide funds to prosecutors for witness 

protection and efforts to end gang violence, and we applaud that 

and look to the possibility of providing funds not only to Federal 

prosecutors, but also to local prosecutors to afford witness protection. There’s too much intimidation going on that is really jeopardizing our prosecution of gang activity. 

Finally, I do want to lend my support for the continuation of 

funding on Project Safe Neighborhoods. I know that’s not part of 

this particular Act, but it goes hand in hand as we fight gangs. We 

recently concluded a joint operation with the U.S. Attorney’s Office, 

20

Mr. Fitzgerald and my jurisdiction. We rounded up over 30 people 

who were in possession or trafficking in guns. We took nearly 100 

very dangerous firearms off the streets of my community, working 

in conjunction with Federal authorities, much of the same type of 

cooperation that I believe you envision under your Act, Mr. Forbes. 

We believe, and in conclusion, we want to be proactive in our 

communities to identify gang threats early. We want to respond decisively. And I can tell you that we look forward to working with 

our partners in the U.S. Attorney’s Office to combat the problems 

of gangs in our communities. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Logli follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PAUL A. LOGLI

My name is Paul Logli and I am the elected State’s Attorney in Winnebago County, Illinois. I am now the President Elect of the National District Attorneys Association and will become President this July. 

At the outset I want to thank Mr. Forbes for sponsoring The Gang Deterrence and 

Community Prosecution Act of 2005 and you, Mr Chairman, on behalf of the National District Attorneys Association, for the opportunity to present our concerns 

about gang violence and share some thoughts on the what we, and you the Congress, can do to counter this threat to public safety. The views that I express today 

represent the views of that Association and the beliefs of thousands of local prosecutors across this country. 

Since the late 1980’s our Association has endorsed the concept of Federal and 

state law enforcement agencies and prosecutors working in unison to address 

threats such as we are now facing. I view the task begun by Mr. Forbes as establishing the bedrock upon which to build our united effort to end gang violence across 

the United States. 

To place my remarks in context—let me briefly tell you about my jurisdiction. 

Winnebago County is located about 70 miles west of Chicago. It has a population 

of nearly 300,000 people living in a diverse community. The county seat is Rockford—the second largest city in the state. I have been a prosecutor for 18 years and 

am honored to have served in my current position for 16 years, having been elected 

to office 4 times. I previously served as a judge of the local circuit court for nearly 

6 years. I currently supervise a staff that includes 38 assistant state’s attorneys. Annually, my office handles over 4000 felony cases. 

LOCAL GANG PROBLEMS

Excluding adult gangs, motorcycle gangs, hate groups and other ‘‘adult’’ gangs the 

problem presented just by juvenile gangs is staggering in and of itself. The 2002 

National Youth Gang Survey, published by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention of the Department of Justice depicts the gang problems we face 

in stark reality. 

It is was estimated that approximately 731,500 gang members and 21,500 gangs 

were active in the United States in 2002. 

As with every problem we have our successes and our failures and I want to illustrate the impact of gang violence, and what we can do about it, by painting the picture as I have seen it in Winnebago County during my tenure as State’s Attorney. 

My jurisdiction is situated within 75 miles of two major urban centers, Chicago 

and Milwaukee. Like most jurisdictions of our size and location, it has been combating the problem of street gangs for the last several decades. More recently, Hispanic or Latino gangs have become major players in drug and criminal activity. 

Inter-gang warfare between several Hispanic gangs has resulted in fire-bombings 

and murders. The gangs have become increasingly sophisticated and have connections not only within this nation, but also with other nations in our hemisphere. 

To reflect the increased sophistication and organization of these gangs, the Rockford 

Police Department has changed the name of its task force to the ‘‘Organized Crime 

Unit,’’ replacing the previous title of ‘‘Gang Unit’’. 

On a positive note, the gang activity would have been greater if it had not been 

for large joint federal and state operations in the mid 90’s that were effective in 

eviscerating the leadership of the most active gangs during that period. The Gangster Disciples, Vice Lords and Latin King gangs were the subjects of operations that 

involved numerous arrests of those persons who had been identified as leaders of 

their respective gangs. The major operations followed the most violent years in the 

21

recent history of our community. 1993 and 1994 will go down as the most violent 

years in regard to the number of homicides within our jurisdiction. Fortunately, 

after the major joint federal and state operations that took place in 1993 and 1996, 

the level of violence dropped considerably and has leveled off over the last several 

years. The large-scale operations were effective because they involved law enforcement at all levels and concentrated on those individuals who had been identified 

as leaders of dangerous criminal organizations. 

Realize that this is my perspective from a single county in Illinois. I think it important for you to understand that in addressing this problem there is no single 

remedy just like there is no single template for a gang. Gangs come from all ethnic 

persuasions and communities and have grown transnational in scope. What works 

in Winnebago County may not have equal success in Chicago only 70 miles away. 

Our strategy must reflect flexibility and durability. 

After 9/11 we have come to look at stateless terrorists as our enemy and are developing ways to stymie their attacks and defeat them on an international scale in 

a new mode of conflict that does not lie in battling sovereign nations. I would advance to you the theory that we are facing the same challenges and threats by the 

transnational gangs that almost freely operate within our borders. 

We also know that gang members are not dumb, inept or technologically challenged. In one instance we know of gangs arranging a confrontation by email and 

their use of cell phones and other state of the art electronic gear is commonplace 

in their trans national dealings. They even brag of their strength on DVDs and CDs. 

Here are some of the problems we’ve been facing: 

In northern Wisconsin, for instance, the Sovereign Nation Warriors (SWN) are active on the Reservation. The professed leader was from the Potowatamie tribe while 

the gang affiliation was associated with the Chippewa band—basically an attempt 

to create a gang that was multi-tribal in nature. The SWN has been tied into drug 

trafficking, arson, burglary and gang related beatings. Many of those crimes are unsolved because of the gang relationship and the refusal of individuals to provide information on gang activity. Wisconsin is a state in which most of the tribes have 

contracted away criminal jurisdiction. The gang leader was to be prosecuted for 

arson and burglary of a home on the reservation and the tribal police attempted to 

have the matter brought federally because of the gang connection. The U.S. Attorney declined prosecution and the Vilas County District Attorney, Al Moustakis, 

prosecuted and convicted the leader. 

Last year in Philadelphia the tragic death Faheem Thomas-Childs provides another dimension to the problem. He was a third grader at and on his way to school 

when he was caught in the crossfire of two rival drug gangs as they fired dozens 

of shots at each other. Hit in the head by a single shot he died five days later. A 

Crossing guard was also injured in the shoot-out. The community surrounding the 

school had been concerned about gunfire at night and the violence had come to a 

crescendo the nights immediately preceding the killing but the community refused 

to cooperate with police to end the gunfire. On the day the Thomas-Childs was shot 

there were dozens of witnesses but few came forward to help identify the killers. 

In April, 2003 Charlotte, North Carolina, police investigated a shooting at a public 

park in Mecklenburg County. One man was killed and there were several men injured. The investigation revealed these men and the men who shot them were part 

of a gang called Mara Salvatrucha or ‘‘MS–13’’ and that these men were from Honduras and El Salvador. Police issued eight warrants for individuals charging them 

with the murder in the park; four of those men have been arrested but the others 

are still at large. 

After this incident, police charged other MS–13 members with three other murders. Six (6) MS–13 members were charged with the murders of two Hispanic males 

that happened one week prior to the shootings at Copperhead Island Park. A number of those charged were either shot or shot at the following week at Copperhead 

Island Park. 

In New York City last week 80 Bloods and Crips showed up at the International 

Auto Show and a fight broke out requiring police intervention. No one was hurt in 

this very public melee but patrons of the show had to flee to safety. Even a public 

forum couldn’t abate their violence. 

Mara Salvatrucha (MS–13) leaves the body of a woman in the beautiful Shenandoah River and the severed fingers of a boy in the parking lot of a convenience 

store in Fairfax County. A Crip from St. Louis, Missouri, comes to Virginia to recruit new members into the gang. Hits carried out in Virginia by MS–13 have been 

‘‘greenlighted’’ by leadership in California and a key witness was then intimidated 

when his family members were threatened in El Salvador. 

22

In Massachusetts an assistant state attorney general, Paul McLaughlin was detailed to the Boston District Attorney’s Office on special assignment. He was one 

of just a handful of prosecutors on the city’s first anti-gang violence unit. 

In the early autumn of 1995, he was prosecuting a defendant named Jeffrey Bly. 

Nicknamed ‘‘Black,’’ Bly was the leader of what was perhaps the city’s most coldblooded street gang, the Theodore Street Posse, whose members were suspected in 

several murders. McLaughlin was prosecuting him on a carjacking case, and after 

a couple of setbacks, the case was finally ready for trial. 

On the night of Sept. 25, 1995, after another day spent preparing to hold Bly accountable for his crime, McLaughlin got off a commuter train on his way home and 

walked to his car. As he reached the car and was about to get in, a hooded figure 

approached, pointed a gun at Paul’s head, and fired several times. Paul, who was 

42, died that night, and a new line had been crossed in the annals of Boston’s war 

against gang violence. 

A tireless investigation eventually led police and prosecutors to Jeffrey ‘‘Black’’

Bly. As the investigation proceeded, chilling details began to emerge about Bly’s targeting of McLaughlin. In the days before the murder, Bly had recruited another 

gang member to follow McLaughlin, to learn his habits and his route home. One 

night, another Theodore Street Posse member drove Bly to the train station. Little 

by little, the evidence revealed a planned execution, designed and carried out in an 

attempt by Bly to avoid prosecution. Evidence suggested that months earlier Bly 

had decided to kill the prosecutor and a key witness in the carjacking case. When 

the attempted murder of the witness was botched, Bly turned his sights on 

McLaughlin. 

In February 1998, a Suffolk Superior Court grand jury returned indictments 

charging Bly with Paul’s murder, and in May 1999, a jury convicted Bly of firstdegree murder. He is serving mandatory life imprisonment. 

In Rockford, Illinois my own jurisdiction— a simmering gang dispute erupted into 

gunfire in which gang members fired repeated rounds into a home in which they 

thought a rival gang member had fled. The result was the death of 8-year-old 

DeMarcus Hanson, shot in the head and killed while sleeping in his own bed. The 

3 gang members are currently serving 50 year prison sentences after an aggressive 

and effective prosecution by prosecutors from my office and the office of the Illinois 

Attorney General. And in Illinois, 50 years for murder means 50 years—not a day 

less. 

THE GANG DETERRENCE AND COMMUNITY PROTECTION ACT

Before looking several aspects of The Gang Deterrence and Community Protection 

Act I want to most wholeheartedly indicate my support for what this bill accomplishes. My comments on the legislation are meant to enhance its impact and are 

not to in any manner to detract from what has been started by Mr. Forbes and the 

other cosponsors of the bill. What you do here will serve as the foundation for all 

our efforts. 

Unity of Purpose and Effort 

One of out biggest concerns with this, or any, federal legislation is to prevent conflict with local investigation and prosecution efforts. Our concerns in this regard are 

centered on the proper allocation of all too scarce resources at both the national and 

local levels of law enforcement. 

Local prosecutors are successful in prosecuting crime because they have the expertise, experience and connection to the community that is needed to combat the types 

of crimes that most affect the American people, and, under consideration here, in 

combating gang violence. Murder, drug dealing, sexual assault, robbery, auto theft, 

assault, and juvenile delinquency are the kinds of offenses that we deal with on the 

streets and in the court every day—over 95% of all violent crime is prosecuted by 

local prosecutors. 

That is not to say we do not need assistance from Federal law enforcement. Federal law enforcement agencies and Federal law are extremely useful when it comes 

to long-term, multi-jurisdictional investigations and prosecutions. They have the resources and technical capabilities many local agencies do not have or need only on 

rare occasions. 

Electronic surveillance, for instance, is beyond the capability of many local law 

enforcement agencies and Federal support in this sensitive area is extremely valuable to our mutual efforts. Another example is the ability of the Federal system to 

impose stricter sentences in some instances then can state criminal justice systems. 

Federal mandatory minimum sentences have been successfully used to gain leverage 

in taking apart otherwise close knit gangs. We have mandatory minimums in IlliVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:20 Oct 19, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\CRIME\040505\20388.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
23

nois and I know the impact they can have in developing cooperation from an otherwise recalcitrant witness. 

It is the ability to bring the respective talents and resources of the local and federal authorities together at the appropriate times that result in the successes we 

are all looking for in the fight against gangs. I would urge that this become the hallmark of your efforts in ending gang violence. 

We have, over the course of the past 6 or more years seen effective models of coordination in both PROJECT SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD (PSN) and the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA). These are prime examples of team work between federal and local prosecution to achieve the best results in any given case, 

dependent upon the strengths and weaknesses of the respective systems. 

To that end, however, the Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act does 

not contain any mandate to consult or coordinate with local prosecutors prior to the 

assumption of jurisdiction by federal authorities. This sets up the possibility of conflict by not clearly delineating a process to resolve federal and local responsibilities 

A provision requiring Federal agencies to ‘‘consult and coordinate’’ with state and 

local prosecutors, would better serve to ensure that federal and local efforts are complementary rather then potentially adversarial. I would most strongly recommend 

that this requirement be adopted as the standard in all the areas of your gang suppression initiative that involve both federal and local efforts. 

High Intensity Interstate Gang Activity Areas 

In Title II, Section 201 the idea of a ‘‘High Intensity Interstate Gang Activity’’ Area (HIIGA), the concept pioneered by the ‘‘High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area’’ (HIDTA), is developed as part of the gang strategy. Cross designation of local prosecutors, sharing of intelligence and cross-jurisdictional efforts have made the 

HIDTA a very strong model upon which to base other efforts. 

This approach has much to commend it but, I would suggest, needs to be reexamined in light of the existing drug program. 

A majority of gang enterprise centers on the drug trade, and while there may be 

occasions where drug trafficking does not play a predominate role in the economic 

enterprise of a gang; it is inevitable that most HIIGA and HIDTA will be in large 

degree the same geographical areas. Given the scarcity of resources it can be anticipated that there will be a de facto* merger of HIIGA and HIDTA efforts as staff 

for each wear more then one ‘‘hat.’’ To be very honest most of us don’t have the resources available to staff two over-lapping efforts of this nature. 

I would suggest that the Community Protection Act should recognize this overlap 

and provide for an existing HIDTA to assume the additional role or responsibilities 

of a HIIGA, with additional resources as appropriate. The Attorney General should 

be given the latitude to merge the efforts when there is substantial overlap of effort. 

We have seen what can occur when different agencies work the same problem on 

a competitive basis. Much has been made of the failure of the intelligence efforts 

by the various Federal intelligence and law enforcement agencies after 9/11. This 

is the opportunity to prevent this from occurring in fighting gang violence and drug 

dealing. 

Attacks On Our Criminal Justice System 

We’ve recently seen a spate of attacks on judges and new concerns about the safety of those participating in our justice system. Judges, prosecutors and even defense 

counsel have been the subject of threats and attacks for years but I would offer to 

you the premise that these attacks on our system of criminal justice have also been 

ongoing for many years through witness intimidation. 

Unlike many of our South American allies we have not yet seen the systemic attack on court officials by organized gangs but we have seen their efforts at intimidate and eliminate those who would witness against them. It is not much of a 

stretch from murdering a witness to the assassination of Paul McLaughlin. 

The Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act acknowledges the need to 

provide funds to prosecutors for witness protection and efforts to end gang violence. 

We understand that other efforts are being considered to the crisis we are experiencing in protecting our system of criminal justice and we want to work with you 

to ensure the sanctity of our justice system. 

PROJECT SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD (PSN)

While outside the scope of consideration of the Gang Deterrence and Community 

Protection Act I want to endorse the continuation of Project Safe neighborhood as 

a very vital ancillary effort to what you are trying to do today. As noted previously 

PSN is a collative effort between federal and local law enforcement. It has become 

a very important part of community crime fighting strategies in many part of our 

24

nation. I would advance that it can become a keystone of your efforts to fight gang 

violence but it must be noted that during the last budget cycle the amounts made 

available for local efforts were severely curtailed. If this is to truly be a keystone 

in the gang violence effort then you need to provide resources to keep pace with 

those available to the federal system. 

Funding for Local Prosecution Efforts 

We need to be proactive in our communities to identify gang threat early and respond decisively. I can tell you that the resources of every local prosecutor in the 

United States are stretched thin now. 

To be very honest we need financial assistance to place local prosecutors with the 

HIIGA; to get the computers to track gang efforts, to conduct authorized electronic 

surveillance of gang members and to train our line prosecutors in the dynamics of 

this threat. 

To support what you envision with the ‘‘Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act’’ we will very desperately need the funding assistance you offer. 

On behalf of America’s prosecutors I, and the National District Attorneys Association, urge you to take steps to provide federal assistance to state efforts to fight our 

gang problems and to provide us with the resources to effectively protect those 

brave enough to confront the gang criminals. As President next year I plan to make 

this a priority issue for our members. 

We look forward to continuing to work with you on addressing this growing problem.

Mr. FORBES. Michelle Guess. 

TESTIMONY OF MICHELLE GUESS, EDGEWOOD, MD 

Ms. GUESS. Good afternoon. My name is Michelle Guess. I am 

here to tell you about the devastating impact of gang violence in 

our community. My family and I have, and still continue, to suffer 

from gang violence. We are, and always have been, law-abiding 

people and rely on our faith to help guide us. 

Three years ago, my family and I moved from Philadelphia here 

to the State of Maryland in the suburbs. In Philadelphia, we enrolled our children in charter schools because of the poor education 

and the dangerous environment in the Philadelphia public schools. 

We moved to the suburbs because we thought we could get away 

from the dangers of life in Philadelphia. How wrong we were. 

My husband and I enrolled our children here in Maryland 

schools. I have nine children, and my husband and I were together 

for 22 years. My husband was a minister and was planning to start 

our church just before he was killed. We lived in a nice community, 

and, we thought, a safe one. Yet I soon learned about the growing 

problems of gangs. 

Just before this Christmas, a gang member killed my husband, 

and he just happened to be a friend of my daughter, went to school 

with her. These gangs in the community where I live at, they don’t 

look like the normal gangs, or dress like normal gang people. They 

live in good homes, I mean, very good homes. And their parents 

don’t even know that a lot of them are a part of these gangs. 

They’re not even allowed to tell their parents. And it is very hard 

in raising my nine children and knowing I can’t even allow my kids 

to go to any of their friends’ homes because I don’t know who lives 

in their household. 

We had an incident where my daughter was over at a friend’s of 

hers home, and it was very hard for me to allow her to be there. 

I literally went and dragged her out of their home because we 

found out that the gentleman that was visiting is from another 

State and he was a Blood, and, when I found out that he was in 

25

that home, I went and dragged my daughter out of there. I can’t 

even allow my kids to go in any of my neighbors’ homes because 

I don’t know who lives in there. You will not recognize them just 

by looking at them. 

My 10-year-old son’s here with me. That last year, a friend of his, 

they had reported that he’d possibly gotten shot or whatever. He’s 

10 years old. And he told my son that he was a part of a gang. He 

was like a runner, drug run for these—because they don’t expect 

the children. And when my son told me that, that is very fearful 

for a mother, for any parent, that in our community we can’t even 

tell who’s who. That’s scary. 

And we as parents and as authority figures have to protect our 

children. We have to protect our community. We can’t put a price 

on the life of a child, the life of our children. We can’t. 

When someone does something wrong, they must pay for what 

they have done, regardless. Yes, I agree that we need to do prevention, but we need to give them the opportunity. They must make 

the decision, just like they made the decision to shoot my husband. 

They made that decision, and, whatever decision they make, there 

are consequences and we must understand that we cannot put a 

price on our children. Our children are our tomorrow. 

They go to these gangs because these gangs promise to protect 

them. Why don’t our children come to us? Because we turn our face 

from them and we put our hands under the table and we let these 

gangs run the life of our children, our own life, when we can’t even 

live, we can’t even enjoy life because we allow them, because we 

want to put a price on the life. We can’t put a price on a life. When 

that life is taken from you, you can never put a price on life. 

We must do whatever. We have to, to protect our children, our 

community, our neighbor. We have to. We have to. Thank you. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Guess follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHELLE GUESS

Good morning. My name is Michelle Guess. I am here to tell you about the devastating impact of gang violence in our communities. My family and I have, and still 

continue, to suffer from gang violence. We are, and always have been, law-abiding 

people, and we rely on our faith to help guide us. 

Three years ago, my family and I moved from Philadelphia here to the Maryland 

suburbs. In Philadelphia we enrolled our children in charter schools because of the 

poor education and dangerous environment in the Philadelphia public schools. Our 

neighborhood was controlled by gangs and gang violence. Our schools were filled 

with gang members. We moved to the Maryland suburbs because we thought we 

could get away from the dangers of life in Philadelphia. How wrong we were. 

My husband and I enrolled our children here in Maryland public schools. I have 

nine children and I was married to my husband for 22 years. My husband was a 

minister and was planning to start his own church in Maryland just before he was 

killed. We lived in a nice community—we thought a safe one. Yet, I soon learned 

about the growing problem of gangs. My children were threatened in school. They 

were bullied and threatened to join a gang or suffer the violent consequences. My 

children lived in fear—gang members made it clear that if kids reported the gang’s 

efforts to recruit new members, their parents would be threatened. 

Just before Christmas, a gang member killed my husband by shooting him in the 

head for no reason other than complying with a gang initiation requirement—murder of an innocent civilian. My husband was working late driving a taxi and was 

lured by gang members to a neighboring street to our home, where he was shot and 

killed—nothing more than a random gang initiation ritual. My husband did nothing 

wrong. He loved his family and all of his children. He was simply a random and 

convenient victim of this violent gang. 

26

I am here today because I believe so strongly that we need to stop gangs now—

and stop them dead in their tracks. My husband would be alive today if the gang 

that killed him was in jail. We have to stop gang behavior and the evil spread of 

gangs. Nothing we can do will bring my husband back. But we can do something 

to stop gangs now. To make sure that families like mine do not go through such 

a horrible event, I am here today to tell you that the gang problem is real and that 

we must do everything in our power to stop it so that our communities can be safe.

Mr. FORBES. Professor Shepherd, you have 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF ROBERT E. SHEPHERD, JR., EMERITUS PROFESSOR OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF RICHMOND SCHOOL OF 

LAW, RICHMOND, VA 

Mr. SHEPHERD. Chairman Forbes, Congressman Scott, Members 

of the Committee, I thank you for this opportunity to be with you. 

I feel very much at home with Congressman Forbes and Congressman Scott, being two highly distinguished alumni of the Virginia 

General Assembly, where I have appeared for many years. 

First, like Chairman Forbes, I would like to thank Congressman 

Frank Wolf of Virginia for his successful efforts in 2004 as part of 

the appropriation process to fund anti-gang activities which had 

been cut in the budget presented by the President. These funds 

have helped to contribute to efforts to suppress gangs in Virginia, 

especially in the Northern part of the State. 

I also want to thank Congressman Bobby Scott of Virginia for his 

successful contributions through the years to bipartisan efforts in 

support of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, 

which has been the best possible vehicle for protecting society from 

anti-social behavior by children and adolescents, and for enabling 

these youth to become good citizens. 

Second, I urge this Subcommittee and Congress to reject the approaches taken in H.R. 1279 regarding juveniles, particularly section 115, as being counterproductive to protecting the safety of the 

community and as contrary to the best evidence of what works well 

with youth who may engage in serious and violent delinquent behavior. 

My first concern is about the continued federalization of the substantive criminal law, historically the domain of the States. I share 

the concerns of the Judicial Conference of the United States expressed in its letter of April 1 regarding the specific problems presented by federalizing behavior by juveniles. Federal courts are not 

really equipped to address the particular issues and needs of adolescents, and Federal correctional institutions do not have the programs suited to young people, as the Judicial Conference readily 

acknowledges. In fact, most youth tried and convicted in Federal 

courts end up in State facilities because there is no Federal juvenile justice facility. 

Second, addressing specifically section 115, the increased use of 

transfer to adult court of juveniles is unwise and contrary to evidence regarding the implications of transfer or certification. Every 

recent study by researchers in Florida, Minnesota, New York, New 

Jersey, and Pennsylvania are consistent in showing that youth 

transferred to adult court and tried as adults had higher recidivism 

rates. They reoffended sooner after release from adult institutions. 

And their repeat offenses were more serious than similar youth reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:20 Oct 19, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\CRIME\040505\20388.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
27

tained in juvenile court for the same offenses in the same or comparable jurisdictions. 

I would also point out that in the context of this particular issue, 

sending a juvenile convicted of gang activity into an adult institution dominated perhaps by gangs may be entirely counterproductive. Juveniles incarcerated in adult institutions are also at 

greater risk of assaults, and the research clearly shows that policies that increase the transfer of juveniles to adult court have a 

disproportionate impact on children of color. 

Making the decision whether to transfer a youth charged with 

gang-related violent behavior to the Federal court solely a prosecutorial decision which is not reviewable by a court is also unwise. 

I would note that that unreviewability might even prevent an examination of whether the juvenile is competent to stand trial. 

The mandatory minimum provisions are also problematic. Juveniles involved in gang activity may not be equally culpable. They 

may have been lookouts rather than trigger men. As Bob Schwarts 

of the Juvenile Law Center in Philadelphia is fond of saying, Oliver 

Twist, the ‘‘Artful Dodger,’’ Bill Sikes, and Fagin were not equally 

culpable in their criminal activity in Dickens’ London, but they 

would be under this bill. 

A report released last year by Fight Crime: Invest in Kids gives 

a good blueprint of what should be done from the perspective of 

law enforcement about dealing with young people in gangs, and I 

recommend it to the attention of the Committee. 

In wrapping up, I would like to say to the Committee that the 

best way of dealing with a lot of these issues, as many of the other 

speakers have indicated, is through an effective partnership between local prosecutors and Federal prosecutors, supported by technical assistance and resources from the Federal Government, especially through the Federal Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Shepherd follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT E. SHEPHERD, JR. 

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, I am Robert E. Shepherd, Jr., Emeritus Professor of Law at the University of Richmond Law School in Virginia, and 

a former Chair of the Juvenile Justice Committee of the American Bar Association. 

I am here to present testimony on H.R. 1279, the ‘‘Gang Deterrence and Community 

Protection Act of 2005,’’ and I thank you for the opportunity to speak to you about 

this bill. 

First, I would like to thank Congressman Frank Wolf of Virginia for his successful 

efforts in 2004 as part of the appropriation process to fund anti-gang activities, 

which has contributed greatly to efforts to suppress gangs in Virginia, especially in 

the northern part of the state. I also want to thank Congressman Bobby Scott of 

Virginia for his successful contributions through the years to bipartisan efforts in 

support of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA). That Act, 

originally enacted more than thirty years ago, has contributed greatly to the prevention of delinquency, to early intervention in the suppression of delinquency, to treating delinquent behavior and rehabilitating delinquent youth so as to prevent future 

delinquency, and to ensuring humane treatment of these young people in the juvenile justice system. The Act, and its programs, is still the best possible vehicle for 

protecting society from antisocial behavior by children and adolescents and for enabling these youth to become good citizens and successful adults. 

Second, I urge the subcommittee and the Congress to reject the approaches taken 

in H.R. 1279 regarding juveniles, particularly in Section 115 concerning juveniles, 

as being counter-productive in protecting the safety of the community and as contrary to the best evidence of what works well with youth who may engage in serious 

and violent delinquent behavior. My first concern is about the continued federalizaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:20 Oct 19, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\CRIME\040505\20388.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
28

tion of the substantive criminal law, historically the domain of the states. State and 

local governments are best informed about what would be successful in addressing 

a crime problem locally or within a state, although there may be an important federal role in providing technical assistance and intelligence about unique problems. 

Virginia, for example, has enacted a number of laws in recent years to address 

gang-related criminal activity, including a gang registry, most of which apply to juveniles as well as adults. I share the concerns of the Judicial Conference of the 

United States, expressed in its letter of April 1, 2005, regarding the specific problems presented by federalizing criminal behavior by juveniles. Federal courts are 

really not equipped to address the particular issues and needs of adolescents, and 

federal correctional institutions do not have the programs suited to young people, 

as the Judicial Conference readily acknowledges. Indeed, most youth tried and convicted as juveniles in federal courts are placed in state juvenile correctional facilities 

because there is no federal counterpart. 

Third, addressing specifically Section 115, the increased use of transfer to adult 

court of juveniles, even sixteen- and seventeen-year-olds, is unwise and contrary to 

much evidence regarding the implications of transfer or certification. Several recent 

studies, by researchers in Florida, Minnesota, New York and New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, are consistent in showing that youth transferred to adult court and tried 

as adults had higher recidivism rates, they re-offended sooner after release from 

adult institutions, and their repeat offenses were more serious than similar youth 

retained in juvenile court for the same offenses in the same or comparable jurisdictions. (Lanza-Kaduce, Frazier, Lane & Bishop; Greene & Dougherty; Fagan; Mayers; 

Podkopacz & Feld; Coalition for Juvenile Justice) Thus, treatment as an adult created a greater risk for community safety in the long term than did juvenile treatment. A Miami Herald study of the Florida experience in 2001 concluded that ‘‘[s]ending a juvenile to prison increased by 35 percent the odds he’ll re-offend within a year of release.’’ (Greene & Dougherty) Although there are no studies I know 

of on this particular point, it seems logical that sending a juvenile tried as an adult 

for gang-related offenses to an adult facility dominated by gangs would intensify 

that reported effect. 

Juveniles incarcerated in adult correctional institutions are also at greater risk 

of assaults, both sexual and physical. Studies show that such youth are five times 

as likely to report being a victim of rape, twice as likely to be beaten by staff, and 

50% more likely to be assaulted with a weapon than youth in juvenile facilities and 

they are eight times more likely to commit suicide. (Audi; Forst, Fagan & Vivona) 

Would not the fear of such assaults drive the youth even further into the arms of 

adult gang members in the same institution for protection? 

Policies that increase the transfer of juveniles to adult court also have a disproportionate impact on children of color. Recent studies have shown that more than 

seven out of every ten youth admitted to adult facilities across the country were 

youth of color, and minority youth are more likely to be treated as adults that white 

youth charged with the same offenses. (Poe-Yamagata; Ziedenberg; Males & 

Macallair; Coalition for Juvenile Justice) 

Making the decision whether to transfer a youth charged with gang-related violent behavior to the federal court for trial as an adult solely a prosecutorial decision 

which is not reviewable by a court is also unwise, and violates our basic concepts 

of due process and fair play. The legislation also allows any other offenses committed that are not covered by the Act to be tried as adult offenses, including lesser 

included offenses, thus putting some perhaps trivial charges in federal district 

courts as well. The bill provides no exception to non-reviewability for jurisdictional 

issues such as non-age—a fifteen-year-old mistakenly identified as being older—or 

for young people who may not be competent to stand trial as an adult, a high risk 

scenario as many youth who engage in risky behaviors have mental health problems. The Virginia statute that allows a prosecutor to seek adult handling provides 

that the juvenile court still has to find the presence of probable cause and that the 

juvenile is competent to stand trial. And the adult court can reconsider the prosecutor’s decision and treat the youth as a juvenile in making sentencing decisions. 

Fourth, the mandatory minimum provisions in HR 1279 are also problematic, especially for adolescents. Judges should have broad discretion in sentencing adolescents, even when they are tried and treated as adults. As noted above, Virginia does 

this as part of its statutory framework for transfer. Juveniles involved in gang-related activity frequently have less culpability than the adults they associate with 

in antisocial behavior, they may be a lookout rather than a triggerman, and yet the 

legislation denies the court the power to discriminate among different levels of involvement and different kinds of behavior. As Bob Schwarts of the Juvenile Law 

Center in Philadelphia is fond of saying, Oliver Twist, the ‘‘Artful Dodger,’’ Bill 

Sikes, and Fagin were not equally culpable in their criminal activity in Dickensian 

29

London, but they would be under this bill. Also, longer sentences are not necessarily 

better and more protective of society, especially where juveniles are concerned. 

Fifth, although juveniles charged as adults with capital offenses cannot be sentenced to death under the federal death penalty statute or Roper v. Simmons, does 

this legislation still expose them to a ‘‘death-qualified jury,’’ especially if they are 

tried jointly with adults? That question seems to linger in the air, without any clear 

answer provided in the bill. 

Recent data show a stark reduction in the rate and seriousness of juvenile delinquency in the past nine or ten years, contrary to the dire predictions of many ‘‘experts’’ whose ominous writings shocked legislators into abandoning the core principles of the juvenile system. Those principles, separating delinquent youth from 

hardened criminals, treating youth as developmentally different from adults, and 

viewing young people as being inherently malleable and subject to change in a rehabilitative setting, are still fundamentally sound. Indeed, as we have learned more 

from the developmental and brain research in recent years, we know better what 

does work in turning around these young lives and correcting their behavior. Several treatment programs for juvenile offenders, even those charged with serious and 

violent offenses, have been thoroughly evaluated and work well in reducing recidivism. (E.g., Functional Family Therapy, Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care, 

and Multisystemic Therapy—all are community-based and deal with the youth in 

several different dimensions of his or her life.) And we know that trying them as 

adults is destructive and counter-productive, especially with mandatory minimum 

sentences. 

A report released last year by Fight Crime: Invest in Kids, a law enforcementbased group, points to the effectiveness of many current programs in preventing 

gangs—at the local and state level—and in interdicting violent gang activity. That 

report, CAUGHT IN THE CROSSFIRE: ARRESTING GANG VIOLENCE BY INVESTING IN

KIDS, offers much useful advice about programs that work with the help of federal 

investment in anti-gang programs through the JJDPA and other entities. 

I respectfully urge you to continue your historical focus on funding delinquency 

prevention and intervention programs through the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, supplemented by further technical assistance to, and collaboration with, local authorities by the Justice Department and its entities, rather 

than increasing federal district court jurisdiction over young people with their different perspectives and characteristics. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, utilizing JJDPA funds, is assisting in the sponsorship of the National Youth Gang Symposium in early June in Orlando, Florida to focus on effective anti-gang strategies with juveniles, and this is an example of the more effective 

federal role in addressing gangs. 

REFERENCES

Coalition for Juvenile Justice, CHILDHOOD ON TRIAL: THE FAILURE OF TRYING AND

SENTENCING YOUTH IN ADULT COURTS (2005). 

Audi, Tamara, ‘‘Prison at 14: Teenage Girls Serve Time with Adult Inmates,’’ Detroit 

Free Press, July 10, 2000. 

Fagan, Jeffrey, THE COMPARATIVE IMPACTS OF JUVENILE AND CRIMINAL COURT

SANCTIONS ON ADOLESCENT FELONY OFFENDERS (National Institute of Justice, 

U.S. Department of Justice, 1991) 

Fight Crime: Invest in Kids, CAUGHT IN THE CROSSFIRE: ARRESTING GANG VIOLENCE

BY INVESTING IN KIDS (2004). 

Forst, Martin, Jeffrey Fagan & T. Scott Vivona, ‘‘Youth in Prisons and Training 

Schools: Perceptions and Consequences of the Treatment-Custody Dichotomy,’’ 40 

Juvenile & Family Court Journal (1989). 

Greene, Ronnie & Geoff Dougherty, ‘‘Kids in Prison: Tried as Adults, They Find 

Trouble Instead of Rehabilitation,’’ Miami Herald, March 18, 2001. 

Lanza-Kaduce, Lonn, Charles E. Frazier, Jodi Lane & Donna Bishop, JUVENILE

TRANSFERS TO CRIMINAL COURT STUDY: FINAL REPORT (Florida Department of Juvenile Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2002). 

Males, Michael & Daniel Macallair, THE COLOR OF JUSTICE: AN ANALYSIS OF JUVENILE ADULT COURT TRANSFERS IN CALIFORNIA (Building Blocks for Youth, 2000). 

Mayers, David L., ADULT CRIME, ADULT TIME: PUNISHING VIOLENT YOUTH IN THE

ADULT CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM (Sage Publications, 2003). 

Podkopacz, Marcy R. & Barry Feld, ‘‘The End of the Line: An Empirical Study of 

Judicial Waiver,’’ 86 Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology 449 (1996). 

Poe-Yamagata, E., AND JUSTICE FOR SOME (National Council on Crime and Delinquency, 2000). 

30

Ziedenberg, Jason, DRUGS AND DISPARITY: THE RACIAL IMPACT OF ILLINOIS’ PRACTICE OF TRANSFERRING YOUNG ADULT OFFENDERS TO ADULT COURT (Building 

Blocks for Youth, 2002).

Mr. FORBES. We want to thank all of the witnesses for their testimony. 

Now we’re going to enter another round where we’re going to be 

able to ask you some questions, if you don’t mind responding to 

those questions. We’ll each only have 5 minutes to ask the questions, so if you can, keep your answers as concise as possible because we’ve got a short period of time. And all of your written 

statements will be admitted to the record, without objection. 

I’m also going to admit to the record, without objection, a letter 

from the Fraternal Order of Police with their endorsement of this 

bill. 

[The letter from the Fraternal Order of Police follows in the Appendix] 

Mr. FORBES. Now I recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

Mr. Fitzgerald, I want to come back to you. You heard what Mr. 

Conyers said regarding heavy and mandatory sentences as they relate to breaking up gang activities. You’ve been where the rubber 

meets the road. Can you tell us your feeling about heavy and mandatory sentences and the effect they have on breaking up this kind 

of violent gang activity? 

Mr. FITZGERALD. Yes, Congressman. One of the problems we face 

is if you look at the statistics of the people who actually commit 

murders, I believe 80 percent of the people who commit homicides 

in Chicago have been arrested something like seven or eight times 

before. Also, the victims, I think, have been arrested almost as 

many times. And you have people who have gone through a revolving door of being arrested and going back out to the street and remaining are predators on the street and posing a risk to others. 

And if you identify those persons most likely to kill, those are the 

people we seek to prosecute both by incapacitating them, removing 

them from that housing project where the other residents are held 

captive, and secondly, using them to leverage, frankly, the deterrence value: to tell other people in the community, you saw what 

happened to so-and-so who had a reputation on the street. That 

person has now gone away to Federal prison and he is serving 

time. 

And, in fact, Johnny Cochran was one of the people that participated in one of the Project Safe Neighborhood ads showing people 

that if you carry a gun, these people are serious. You’re going 

away. I think he saw the value in advertising and deterring what 

it is that we do by selecting the most violent offenders, leveraging 

their penalties, and using that to get them to cooperate and give 

up information which lets us go up the food chain and get the gang 

leaders. 

Mr. FORBES. Can you also tell us the Department of Justice’s 

opinion or their position regarding authorized direct filing by prosecutors against 16- and 17-year-old juveniles who are alleged to 

have committed criminal gang acts of violence and what role, if 

any, that plays in dismantling violent gangs? 

Mr. FITZGERALD. I’ll start with the latter. I think the Department 

of Justice is still working on the official positions on the markup. 

31

I can tell you that if there were direct file of juveniles, the volume 

of juveniles that would be prosecuted would still be rather small. 

We are looking at 70,000 to 100,000 gang members in Chicago. In 

a good year, where everyone works very hard, we’re going to prosecute hundreds of gang members, not thousands, not tens of thousands. We do triage to pick out the worst offenders. 

To prosecute a juvenile is still difficult, very difficult now because 

of all the different procedures and the housing issues. We would select out, certainly in my office, only those offenders who merited 

the prosecution. If someone is committing murders and they’re at 

17, compared to an 18-year-old, that’s an option we’d like to have 

to take out the most violent offenders. We’re not looking to make 

prosecution of juveniles a volume business in the Federal Government. We can’t, just by the sheer numbers of gang offenders and 

the violence going on. 

Mr. FORBES. Ms. Guess, can you tell us, the gang member that 

shot your husband, can you tell us, the individual that pulled the 

trigger, how old he was, and did he even know your husband? 

Ms. GUESS. He was 17 years old and we believe he did know who 

my husband was because he knew my daughter. 

Mr. FORBES. Do you have any idea of the motive, why he killed 

your husband? 

Ms. GUESS. Gang initiation. 

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Shepherd, you talked about in your written 

statement and also in your verbal statements about prevention programs. I know you’ve studied many of the prevention programs in 

the United States Congress and the funding for those programs, 

have you not, in your relationship as a juvenile justice expert? And 

I certainly recognize what Mr. Scott said. Can you tell us how 

much funding we should be spending for the prevention programs 

for criminal gang activity at this particular point in time? 

Mr. SHEPHERD. Well, I think funding the authorization would be 

a good place to start. What is authorized—— Mr. FORBES. Can you give me a dollar figure? 

Mr. SHEPHERD. I don’t know the exact figure. I’m—— Mr. FORBES. Can you give me a ballpark? 

Mr. SHEPHERD. I can’t. I’m sorry. 

Mr. FORBES. So then right now, you really don’t know how much 

we’re funding? 

Mr. SHEPHERD. Well, I know that it’s less than what is authorized in the Act. 

Mr. FORBES. Do you know how much is authorized? 

Mr. SHEPHERD. The amount that’s authorized in the Act would 

be about $300, $400 million. 

Mr. FORBES. If they were spending $300 or $400 million on prevention programs, do you think that would be adequate? 

Mr. SHEPHERD. Well, not adequate, but keep in mind that the 

way that Federal money is used is with matching funds from the 

State through the various State Advisory Groups, which I’m a 

member of in Virginia, and we get matching funds from the localities as well as from the State. So the Federal money is basically 

seed money that helps to generate additional funds throughout the 

Commonwealth of Virginia for a whole variety of programs, including some of the Boys and Girls Clubs programs and some of those 

32

programs are also earmarked under the Federal Act directly, so the 

money comes into Virginia directly from the Federal Government. 

But the programs basically are generated by the Federal Government through the State to the localities to target programs. 

Mr. FORBES. Thank you. My time has expired. 

I would like to now recognize Congressman Scott for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Logli, Ms. Guess has described a cold-blooded murder. You 

don’t need any new Federal legislation to prosecute such a crime, 

do you? 

Mr. LOGLI. Assuming it didn’t happen on a military base, something of that nature, we would handle it as a local matter. In Illinois, we have mandatory minimum sentences and that——

Mr. SCOTT. For a cold-blooded murder like that, if a person is 

caught and prosecuted, what would present law provide for them? 

Mr. LOGLI. He would face a mandatory minimum sentence of 20 

years. 

Mr. SCOTT. Without—and what would they usually get? Somebody just shoots somebody in cold-blooded murder. 

Mr. LOGLI. I think we’d be looking at 30 or 40 years, 50 years, 

perhaps. And in Illinois, we have truth in sentencing, so with murder, they serve every day. There is no good time. 

Mr. SCOTT. So what difference would this bill make? 

Mr. LOGLI. I believe this bill may not make a difference in that 

type of street murder——

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. I only have 5 minutes. 

Mr. LOGLI. Okay. 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Shepherd, are you aware of any peer-reviewed 

studies that would suggest that the provisions of this bill would actually reduce crime? 

Mr. SHEPHERD. The techniques that are incorporated in this bill 

have pretty well been proven not to reduce crime, especially where 

juveniles are concerned, who are not specifically deterred. I mean, 

they act, as the Supreme Court noted in the death penalty case, 

on the basis of impulse. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. And Mr. Fitzgerald, are you aware of best 

practices to actually reduce crime and whether or not those provisions are in this bill or could be found elsewhere? 

Mr. FITZGERALD. Best practices? We found that the best practice 

is, for example, to go after the worst offenders, if I give the example of the ‘‘Top 20’’ list——

Mr. SCOTT. Have you seen any published studies of best practices, how to reduce juvenile crime? 

Mr. FITZGERALD. We don’t read published studies. We sit down 

with the people enforcing the law and exchange ideas that have 

been tried——

Mr. SCOTT. Does the Department of Justice have a website that 

outlines best practices? 

Mr. FITZGERALD. I know we had a conference which I helped organize last month about best practices for gangs. As far as juveniles, I’d have to get back to you on that, since——

Mr. SCOTT. Are those best practices reflected in this legislation? 

33

Mr. FITZGERALD. I’d have to get back to you on that, on whether 

or not—what publications it might be, how it corresponds to the 

bill. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. Mr. Shepherd—well, let me ask, there’s a provision in here that provides for gang crimes and it appears to suggest that if you belong to the gang, therefore, you would be guilty. 

Everybody in the gang would be guilty. Do you read it that way? 

Mr. FITZGERALD. I don’t believe so. I think that that provision of 

section 521, and the Department of Justice is doing a review of the 

bill, requiring, I think, that there be three or more persons that 

have to participate in a crime. I don’t——

Mr. SCOTT. That to be found guilty, you would actually have to 

have some participation in the crime? 

Mr. FITZGERALD. In a crime or conspiracy, mere membership 

alone would not be a crime, is my understanding. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. Well, how is that different from the conspiracy 

law now? 

Mr. FITZGERALD. It depends on the offense you commit. In conspiracy law, if there’s a drug offense, you could be guilty of a drug 

offense now, where if there’s a non-drug offense, the predicate offenses in the proposed bill would depend on the violation you commit. 

Mr. SCOTT. What kind of situation would exist where you could 

prosecute somebody under the bill that you could not prosecute 

them under normal conspiracy law? 

Mr. FITZGERALD. Most likely, it would be where gangs are not involved in drug trafficking. In Chicago, for example, gangs are heavily involved in drug trafficking, but at that conference I——

Mr. SCOTT. Help me out here. Let’s talk about a specific defendant. Let’s talk about a specific defendant. If you can’t get them for 

conspiracy now, how could you get them under the bill? 

Mr. FITZGERALD. If the conspiracy to commit an offense—conspiracy is a way to commit another offense—if the offense that 

they’re committing is not now punished under the drug statutes, if 

it were a violent crime that’s not directly related to drug trafficking, that’s my understanding. I haven’t——

Mr. SCOTT. So if a person has no involvement in a particular 

crime that you can’t get them for conspiracy, you can get them 

roped in because they are a member of the gang? 

Mr. FITZGERALD. No. What I meant to say was, if the gang is not 

involved in drug trafficking or you can’t prove the gang is not involved in drug trafficking, you would not be able to charge them 

with a drug conspiracy. But if they got involved in extortions and 

robberies and assaults and attempted murders, you would use—

you could use that statute to charge that. 

Mr. SCOTT. Even if the defendant had no role in the crime? 

Mr. FITZGERALD. If the——

Mr. SCOTT. For which you could not get them for a conspiracy. 

Mr. FITZGERALD. No. I think I confused you. I meant, if you 

couldn’t charge them with drug conspiracy——

Mr. SCOTT. No, if a person—if you can’t get a person for conspiracy, can you get them under the bill for a crime for which they 

could not be charged—but, I mean, you can jump around and say, 

34

well, you might have charged them for this or that, but if they’re 

involved in a conspiracy, you’ve got them, right? 

Mr. FITZGERALD. A conspiracy is always tied to a specific offense. 

We have to prove it to a jury. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. 

Mr. FITZGERALD. So if the conspiracy was for a crime that isn’t 

now a Federal crime for which there’s Federal jurisdiction, this 

would make a difference, and my example for drugs is if you have 

a drug conspiracy, you could charge someone now with a drug conspiracy. But if there’re conspiracies to get robberies and assaults 

carried out by an enterprise of three or more members as part of 

a gang, that would not violate the drug conspiracy laws because 

the assaults may be unrelated to drugs. 

Mr. SCOTT. That’s right, but you could get them for violating the 

robbery laws, couldn’t you now? 

Mr. FITZGERALD. But to get a Federal violation of robbery, you 

need an interstate commerce element. So robberies are not a Federal crime in and of themselves. 

Mr. FORBES. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

I would now recognize Representative Lungren for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am very 

interested in this subject. I think it does have issues of Federalism. 

It does have issues of effective law enforcement. As Attorney General of California, I was very much involved with writing legislation in California dealing with violent laws, or violent crimes. Actually, we utilized a number of the things that are suggested in this 

bill at the State level. Over an 8-year period of time, we saw the 

lessening of violent crimes by about 35 percent and a drop in the 

homicide rate of 50 percent in 8 years utilizing many of the same 

things that are in this bill, or that approach, at least, at the State 

level. 

I still am concerned sometimes about federalization of all crimes, 

but I note also we’ve been extremely successful in allowing participation of Federal prosecutors in those appropriate places where oftentimes the penalties were greater than they were on the State 

level going after the worst malefactors involved. 

Professor Shepherd, I wondered, in your written submitted testimony, you assert that the objective of handling violent and delinquent juveniles is a question of dealing with anti-social behavior, 

and I’m always interested in that because that suggests that a juvenile is involved in anti-social behavior but an adult is involved 

in criminal behavior. Do you distinguish between a 17-year-old, 6 

months who commits a murder like Ms. Guess’s husband was the 

victim of and if he were 18 years old and a day? 

Mr. SHEPHERD. Well, we certainly make distinctions about that 

in every other aspect of the law. When it comes to contracts and 

now the death penalty and a lot of other things, we draw arbitrary 

bright lines and every State does in its jurisdiction. Obviously, 

States do have mechanisms for transferring some juveniles to adult 

court for particular types of behavior, and I don’t find that inappropriate if it’s used judiciously. I think California does a better job 

of that than, say, Florida does and some other States where it is, 

indeed, a last resort rather than being almost automatic based on 

the nature of the offense. 

35

Mr. LUNGREN. As I understand here, this section 115 of this proposed legislation would authorize the Attorney General to charge 

as an adult in Federal court a juvenile who is 16 years or older and 

commits a crime of violence, but not mandate it. 

Mr. SHEPHERD. That’s correct. 

Mr. LUNGREN. So that would be judicious application, you would 

hope, by the Attorney General. You wouldn’t object to giving him 

that authority, would you? 

Mr. SHEPHERD. I have some concerns about it because of the 

broad implications of what may be gang activity where the juvenile’s involvement may be far less than it would be if he were being 

charged with the specific offense the person engaged in. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Even though, under section 115, it requires the 

commission of a crime of violence. 

Mr. SHEPHERD. Yes, it does, but he could be a lookout for a crime 

of violence, and, in most States, that could be weeded out through 

the judicial transfer process. 

Mr. LUNGREN. In California, actually—you said positive things 

about California—we allow, for certain violent crimes, juveniles as 

young as 14 to be considered for adult court. Initially, when I became Attorney General, I didn’t support that, but over the course 

of the period of time that I was Attorney General, I saw the violence that was visited upon our communities by gang members who 

were ever and ever younger, and, actually, I championed and actually wrote the legislation to allow that to occur. 

And I think we’re confronted with something that Ms. Guess 

talks about, which is it makes very little difference to the victim 

whether the perpetrator is 16 or 17 or 18. They’re just as damaged 

or just as dead. And I’m not trying to suggest it’s an easy question, 

but it is something that I have mulled over in my mind as we had 

to deal with the tremendous violent problem that we had, and I 

must say that, contrary to what you suggest that this approach 

doesn’t work, at least the facts bear up in California where you 

have a 50 percent drop in homicide rate among adults and among 

juveniles that I think there were lives saved and there were people 

that were much safer as a result. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. FORBES. Thank you, Congressman. 

Now we’d like to recognize for 5 minutes Mr. Conyers. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you very much. 

See, the problem that we’re having is that while we’re talking 

about transferring more punitive legislation to the Federal level, 

we’re cutting Federal funding for juvenile justice, and I don’t think 

that is going to work out too well. 

We’ve found that this kind of a problem is going to lead us into 

the two schools of thought, the one that an enlightened former 

Member, Congressman Lungren, had which descended into a very 

narrow, restricted, punitive type attitude which I hope he is now 

reconsidering in coming back into the fold of those of us who support bringing some sense to this problem, not just punishment. As 

Mr. Fitzgerald pointed out, you can’t get at all of them through the 

courts. It’s just too many. We’ve got to begin to look more at some 

of these other problems that cause it. 

36

Mr. Paul Logli, did you know former Police Chief of Los Angeles, 

Mr. William Bratton? 

Mr. LOGLI. I’m certainly familiar with the name and his reputation, sir. 

Mr. CONYERS. Sure. Right. What about the late Johnny Cochran, 

the lawyer? 

Mr. LOGLI. I’m certainly familiar with him, as well. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, they’re all recommending reports that I’d 

like to commend to my colleagues on the Committee as well as the 

witnesses, a report from Fight Crime: Invest in Kids, and another, 

‘‘Childhood on Trial: The Failure of Trying and Sentencing Youth 

in Adult Criminal Court.’’

Mr. Fitzgerald, you would prefer, I assume, to keep most of these 

trials, wherever practical, in the State courts? 

Mr. FITZGERALD. I would presume that we would select out those 

juveniles that we think merit particular attention for Federal prosecution. That’s why, as I think Congressman Lungren pointed out, 

the bill talks about authorizing the transfer to Federal court, not 

mandating it, because it would be for the prosecutors to select 

those cases that are most egregious that warrant Federal prosecution, such as a murder by a 17-year-old. 

Mr. CONYERS. Congressman Robert Scott has let me look at a letter from the Judicial Conference of the United States dated April 

1 of this year to the Chairman of the Subcommittee, and they make 

a point that I’d like to see if you’d agree with. 

As you know, the primary responsibility for prosecuting juveniles 

has traditionally been reserved for the States. The Federal criminal 

justice system has little experience and few resources to deal with 

more than the handful of juveniles that currently are in the Federal system. The Judicial Conference has maintained a longstanding position that criminal prosecution should be limited to 

those offenses that cannot or should not be prosecuted in State 

courts. At its September 1997 meeting, after similar legislation had 

been proposed by conference, the Judicial Conference affirmed that 

this policy is particularly applicable to the prosecution of juveniles. 

Does that comport with your general view on the subject? 

Mr. FITZGERALD. No, but I would say this, Congressman. Here’s 

what I have in mind. In the situation where there’s a housing 

project taken over by a gang and requires a Federal prosecution to 

dislodge the gang from the project so that everyone else who lives 

there can be sort of free, in that circumstance, if we arrested 15 

members who were involved in murders and attempted murders 

and one was a 17-year-old, to take the system and prosecute 14 

people in the Federal system——

Mr. CONYERS. Okay. Let me ask Professor Shepherd, what do 

you think of the judges pleading with the Congress not to do any 

more juvenile justice specialties out of judiciary because they don’t 

want it, they can’t handle it, and it’s more appropriate at the State 

level? 

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Shepherd, if you would respond to that question—the gentleman’s time has expired—we will put that document 

in the record, without objection. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. 

37

Mr. SHEPHERD. I think that’s been a consistent position, Congressman Conyers. 

Mr. FORBES. Now we recognize Congressman Delahunt from 

Massachusetts for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I hope we have another round 

here. This has been very informative. 

I have a question for my colleague from California, Dan Lungren, 

because he speaks to the issue of transfer from juvenile to adult, 

my understanding is that in California, it’s not the prosecutor’s 

call. There is judicial intervention in the juvenile justice system 

that allows for transfer to the adult system. I think that’s the case 

in most States. 

I served 22 years as the District Attorney and I certainly, on the 

right kind of occasions, and I think that’s what you’re referring to, 

Mr. Fitzgerald, aggressively pursue transfer to the adult correctional facility because there are situations where they are 17 or 

under, but given the right criteria, they deserve to be prosecuted 

in the adult system. 

So I think we’ve got to be very, very precise here. District Attorney, is it Logli? 

Mr. LOGLI. Logli. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Logli. I tend to agree with the former Attorney 

General of the United States, who also was from California, Mr. 

Meese, about the federalization of State crimes. I mean, what’s the 

position? You represent the National District Association, the NDA 

here, and—— Mr. LOGLI. Thank you, Congressman. First off, we believe we can 

handle the typical juvenile type of crime that we’ve been discussing. But I looked at this legislation as more importantly dealing with these transnational gangs, the adult gangs, the violent 

gangs that are not only in this nation but also come out of other 

nations in this hemisphere. And when I looked at this bill from the 

standpoint of a local prosecutor, I looked at the resources that Federal authorities, if they have jurisdiction on certain crimes committed by these transnational adult violent crimes, they can bring 

their technical resources to bear that many States—our technical 

resources are not as great as the Federal resources—wire taps, 

eavesdrops, that type of thing. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I understand that, and that makes good sense. 

Mr. LOGLI. Thank you. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. But I mean, that can happen now. I mean, we 

all, I’m sure in your experience and the U.S. Attorney’s experience, 

we’ve all worked with task forces. You know, I don’t know whether 

this adds anything to a particular task force. We have a task force 

on gangs in the Boston area. We have a task force on drugs. We 

have a task force on serious things where we bring to bear, if you 

will, Federal resources and where there are violations of criminal 

statutes and violations of State criminal codes, we sit around the 

table and talk and figure out where it goes. 

I don’t know what this really adds, particularly when you give— I think in response to a question by Mr. Scott, we’re cutting juvenile justice funding. I mean, is this kind of a way to paper over the 

fact that we’re not committing the resources that are necessary for 

local and State prosecutors, working with U.S. Attorneys, to go out 

38

and to make sure these gangs are disassembled? I mean, we can 

talk about mandatory sentences. We can talk about a lot of different things. But the reality is, what we’re trying to do is reduce 

crime, and again, given the observations made by my friend and 

colleague from California, the former Attorney General in that 

State, I dare say, we don’t have a lot of mandatory crimes in the 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts, but we did one, I think, outstanding job in terms of reducing the incidence of homicide and all 

kinds of violent crime to a point that was historical in nature because we funded a comprehensive approach to juvenile justice. 

Mr. Fitzgerald, do you have any comments? 

Mr. FITZGERALD. I guess——

Mr. DELAHUNT. By the way, does RICO apply? 

Mr. FITZGERALD. We can——

Mr. DELAHUNT. What about using—don’t we have a RICO statute? I mean, we’re talking about gangs. Where’s the utilization of 

the RICO statute in terms of gangs? 

Mr. FITZGERALD. I’ll answer the two questions. The first question, the reason why we’d need the option, for example, for prosecuting a juvenile would be in the situation if there were multiple 

murders or a murder with multiple perpetrators. If there were five 

people who committed the murder and one was a juvenile, it 

wouldn’t make sense, if this was a Federal prosecution at that 

housing project, to say, okay, we’re going to try this twice and put 

the victims and the witnesses through the pain of two—— Mr. DELAHUNT. With all due respect, let me tell you something, 

okay. If you come into my jurisdiction, when I was the District Attorney in the greater Boston area and there were five murders, 

you’re not going to prosecute murders. You’re going to be part of 

a task force and I’m going to prosecute the adults and the juveniles 

and most likely will prosecute the juvenile in the adult system. So 

we don’t need any Federal statute to tell local prosecutors that they 

can’t try murder cases because, believe me, with all due respect to 

U.S. Attorneys, they do a far superior job in prosecuting crimes of 

violence than most U.S. Attorneys. 

Mr. FITZGERALD. And I’ll give you an example. What we do, when 

we have prosecuted RICOs for drug offenses and murders included, 

we often do that jointly with the State, bringing in Assistant 

State’s Attorneys as specials. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Cross-designations. 

Mr. FITZGERALD. Cross-designation, and we decide which is the 

most appropriate forum. When we took down the Mafia Insane Vice 

Lords, we took 47 Federal and 58 State. My point is to say that 

if we decide with the State’s Attorney’s Office, perhaps with them 

joining our team in court to prosecute in Federal court a RICO that 

involves drugs and murders, if there’s one juvenile in there and 

there are eight adults, it would put everyone, the court system as 

well as the victims and witnesses, through double the pain and the 

cost and the time if we had to separate the juvenile out. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. But there is concurrent jurisdiction, Mr. Fitzgerald. 

Mr. FITZGERALD. Yes. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. And oftentimes, in my experience working with 

the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Boston, there would be concurrent 

39

prosecutions. We would sequence them so that the State would proceed first in cases where there was traditional State jurisdiction, 

and if there were Federal violations thereafterward, we’d have 

them incarcerated, and then if the Feds wanted to prosecute them 

so that they can secure and on and after sentence, that’s what they 

would do. 

Mr. FORBES. And with that closing statement, the gentleman’s 

time has expired. 

I’d like to thank the witnesses for their testimony. The Subcommittee very much appreciates your contribution. 

In order to ensure a full record and adequate consideration of 

this important issue, the record will be left open for additional submissions for 7 days. Also, any written questions that a Member 

wants to submit should be submitted within the same 7-day period. 

This concludes the legislative hearing of H.R. 1279, the ‘‘Gang 

Deterrence and Community Protection Act of 2005.’’ Thank you for 

your cooperation. The Subcommittee—— Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, we have letters—— Mr. FORBES. Oh, I’m sorry. All the letters will be submitted, 

without objection, and will be recognized in the record, and you 

have 7 days for any additional ones that you’d like to put in. 

The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:21 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(41)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

42

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN CONYERS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, AND RANKING MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON

THE JUDICIARY


A.eps
43


B.eps
44

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED BY THE HONORABLE PATRICK

FITZGERALD, U.S. ATTORNEY FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


C.eps
45


D.eps
46

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SHEILA JACKSON LEE, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS


E.eps
47


F.eps
48

LETTER FROM JAMES D. FOX, CHIEF OF THE NEWPORT NEWS POLICE DEPARTMENT

TO THE HONORABLE J. RANDY FORBES (MARCH 29, 2005)


G.eps
49


H.eps
50

LETTER FROM KENNETH C. BAUMAN, MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR THE

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS TO THE HONORABLE F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR. (APRIL 29, 2005)


I.eps
51


J.eps
52

LETTER FROM MICHAEL A. FRY, GENERAL COUNSEL, MAJOR CITIES CHIEFS

ASSOCIATION TO THE HONORABLE F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR. (APRIL 15, 2005)


K.eps
53


L.eps
54

LETTER FROM ROY L. BURNS, PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION FOR LOS ANGELES DEPUTY

SHERIFFS TO THE HONORABLE F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR. (APRIL 20, 2005)


M.eps
55

LETTER FROM WESLEY D. MCBRIDE, PRESIDENT, CALIFORNIA GANG INVESTIGATORS

ASSOCIATION TO THE HONORABLE F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR. (APRIL 25, 2005)


N.eps
56

LETTER FROM EDDIE J. JORDAN, JR., DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF NEW ORLEANS TO THE

HONORABLE F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR. (APRIL 18, 2005)


O.eps
57

LETTER FROM DONALD BALDWIN, WASHINGTON DIRECTOR, FEDERAL CRIMINAL INVESTIGATORS ASSOCIATION TO THE HONORABLE F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR. (APRIL

22, 2005)


P.eps
58

LETTER FROM CHUCK CANTERBURY, NATIONAL PRESIDENT, FRATERNAL ORDER OF

POLICE TO THE HONORABLE J. RANDY FORBES (APRIL 4, 2005)


Q.eps
59

LETTER FROM DENNIS SLOCUMB, INTERNATIONAL EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF POLICE ASSOCIATIONS TO THE HONORABLE F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR. (ARPIL 26, 2005)


R.eps
60

LETTER FROM JAMES J. FOTIS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, THE LAW ENFORCEMENT ALLIANCE OF AMERICA TO THE HONORABLE F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR. (APRIL 19, 

2005)


S.eps
61

LETTER FROM SHERIFF MICHAEL J. BOUCHARD, VICE PRESIDENT, LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS, AND SHERIFF JAMES A. KARNES, PRESIDENT, MAJOR COUNTY SHERIFFS’ ASSOCIATION TO THE HONORABLE F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR. (APRIL 20, 2005)


T.eps
62

LETTER FROM RICHARD DELONIS, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ASSISTANT

UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS TO THE HONORABLE F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR. 

(MAY 2, 2005)


U.eps
63

LETTER FROM WILLIAM J. JOHNSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF POLICE ORGANIZATIONS TO THE HONORABLE F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR. 

(APRIL 15, 2005)


V.eps
64

LETTER FROM FELIPE A. ORTIZ, NATIONAL PRESIDENT, NATIONAL LATINO PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION TO THE HONORALE F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR. (APRIL 18, 

2005)


W.eps
65


X.eps
66

LETTER FROM THOMAS N. FAUST, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SHERIFFS’

ASSOCIATION TO THE HONORABLE F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR. (APRIL 19, 2005)


Y.eps
67

LETTER FROM CASEY L. PERRY, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL TROOPERS COALITION TO THE

HONORABLE F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR. (APRIL 19, 2005)


Z.eps
68

LETTER FROM TYRONE PARKER, LAURA W. MURPHY, ET AL. TO THE HONORABLE

HOWARD COBLE AND THE HONORABLE ROBERT C. SCOTT (APRIL 11, 2005)


AA.eps
69


BB.eps
70


CC.eps
71

LETTER FROM NATIONAL HISPANIC ORGANIZATIONS TO THE HONORABLE F. JAMES

SENSENBRENNER, JR. AND THE HONORABLE JOHN CONYERS (APRIL 20, 2005 AND

MAY 10, 2005)


DD.eps
72


EE.eps
73


FF.eps
74


GG.eps
75

LETTER FROM THE ASSOCIATION OF OIL PIPE LINES, BUSINESS CIVIL LIBERTIES, INC., 

ET AL., TO THE HONORABLE HOWARD COBLE AND THE HONORABLE ROBERT C. 

SCOTT (APRIL 12, 2005)


HH.eps
76


II.eps
77


JJ.eps
78


KK.eps
79

LETTER FROM LAURA W. MURPHY, TONYA MCCLARY, ET AL., TO THE HONORABLE

HOWARD COBLE AND THE HONORABLE ROBERT C. SCOTT (APRIL 4, 2005)


LL.eps
80


MM.eps
81


NN.eps
82

LETTER FROM LAURA W. MURPHY, DIRECTOR, AND JESSELYN MCCURDY, LEGISLATIVE

COUNSEL, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION TO THE HONORABLE HOWARD COBLE

AND THE HONORABLE ROBERT C. SCOTT (APRIL 15, 2005)


OO.eps
83


PP.eps
84


QQ.eps
85


RR.eps
86


SS.eps
87

LETTER FROM JULIE STEWART, PRESIDENT, AND MARY PRICE, GENERAL COUNSEL, 

FAMILIES AGAINST MANDATORY MINIMUMS TO THE HONORABLE HOWARD COBLE

AND THE HONORABLE ROBERT C. SCOTT (APRIL 8, 2005)


TT.eps
88


UU.eps
89

LETTER FROM THE THOMAS W. HILLER, II, FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, AND CHAIR, 

LEGISLATIVE EXPERT PANEL, FEDERAL PUBLIC AND COMMUNITY DEFENDERS TO

THE HONORABLE F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR. AND THE HONORABLE JOHN CONYERS (APRIL 21, 2005)


VV.eps
90


WW.eps
91


XX.eps
92

LETTER FROM MEMBERS OF CONGRESS TO THE HONORABLE F. JAMES

SENSENBRENNER, JR. AND THE HONORABLE JOHN CONYERS, JR. (APRIL 19, 2005)


YY.eps
93


ZZ.eps
94


A3.eps
95

LETTER FROM LEONIDAS RALPH MECHAM, SECRETARY, JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE

UNITED STATES TO THE HONORABLE HOWARD COBLE (APRIL 1, 2005)


B3.eps
96


C3.eps
97


D3.eps
98


E3.eps
99

LETTER FROM JANET MURGUIA, PRESIDENT AND CEO, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF LA

RAZA TO THE HONORABLE F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR. AND THE HONORABLE

JOHN CONYERS (APRIL 13, 2005 AND MAY 9, 2005)


F3.eps
100


G3.eps
101


H3.eps
102


I3.eps
103

LETTER FROM VIRGINIA COALITION FOR JUVENILE JUSTICE TO THE HONORABLE J. 

RANDY FORBES (APRIL 4, 2005)


J3.eps
104


K3.eps
105


L3.eps
106

LETTER FROM COALITION OF NATIONAL AND REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONS TO THE HONORABLE F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR. AND THE HONORABLE JOHN CONYERS

(APRIL 8, 2005)


M3.eps
107


N3.eps
108


O3.eps
109

LETTER FROM MORNA A. MURRAY, CO-CHAIR, NATIONAL JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION COALITION TO THE HONORABLE F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR. AND THE HONORABLE JOHN CONYERS (APRIL 8, 2005)


P3.eps
110

‘‘CAUGHT IN THE CROSSFIRE: ARRESTING GANG VIOLENCE BY INVESTING IN KIDS,’’ A

REPORT SUBMITTED BY FIGHT CRIME: INVEST IN KIDS


Q3.eps
111


R3.eps
112


S3.eps
113


T3.eps
114


U3.eps
115


V3.eps
116


W3.eps
117


X3.eps
118


Y3.eps
119


Z3.eps
120


A4.eps
121


B4.eps
122


C4.eps
123


D4.eps
124


E4.eps
125


F4.eps
126


G4.eps
127


H4.eps
128


I4.eps
129


J4.eps
130


K4.eps
131


L4.eps
132


M4.eps
133


N4.eps
134


O4.eps
135


P4.eps
136


Q4.eps
137


R4.eps
138


S4.eps
139


T4.eps
140


U4.eps
141

JASON ZIEDENBERG, ‘‘WHAT WORKS TO DETER GANGS?’’ The Detroit Free Press, April 

12, 2005


V4.eps
142


W4.eps
143

‘‘DOJ YOUTH VIOLENCE AND YOUTH GANG PREVENTION BEST PRACTICES PROTOCOLS

BY AGE’’


X4.eps
144


Y4.eps
145


Z4.eps
146


A5.eps
147

QUICKTIME PRESENTATION, ‘‘ADOLESCENT BRAIN DEVELOPMENT’’


B5.eps
148


C5.eps
149


D5.eps
150


E5.eps
151


F5.eps
152


G5.eps
153

‘‘ESTIMATES OF PRISON IMPACT OF H.R. 1279, ’’ SUBMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES

SENTENCING COMMISSION


H5.eps
154


I5.eps
155


J5.eps
156

‘‘CHILDHOOD ON TRIAL: THE FAILURE OF TRYING & SENTENCING YOUTH IN ADULT

CRIMINAL COURT,’’ A REPORT SUBMITTED BY COALITION FOR JUVENILE JUSTICE


K5.eps
157


L5.eps
158


M5.eps
159


N5.eps
160


O5.eps
161


P5.eps
162


Q5.eps
163


R5.eps
164


S5.eps
165


T5.eps
166


U5.eps
167


V5.eps
168


W5.eps
169


X5.eps
170


Y5.eps
171


Z5.eps
172


A6.eps
173


B6.eps
174


C6.eps
175


D6.eps
176


E6.eps
177


F6.eps
178


G6.eps
179


H6.eps
180


I6.eps
181


J6.eps
182


K6.eps
183


L6.eps
184


M6.eps
185


N6.eps
186


O6.eps
187


P6.eps
188


Q6.eps
189


R6.eps
190


S6.eps
191


T6.eps
192


U6.eps
193


V6.eps
194


W6.eps
195


X6.eps
196


Y6.eps
197


Z6.eps
198


A7.eps
199


B7.eps
200


C7.eps
201


D7.eps
202


E7.eps
203


F7.eps
204


G7.eps
205


H7.eps
206


I7.eps
207


J7.eps
208


K7.eps
209


L7.eps
210


M7.eps
211


N7.eps
212


O7.eps
213


P7.eps
214


Q7.eps
215


R7.eps
216


S7.eps
217


T7.eps
218


U7.eps
219


V7.eps
220


W7.eps
221


X7.eps
222


Y7.eps
223


Z7.eps
224


A8.eps
225


B8.eps
226


C8.eps
227


D8.eps
228


E8.eps
229


F8.eps
230


G8.eps
231


H8.eps
232


I8.eps
233


J8.eps
234


K8.eps
235


L8.eps
236


M8.eps
237


N8.eps
238


O8.eps
239


P8.eps
240


Q8.eps
241


R8.eps
242


S8.eps
243


T8.eps
244


U8.eps
245


V8.eps
246


W8.eps
247


X8.eps
248


Y8.eps
249


Z8.eps
250


A9.eps
251


B9.eps
252


C9.eps
253


D9.eps
254


E9.eps
255

LETTER FROM DAVID G. WILSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ASSOCIATION OF FORMER

FEDERAL NARCOTICS AGENTS TO THE HONORABLE F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR. 

(JULY 23, 2005)


F9.eps
256

NANCY BARTLEY, ‘‘LAWMAKERS RETHINKING HARD LINE ON SENTENCING OF YOUNG

OFFENDERS,’’ The Seattle Times, April 14, 2005


G9.eps
257


H9.eps
258


I9.eps
259

Æ


J9.eps