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

39–480 PDF 2008

PROMOTING INMATE REHABILITATION AND

SUCCESSFUL RELEASE PLANNING

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, 

AND HOMELAND SECURITY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

DECEMBER 6, 2007

Serial No. 110–126

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

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

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan, Chairman 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

BETTY SUTTON, Ohio 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

CHRIS CANNON, Utah 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

DARRELL ISSA, California 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio

PERRY APELBAUM, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

JOSEPH GIBSON, Minority Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia, Chairman

MAXINE WATERS, California 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

BETTY SUTTON, Ohio 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California

BOBBY VASSAR, Chief Counsel 

MICHAEL VOLKOV, Minority Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

DECEMBER 6, 2007

Page 

OPENING STATEMENT 

The Honorable Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of Virginia, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, 

and Homeland Security ....................................................................................... 1

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

State of Virginia, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security .......................................................................... 4

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

State of Michigan, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary ..................... 8

The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Texas, and Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and 

Homeland Security ............................................................................................... 9

WITNESSES 

Ms. Jennifer L. Woolard, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Department of Psychology, Georgetown University, Washington, DC 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 13

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 15

Ms. Deborah LaBelle, J.D., Director, Juvenile Life Without Parole Initiative, 

Ann Arbor, MI 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 16

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 18

Mr. Jonathan Turley, the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro, Professor of Public 

Interest Law, George Washington University Law School, Washington, DC 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 40

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 42

Mr. Fred Mosely, Justice Affiliates, Cleveland, OH 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 57

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 58

Mr. Ray Krone, exonerated from death row in Arizona after his innocence 

was conclusively established, York, PA 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 60

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 62

Mr. Drew Wrigley, U.S. Attorney, District of North Dakota 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 63

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 66

Mr. Lance P. Ogiste, Counsel, Brooklyn District Attorney, Member, National 

District Attorney’s Association 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 75

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 77

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable J. Randy Forbes, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Virginia, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security ................................ 3

Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Michigan, and Chairman, Committee on 

the Judiciary ......................................................................................................... 8

Page

IV

APPENDIX 

Material Submitted for the Hearing Record .......................................................... 103

(1)

PROMOTING INMATE REHABILITATION AND 

SUCCESSFUL RELEASE PLANNING 

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 6, 2007

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:23 a.m., in 

room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Robert 

C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Conyers, Scott, Johnson, Jackson Lee, 

Forbes, Gohmert, and Coble. 

Staff present: Bobby Vassar, Subcommittee Chief Counsel; Gregory Barnes, Majority Counsel; Rachel King, Majority Counsel; Michael Volkov, Minority Counsel; Caroline Lynch, Minority Counsel; 

and Veronica Eligan, Majority Professional Staff Member. 

Mr. SCOTT. The Committee will now come to order, and I am 

pleased to welcome you today for the hearing on the Subcommittee 

on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security on promoting inmate 

rehabilitation and successful release planning. 

I find it frequently said that when it comes to crime, we have a 

choice: We can reduce crime or we can play politics. The politics of 

crime deals with the emotional approach, which has dominated the 

crime legislation policy for several years. It has done little to reduce crime, but we have to assess our crime policy and focus on 

what actually works. 

One of the worst get-tough sound bites that we passed in Virginia was the sound bite, ‘‘Let’s abolish parole.’’ In 1993, we elected 

a governor who promised to and eventually did after his election 

abolish parole; called it truth in sentencing. I like to call that half 

truth in sentencing because, when you have parole, everybody says 

the fact is you cannot release anybody early. That is a half truth. 

The whole truth is you cannot hold anybody longer. 

So we had 11⁄2 to a nominal 10-year sentence. People were getting out in an average of 21⁄2 years. When we abolish parole, everybody thinks you are talking about let everybody serve 10 years. No, 

21⁄2. Everybody gets the same average sentence. That was so bizarre that they had to double the average time served to pass the 

bill to make it look like it made sense. So you get 5 years, you 

serve 5 years. 

Well, when your heartbeat goes back down, you might notice that 

if everybody is getting out in 5 years, while some are actually servVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:40 Nov 08, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CRIME\120607\39480.000 HJUD1 PsN: 39480
2

ing 10, why are Willie Horton and Charles Manson smiling? Because now those who could never make parole, who would pull the 

whole 10, are now getting out in 5 like everybody else. 

The Virginia legislature estimated the cost of that sound bite to be about $2.2 billion construction, about $1 billion a year operating, 

but the study of the proposal released by the supporters of the legislation said that even if it worked the way they envisioned, they 

would reduce crime by 2.2 percent. Since we are talking politics; it 

is appropriate to note that that is within the margin of error of a 

political poll. 

That analysis involves counting as reductions in violent crimes 

those that would have been committed during the time that they 

would have been on parole. It did not take into account those committed by people after they completed what might have been a 

longer sentence so that those crimes would be delayed but not 

saved, nor did it consider the violent crimes that would be more 

likely to be committed because you do not have the incentive for 

parole. 

That is since you know the day you are going to get out the day 

you go in, there is no incentive to get education and job training 

so you can convince the parole board to release you. Those, we 

know, reduce recidivism. Under the parole plan, there is no incentive to take that action, nor is there any incentive to get a parole 

plan together so you can tell a parole board what you are going to 

do and where you are going to go. All they know is when your date 

comes, ready or not, here you come. 

Now, if you add back in those ready-or-not-here-I-come, those 

that did not get education or job training, those that were not 

saved but just delayed—remember you only started off with a 2.2 

percent reduction—it is unclear whether or not you are increasing 

crime or decreasing crime with this proposal. Now, it is a dubious plan if it had been free—$2.2 billion con- struction, $1 billion a year operating, per congressional district, 

that is $200 million construction and $100 million operating that 

you could have spent on something worthwhile—$200 million, you 

can build about $45 million Boys and Girls Clubs. We only spend 

a couple of million in Head Start. You would run out of kids before 

you ran out of money providing summer jobs, college scholarships, 

all the kinds of things, the continuum of services from teen pregnancy prevention, dropout prevention, early childhood education, 

after school programs. You could not spend $100 million on those 

kinds of programs that have been proven to actually reduce crime. 

But where has this tough-on-crime approach gotten us over the 

last few years? It has the United States at the point where we are 

the number one incarcerator in the world. We have about 750 

adults per 100,000 population. When everybody else in the world 

is locking up people at the rate of about 50 to 200 per 100,000, we 

are at 750. 

China locks up about 119; Great Britain, 145; Canada, 100. In 

some minority communities, not the 50 to 200. In some minority 

communities around the country, the rate exceeds 4,000 per 

100,000. Eight percent of young African-American males are in jail 

today—8 percent—so that we are looking at a situation that has us 

in that situation. 

3

Focusing more money on incarceration cannot possibly reduce the 

crime rate. What we have to do is invest money where it makes 

some sense. 

Now one of the major problems we are looking at and one issue 

in abolishing parole is the problem of locking up juveniles on sentences of life without parole. Throughout the world, we have found 

2,200 people serving life without parole for crimes committed as juveniles, 2,200 around the world. All but 12 are in the United 

States. 

There are better alternatives, and we are going to examine those 

alternatives today, in particular offering education and vocational 

training in prison and reinstating a well-developed parole plan at 

some point for juvenile offenders and for others. 

H.R. 4283, the ‘‘Literacy, Education, and Rehabilitation Act of 

2007,’’ will offer inmates incentives to become productive citizens 

upon release by offering reductions in sentences for participating in 

education programs. H.R. 261, the ‘‘Federal Prison Bureau Nonviolent Offender Relief Act of 2007,’’ offers early release for prisoners over 45 years of age who have shown no propensity of violence. The Juvenile Justice Accountability and Improvement Act of 

2007 offers every individual sentenced to life without parole as a 

juvenile the right to have a parole hearing at least after 15 years 

in jail. 

Finally, H.R. 4063, the ‘‘Restitution for the Exonerated Act of 

2007,’’ authorizes the attorney general to award grants for carrying 

out programs that provide support services, such as education, employment services, legal services, and health care to exonerees. We 

have found that the portion who have been exonerated from crime 

actually have less support than those who have served their time 

for what they had actually done. 

These bills would begin reversing the prison population explosion, wasteful spending, and recurring crime that the get-tough approach to crime has caused, and I encourage my colleagues to support these important legislative proposals. 

It is now my pleasure to recognize the esteemed Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, my friend and Virginia colleague, the 

honorable Randy Forbes, who represents Virginia’s Fourth Congressional District, for his comments. 

Mr. FORBES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I would like to, first of all, ask unanimous 

consent to just have my written statement submitted for the 

record. 

Mr. SCOTT. Without objection. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Forbes follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE J. RANDY FORBES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA, AND RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE

ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

Thank you, Chairman Scott. I want to thank our witnesses for taking time out 

of their busy schedules to be with us today. I wish I could say that I am excited 

about today’s topic but I cannot because we are here to discuss how to release thousands of convicted felons from prison. 

My good friend and colleague from Virginia expressed his support for a parole system. Over twenty years ago, Congress enacted the Sentencing Reform Act and created the U.S. Sentencing Commission to replace the federal parole system. Parole 

had proven unworkable. Similarly situated defendants received wildly-disparate 

4

sentences; indeterminate sentencing meant offenders could not anticipate their release; and a confusing array of statutes and regulations created two mechanisms for 

determining an inmate’s release date. 

Whether you believe the Sentencing Guidelines should be mandatory or advisory, 

these guidelines provide a framework for determinate sentencing and equal treatment of offenders. We would be remiss to erase the last twenty years in favor of 

a system that lacks this fundamental principle. 

Four pieces of legislation will be discussed today and I want to take just a moment to comment on each. The Literacy, Education, and Rehabilitation Act of 2007, 

sponsored by the Chairman, provides additional good time credits for inmates who 

participate in educational, vocational, and treatment programs. 

While I support providing these programs in our federal prison facilities, this legislation raises several concerns. First, federal law currently mandates literacy programs in each federal facility and requires each inmate to have a high school degree 

or make satisfactory progress toward earning a degree for the good time credits to 

vest. 

Second, each prisoner is currently eligible for up to 54 days per year of good time 

credits—or roughly 15% of their sentence. This bill would more than double that 

amount to nearly four months or one-third of a prisoner’s sentence. Lastly, this bill 

would return us to disparate treatment of offenders by denying additional good time 

credit to those inmates who do not need these various programs. 

H.R. 261, the Federal Prison Bureau Nonviolent Offender Relief Act, authorizes 

the release of federal prisoners over the age of 45 who have served half of their sentence and who have not been convicted of a crime of violence nor disciplined for violence while incarcerated. 

This bill will grant the release of 12,400 felons from the federal system, including 

those convicted of drug trafficking, larceny, fraud, racketeering, money laundering, 

civil rights violations, immigration violations, and perhaps most alarmingly, possession of child pornography and online sexual solicitation of a minor. 

H.R. 4063, the Restitution for the Exonerated Act, authorizes a federal grant program for re-entry services for exonerees. Unfortunately, this bill goes well beyond 

the truly exonerated. The bill provides federal grant money not only to individuals 

found to be factually innocent but also to anyone pardoned at the state level and 

anyone whose conviction is reversed or vacated, regardless of whether they are later 

retried and convicted. 

The House recently passed legislation authorizing $330 million for prisoner reentry programs and services. I supported the Second Chance Act and I support extending these programs to people who are wrongfully convicted. We should explore 

this approach rather than creating a new, expansive grant program. 

Finally, today we will discuss the Juvenile Justice Accountability and Improvement Act. This legislation creates an unfunded mandate by requiring states to provide a parole hearing to juveniles sentenced to life without parole but does not provide any funding for this requirement. The bill even goes a step further by penalizing states that fail to comply by withholding 10 percent of a state’s criminal justice 

funding. 

The bill requires states to provide the opportunity for a parole hearing within 15 

years of a juvenile’s incarceration and provide subsequent parole hearings every 3 

years thereafter. 

Sixteen states have abolished parole board authority for all inmates, and another 

four states have abolished parole board authority for certain violent offenders. How 

will these states comply with this legislation? The bill also requires the federal government to provide similar parole hearings, despite the fact that parole was abolished in 1987 and despite the fact that, according to a report by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, there is currently just one juvenile inmate serving life without parole in a federal prison. 

Finally, this legislation also returns us to the days of disparate treatment by requiring parole hearings to juveniles sentenced to life without parole but not to 

adults. Under this bill, a seventeen-year-old tried for murder as an adult and sentenced to life without parole will be provided a parole hearing. But his nineteenyear-old co-conspirator will not. 

I look forward to hearing from today’s witnesses.

Mr. FORBES. Then I would like to make some comments in response to some of your statements. 

Yesterday, in this Committee, we had four bills that were handled on the floor. At the end, at the completion of those bills, the 

Chairman of the Committee, Chairman Conyers, thanked me for 

5

the cooperative way in which we had been able to get through 

those four bills and handle them on the floor and, indeed, it was 

an exemplary day, I think, in getting bills passed. 

The Chairman of this Committee is someone I have a great deal 

of respect for, and I consider him a dear friend. 

But I will have to agree with this: I do not think it is politics, 

but I do think there is an enormous disparity on the vision between 

the two political parties when it comes to the criminal justice system, and this hearing is an example of that, greater than perhaps 

any that I have seen this year, any that we will probably see after 

this particular hearing. 

I want to begin by thanking all of the witnesses for your expertise and your time in being here, but I want to tell not you and 

not the people in the audience today, but any of those people who 

may be listening to this on TV or may perhaps be writing something about this in an article somewhere across the country that 

these hearings are important, one, for the substance of the bills 

that we hear, but they are also important because the very bills 

that we bring up show the priorities that we have when it comes 

to the criminal justice system. 

I will tell you the way it works, and I have said it before. If any 

of you saw the classic movie ‘‘Casa Blanca’’ where at the end they 

say, ‘‘Round up the usual suspects,’’ we round up the usual witnesses, and we bring in the witnesses who are going to testify 

about the particular bills that we want. The majority gets the overwhelming amount, and I think we get a couple, you know, that are 

in there. 

But let me just tell the differences between the two of us. I am 

going to take a little bit longer than usual because I think this is 

such an important hearing. 

Yesterday, we had people who were shot and killed in a shopping 

mall in this country. Are we having a hearing to look at that 

today? No, because we do not have time to do that. 

The number one espionage problem in this United States, without any controversy, number one espionage problem, is China, 

talked about by the Attorney General. I have written letters. We 

have pleaded, ‘‘Let us have a hearing on that to see what we can 

do to help stop some of that espionage.’’ Have we had time to do 

that? No. 

Mr. SCOTT. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. FORBES. Yes, I will yield. 

Mr. SCOTT. We are working on that now. 

Mr. FORBES. Well——

Mr. SCOTT. It is scheduled for next month. 

Mr. FORBES. Well, Mr. Chairman, all due respect, if it is scheduled for next month, I have not been apprised of that, and we have 

been asking for it, and we are not having it today. 

The third thing is when we are looking at gang networks and 

trying to bring gang networks down, are we having a hearing on 

that? No. 

The Ranking Member of this Committee and I have brought out 

a bill that would get tougher on sexual predators. Are we looking 

at that? No. 

6

And let me tell you what we have time to do. We have time to 

look at these bills, and we have had enormous time to look at how 

we can bring contempt actions against people who have problems 

with the Administration who might be viewed as our political enemies. 

Let me take a look at the substance of these bills. He is my good 

friend, you know, but he was not there when that bill was put in—

in Virginia to abolish parole, so he did not see the hours and hours 

of testimony. 

One of the little facts that was not brought out to you is the projections of the 2.2 percent decrease in the crime rate did not take 

into account the fact that the statistics brought to us and the big 

concern in Virginia was that when you looked at the crime-prone 

population in Virginia, the crime-prone population was going down 

and crime was going up. And the big fear people had in Virginia 

was we were right at a point where that crime-prone population 

was going to spike, and the criminologists were coming and telling 

us, and they were saying, ‘‘Look, you might only have a 2.2 percent 

decrease in what you had before, but the big thing is what you are 

going to be able to stop that is going to come down the road when 

that crime-prone population hits up if you do not do something to 

stop it.’’

What also was not stated when it was talked about, truth in sentencing, I do not care what the average group of people out here 

think about truth in sentencing in that trial. What we were concerned about is we were having people sentenced in Roanoke to 15 

years and people in Norfolk to 21⁄2 years, and we did not think that 

was fair. And what we were concerned about with truth in sentencing was when people walked out of that courtroom, did the victim know how many years had been given to that defendant? Did 

the defendant know? Did the defendant’s family know? Did the jury 

know? Did the judge know? Did the prosecutor know? And when 

they walked out, they knew. They knew after the establishment of 

truth in sentencing that when they got 21⁄2 years, it was going to 

be basically 21⁄2 years. 

Before that, they did not know. It was up to the whim of some 

parole board whether they liked the person or did not like the person that was charged. When you talked about minorities, the head 

of the state NAACP in Virginia fought me tooth and nail on that 

bill and later came up afterwards and said, ‘‘That bill has done 

more for my community to help with crime and create fairness 

than any piece of criminal legislation I have ever known.’’

Now let me look at the four bills that we have. Literacy, Education, and Rehabilitation Act. Let me tell you what this bill does, 

if you are listening at home. It creates two lines of people when 

they come into jail. The first line are the people who have done 

what we tell them to do. If you are not addicted to something, if 

you are literate, then you get in this line. If you are addicted to 

something and if you do not know how to read and you have not 

ever taken the effort to do that, you get in this line. And to the 

line number two, we are going to give you coupons where if you 

correct those problems, we are going to let you out of jail free. I 

am saying that is not fair. 

7

But the most egregious one is this get-out-of-jail free act. Over 

and over again, the Chairman of this Committee has said, ‘‘We 

need to trust our judges. We need to trust our juries.’’ They spend 

a lot of time looking at pre-sentence reports, looking at what they 

are doing in sentences, and we are saying, ‘‘We do not care what 

you did, Mr. Judge, what you did, Mr. Jury. If this person is over 

45 and has completed the requisite number of years, we are going 

to let him out of jail.’’

Now let me tell you who this includes because there is no definition of violence in here. This includes spies who betrayed the 

United States, terrorist organizations, gangsters, major drug traffickers, defrauders, people who have swindled elderly people out of 

their money, child pornography offenders, and corrupt public officials. Where we normally look at those people and say, ‘‘My gosh, 

they committed a crime when they were young. They made a mistake,’’ we are going to say, ‘‘You serve your whole sentence.’’ But 

if you are 40 years old or 35 years old and you should have known 

better and you commit the same crime, we are going to let you 

walk out of jail free after that third time? That makes no sense. 

And the last two things that I want to just point out, the Juvenile Justice Non-Accountability and Improvement Act where we are 

basically taking some States that have taken juveniles and sentenced them to life without parole and we are now saying to those 

States, ‘‘You are going to have to have a hearing after 15 years and 

every 3 years after that.’’

Now let me just tell you how interesting this bill is. The alleged 

murderer of Sean Taylor that has been in the paper recently is 17 

years old. He is being tried in Florida. Florida, undoubtedly, I 

would imagine, is going to go for life without parole for that murderer. 

Interestingly enough, he will be able under this act to get a parole hearing after 15 years and every 3 years after that. But his 

co-conspirator who did not do the killing, who may only get 20 

years or 22 years, will get nothing. It makes no sense. 

And the last and final thing, this restitution for exonerees, 

sounds great, but this includes people who are pardoned by governors. Being pardoned by a governor does not mean you are innocent. Over and over again, we see people pardoned for a number 

of different reasons, and they are going to be included the same as 

people who are determined to be factually innocent. 

So, Mr. Chairman, in all due respect, I appreciate the hearing because I think it shows a huge dichotomy. I appreciate all the witnesses and what they are going to testify, but I really wish we were 

spending our time dealing with the shootings in the mall, the Chinese espionage, gang networks, sexual predators, those kind of 

things because I think they are the things that the people watching 

at home really want us to be about and be doing. 

And I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

The gentleman from Michigan, the Chairman of the Committee, 

do you have a statement? 

Mr. CONYERS. I had a statement, but it has now turned into 

some new comments. But I would like to have my statement introduced into the record. 

8

Mr. SCOTT. Without objection. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Conyers follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN CONYERS, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, AND CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON THE

JUDICIARY

The need to promote inmate rehabilitation is undeniable. Too often, we witness 

inmates being released from prison only to find two-thirds of them returning in as 

little as three years later. 

This constant cycle of ‘‘catch and release’’ undermines public safety, has led to a 

substantial expansion in our Nation’s total prison population, and is reflective of a 

larger problem that unfortunately has become far too synonymous with our criminal 

justice system. The problem, simply put, is the current system fails to meet the rehabilitative needs of our growing prison population. 

According to a recent Bureau of Justice Statistics study, for example, only 33 percent of Federal inmates who suffered from some type of substance abuse received 

inpatient treatment in the 12 months prior to his or her release. Equally disturbing 

is the fact that of those inmates diagnosed with a mental or physical disability, less 

than 25 percent of them receive adequate treatment. 

Today’s hearing will provide Members with an opportunity to examine some of 

these issues. It will also provide Members with an opportunity to:

1) consider establishing periodic parole hearings for juvenile offenders who’ve 

been sentenced to life in prison;

2) debate the need for creating a federal grant program tailored exclusively to 

exonerees;

3) examine the possibility of establishing an early release program within the 

bureau of prisons that would allow older, non-violent offenders to be considered for early release from prison; and

4) consider the possibility of expanding the current ‘‘good time behavior credit’’ 

to provide additional benefits to those inmates who participate in designated 

educational, vocational, and developmental programs.

Each of the aforementioned concepts has been included in various bills that have 

been introduced in the current Congress, and each idea would go along way towards 

promoting meaningful rehabilitation. 

Just last month, Members of this body took up and passed H.R. 1593, the ‘‘Second 

Chance of Act of 2007.’’ That landmark piece of legislation (which currently awaits 

action in the Senate) represented an important first step in our efforts to lower 

rates of recidivism and decrease prison overcrowding. The four bills under consideration today represent the next step in that effort.

Mr. SCOTT. The gentleman is recognized. 

Mr. CONYERS. Because both gentlemen from Virginia recognize 

the importance of this subject—I am glad Mr. Forbes is here, and 

I do agree with him that our cooperativeness on four consecutive 

bills in a row were very important, and they all came out of this 

Committee. And the reason this hearing becomes important over 

and beyond the four recommendations that will be coming forward 

for legislative consideration from our distinguished panel of witnesses is overshadowed by this huge difference in opinion and perspective from those who create the Federal laws in this country. 

As a matter of fact, this difference goes beyond just the D’s 

(Democrats) and the R’s (Republicans), but it goes to the whole notion of whether or not we have a humane system of criminal justice, including the judicial system and the trial and the incarceration. 

So I am going to be planning a discussion that we may be able 

to have amongst ourselves that, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking 

Member and to my friend Howard Coble and, of course, Henry C. 

‘‘Hank’’ Johnson, and the distinguished gentlelady from Texas, 

Sheila Jackson Lee. I want to have a public discussion amongst us 

9

without, Chairman Scott, the necessity of witnesses, but in which 

we exchange some of these views. 

I have noted some of the things that Ranking Forbes has talked 

about, and I think I have four of them, there may have been more, 

and I want to address those. I think they are important and need 

to be considered. I have to confess that I have not thought much 

about them before now, but now is the time. I appreciate the hearing for bringing this publicly to my attention. I know you were not 

talking to me, but I get the message and I think that something 

should be done about it, and if something is not, that there ought 

to be a public description of why. 

Now the thing that moves me about this hearing—and in a way, 

the whole idea of a Crime Committee in Judiciary—is that public 

opinion is so shaped and influenced, and I was thinking of a witness that we might want to have—George Lakoff, the linguist—

come in and talk about how we frame subjects around something 

as inflammatory as criminal justice and what to do with prisoners. 

You never get too far down a discussion trail when someone drags 

out the old herring, soft on crime, or why are we opening up the 

doors and letting out this flood of prisoners and so forth. 

But I want to begin this examination of four modest proposals 

from the point of view of how do we think about and deal with this 

huge highly inflamed opinion that exists around the subject. And 

it is my hope that we include this in the hearings of this very important Committee. 

I will not go over the statistics here, we will probably get them 

more than once before we get through with four, six, seven people 

contributing to this, but we have a problem that needs to be addressed. I think the Chair and the Ranking Member are doing an 

honorable job from their perspectives as to how to address this circumstance that causes us to have a Crime Committee in the first 

place. 

When I first got here, we had a Crime Committee, and the problems were even more difficult to address here because we could not 

have the free exchange of opinions, Mr. Forbes, that we do have 

here now. I mean, you know, there was only one view, and that 

was it. If you did not like it, you know, do not come to the hearing. 

Here we encourage this interchange because we see this as the 

only way we are going to be able to move forward with a greater 

understanding and consideration for how and why people end up 

incarcerated in the American justice system. 

Thank you so much. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

And without objection, the gentlelady from Texas is recognized 

for a brief statement on her bill. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me say good morning to the witnesses and 

thank them very much for their presence here today and thank 

both Chairman Scott and full Committee Chairman Conyers for the 

opportunity, Mr. Conyers, for what you have just articulated, to 

have an enhanced perspective, to look at a broader view. And I welcome the informal discussion that you have suggested, or formal 

discussion without witnesses, because I think the intent of all of us 

who have offered legislative initiatives is, frankly, to look at a system that is all prisoned up. It is all incarcerated up. We have spiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:40 Nov 08, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CRIME\120607\39480.000 HJUD1 PsN: 39480
10

raling crime rates, as we speak, but yet we have the most incarcerated country, both State and Federal, I would imagine, in the 

world. 

So it is important for a Committee with this broad jurisdiction 

to take a look-see, to take an assessment of where we are. 

Frankly, I, too, welcome my good friend. I went to the University 

of Virginia School of Law, so I welcome my good friend from Virginia, and his legislative work, I am sure, I have studied or it is 

being studied, let us put it that way—it is to be studied now—at 

the University of Virginia School of Law, and he raises a critique 

that I think, frankly, should be addressed. 

I look forward to Professor Turley’s testimony because he has 

worked quite extensively with a number of these issues. He would 

know that it is specifically for nonviolent offenders. This is the 261 

that the Chairman has graciously allowed me to speak very briefly 

on, and that is, of course, the Nonviolent Federal Offender bill. 

But it is nonviolent offenders who have attained the age of at 

least 45 years of age, have never been convicted of a violent crime, 

have never escaped or attempted to escape from incarceration, have 

not engaged in any violation involving violent conduct or institutional disciplinary regulations. We know for a fact that it takes $70,000 a year to incarcerate 

older prisoners. Now we also know that when someone is rehabilitated or has the opportunity to transition, for example, in a secondchance sort of structure, they can return back to society, return 

back to the community, provide a constructive, if you will, economic 

opportunity, may be able to provide restitution to those that they 

have offended, and may as well be able to be constructive. 

Now I am glad to note that my good friend, the Ranking Member, has a great interest in Houston because he is quoted in the 

Houston paper, our local paper, and if I might use the description, 

it indicates that ‘‘an anonymous Republican staff member’’ has defined what they believe this bill actually means. They did note that 

the Federal Bureau of Prisons did not comment, and they also 

noted in the article that I am willing to work across the aisle to 

ensure that we have the kind of initiative that is productive. 

They are provocative, of course, because they cite a number of individuals like Jack Abramoff and Mr. Fastow and others that 

would be welcomed out of this process. But it would also be Mr. 

Jones, a nonviolent perpetrator, maybe committed some kind of 

fraud, whose family is now languishing between disaster and disaster, who if he was released in a rehabilitation program, he or 

she, would be able to provide for that family, to come off of the Federal system, and maybe even provide restitution. 

This article suggests that this bill, without thought and analysis, 

would provoke the release of those who would have perpetrated, be 

it an embezzler, a burglar, a money launderer, people convicted of 

possessing child pornography. Who is to say that those in some 

way could be defined as violent acts, if you will? Certainly, none 

of us would want to have child pornographers, child predators, 

arsonists and others that are alleged to be able to be released 

under this bill. That is not what this bill says. 

It is an opportunity for us to assess whether an overly imprisoned State and Nation is, in fact, the best way for us to go, and 

11

just as an aside, one of the more conservative States of which I 

happen to have come from has an early release program, and it is 

based upon good time. Pennsylvania has one, Connecticut has one, 

and Kentucky has one. And there are many other States that likewise have an early release program. And I would venture to say 

that Texas is not known to be liberal when it comes to incarceration of those who perpetrate a criminal act. 

So this bill gives us the opportunity for constructive thought, and 

it is not a bill that is to give comfort to the Jack Abramoffs of the 

world or others who have been incarcerated for various very public 

and publicized crimes that would, of course, provide injury to the 

society, albeit that they might not be violent crimes. 

This is an important discussion. I would ask my colleagues as we 

go forward not only that we listen to the testimony, but let us look 

forward to a bill that may ultimately be modified, but addresses 

the question that many Federal judges have asked us to address, 

which is, if we cannot address it from the perspective of the mandatory sentencing, help us balance by looking at these inmates, 

these incarcerated persons, as they try to rehabilitate themselves 

and constructively come back to society and help those who they 

may have harmed, but also help their families and relieve us of an 

imprisoned prisoned society that does not work. 

I thank the gentleman for his time, and I yield back. 

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlelady yield? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I would be happy to yield if the gentleman——

Mr. FORBES. I just want to make sure that I have the right bill 

before me, and the gentlelady was referencing the fact that this bill 

would give people an opportunity. Look, as I read the bill, that release would be mandatory. The word ‘‘shall’’ is in there. Am I 

misreading that? Is there some discretionary format that is in the 

bill, or does not it say that they ‘‘shall’’ be released? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. The bill presently, Mr. Ranking Member, says 

that on the grounds of being 45 and the criteria that I have mentioned, which is not a nonviolent offense, no nonviolence, no escape, 

no other indications of being a continued bad actor, that it is a 

mandatory release. However, there is no definition in it as well 

that lists, as you were quoted in the newspaper, a litany of offenses 

that would automatically suggest that they would easily qualify to 

be released. 

Mr. FORBES. And if the gentlelady would be kind enough to yield 

for one additional question——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I will yield. 

Mr. FORBES [continuing]. The fact that there is no definition 

would mean that they would not be viewed as violent crimes. For 

an individual who defrauded elderly people, there is no definition 

by which that would be determined to be violence, a violent criminal. Corrupt public officials are not determined to be violent by any 

definition I have ever seen in the Federal code, and, in fact, I do 

not know of any definition in the Federal code that would list spies, 

members of terrorist organizations, or even individuals in organized crimes who have done racketeering. If the gentlelady——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. If I can——

Mr. FORBES. Yes, go ahead. 

12

Ms. JACKSON LEE. If I can reclaim my time, it might be, Mr. 

Forbes, that we have a philosophical disagreement because I happen to believe in rehabilitation, and I do believe that there are instances where you will find that a large percentage of older, nonviolent——

Mr. SCOTT. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE [continuing]. Inmates, Mr. Chairman, have 

been rehabilitated and could be considered a viable, if you will, 

candidate for this release. Again, this bill is subject to amendment, 

and we welcome working with Mr. Forbes on this bill. 

And with that, I yield back. 

Mr. SCOTT. Details of the bill will be debated later, but we have 

a distinguished panel of witnesses before us. 

Our first witness is Professor Jennifer L. Woolard, assistant professor of psychology at Georgetown University. She has written 

about adolescent development in the family and legal context, including juvenile delinquency, mental health, and violence. Her research with juvenile defendants addresses police interrogation, culpability, the attorney-client relationship, and the role of parents in 

adolescents’ legal decision making. She has a BA in sociology and 

psychology and an MA in community development psychology and 

a Ph.D. in community and development psychology from the University of Virginia in Charlottesville. 

Our next witness is Debra LaBelle. She is a human rights attorney from Ann Arbor, Michigan. In addition to her private practice, 

she is the project director of the ACLU’s Juvenile Life Without Parole Initiative and author of ‘‘Second Chances: Juveniles Serving 

Life Without Parole in Michigan’s Prisons.’’ She has an MA in philosophy from Barnard College and a juris doctorate from Wayne 

State University Law School. 

Our next witness is Jonathan Turley of George Washington University Law School. He teaches courses on constitutional law, constitutional criminal law, environmental law, litigation and torts. He 

is the founder and executive director of the Project for Older Prisoners, or POPS. He has a BA in international relations from the 

University of Chicago and a juris doctorate from Northwestern 

School of Law. 

Our next witness will be Mr. Fred Mosely, president and founder 

of Justice Affiliates in Cleveland. He is a former trial attorney and 

judge who operates the Justice Project which provides assistance to 

those recently released from incarceration and counseling to their 

family members, and he operates Justice Ministries which conducts 

teaching seminars and publications on spiritual law. He has a BA 

from Wilberforce University, his juris doctorate from Cleveland 

Marshall College of Law, and a master of law also from Cleveland 

Marshall. 

The next witness is Ray Krone whose experience that brings him 

here today is one that we hope one day to eliminate. He lost 10 

years of his life sitting on Arizona’s death row accused of a murder 

he did not commit. He is the 100th person whose innocence has 

been proven by DNA evidence. 

Our next witness is Drew Wrigley, U.S. attorney for the District 

of North Dakota, and I just want to point out that the gentleman 

from North Dakota, Mr. Pomeroy, wanted to be here, but could not 

13

be here to introduce you. He has over 10 years’ experience as a 

prosecutor in State and Federal prisons. He has a BA in economics 

from the University of North Dakota and a juris doctorate from 

American University School of Law in Washington, DC. 

Our final witness is Mr. Lance Patrick Ogiste of the Office of the 

District Attorney of Kings County in New York. He oversees the 

appeals bureau, community relations bureau, and the ComALERT 

program. He has a BA in political science from Columbia College 

of Columbia University and a juris doctorate from Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, DC. 

We will begin with Ms. Woolard. 

There is a timing device in front of you that tells you when your 

time is about to expire. The light will go from green to yellow, and, 

hopefully, you will start finishing up when the light turns to red. 

Ms. Woolard? 

TESTIMONY OF JENNIFER L. WOOLARD, Ph.D., ASSISTANT 

PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY, GEORGETOWN 

UNIVERSITY, WASHINGTON, DC 

Ms. WOOLARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will do my best to 

pay attention to it turning to red. 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Forbes, and Members of the 

Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you 

about inmate rehabilitation and successful release planning. Today, 

I want to briefly share with you some of what behavioral science 

research, particularly psychology, can contribute to your policy deliberations about responses to youth, particularly the discussion of 

juvenile life without parole and rehabilitation. 

I want to make two perhaps obvious statements, but then tell 

you why they might not be so obvious. First, adolescents are developmentally different from adults in ways that are relevant to delinquency and crime and rehabilitation. This statement is not based 

in stereotype or intuition, but in science. 

Although the belief that adolescents are different may not be 

longstanding, the news is that advances in behavioral and brain research support this fundamental tenet of developmental psychology 

and of the rehabilitative approach in the justice system. This research has important implications for juveniles’ culpability for the 

offenses that they commit as well as for their prospects for rehabilitation. 

To illustrate, I am going to briefly focus on two major aspects of 

adolescents’ brain and behavior functioning. 

The socio-emotional network refers to brain systems responsible 

for emotion, rewards, and social processing, perhaps the same systems that underlie our emotional discussions of crime policy. These 

tend to undergo major changes in adolescence, also a time of increased sensation-seeking, increased emotional arousal, and increased attentiveness to social information. So adolescence is characterized by a socio-emotional system that is easily aroused and 

highly sensitive to social feedback from others. 

At the same time, adolescence is characterized by a still-immature cognitive control system. Although intellectual ability peaks by 

about age 16, the capacity for planning and future orientation and 

the ability to regulate oneself involve sections of the brain known 

14

as the prefrontal and anterior cingulate portions that continue to 

develop well into young adulthood. 

Sometimes called the CEO of the brain, these areas activate during what we might consider mature or deliberate thinking—the 

abilities to identify and consider future consequences of our acts, 

to understand possible sequences of events, and control impulses. 

So, as a result, adolescents are less able to control impulses, less 

able to resist peer pressure, less likely to think ahead, and more 

driven by the thrill of rewards. Moreover, the effects of immaturity 

are probably even greater outside the control of the laboratory. 

So, compared to adults, juveniles’ cognitive capacity is undermined by that socio-emotional system in circumstances that are not 

controlled or deliberate or calm, circumstances that might encompass much of juvenile crime. Our theory suggests that with maturation comes the integration of these two systems, bringing their 

influence into greater balance, perhaps contributing to the reduced 

risk in crime and delinquency that we see in adulthood and, also, 

underscoring the potential for change during those years as well. 

So let me be clear. Advances in brain imaging are exciting, offering a window into the structure and function of the brain. It is still 

at early stages, though. I cannot tell you that certain regions of the 

brain are responsible for crime, or I cannot scan one person and 

tell you that that person is fully developed or not fully developed. 

But we can tell you that this initial brain research is consistent 

with the decades of behavioral research documenting important differences in the cognitive capacities, psychosocial development, and 

behavior of adolescents compared to adults. 

Now there are certainly adults who engage in risky behavior or 

act immaturely and commit crime. The crucial distinction I want 

to make for you based on science, though, is that adolescents as a 

class are more likely to demonstrate these deficiencies due to normative development that is incomplete, not necessarily a completely formed personality. Most of those adolescents will mature 

into law-abiding, productive adult citizens. 

So, as a result, our research challenges us and challenges you 

how to sort and manage a population that can appear simultaneously adult-like and immature. 

The importance of considering rehabilitation and amenability to 

treatment as we consider youth in long-term incarceration is a critical issue. Youths’ foreshortened time perspective, for example, can 

mean that time in isolation or a life-without-parole sentence can 

have a more severe or excessive impact upon youth. 

It is incumbent upon us as researchers and policymakers to ask 

questions about outcomes that extend beyond recidivism to include 

pathways of development and positive engagement in the larger society, the prospect for employment and positive contributions. The 

emphasis on and the possibility for rehabilitation is crucial. 

Our research findings, at a minimum, support the importance of 

considering these factors as we reduce offending and augment the 

opportunity for youth to follow a successful and productive developmental pathway. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Woolard follows:]

15

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JENNIFER L. WOOLARD

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and 

Homeland Security, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you this afternoon 

about inmate rehabilitation and successful release planning. Today I share with you 

some of what behavioral science research can contribute to the policy discussion 

about responses to youth. 

First, adolescents are developmentally different from adults in ways relevant to 

delinquency and crime. This statement is not based in stereotype or intuition but 

in science. Although the belief that adolescents are different may not be different 

longstanding, the news is that advances in behavioral and brain research support 

this fundamental tenet of the juvenile justice system and its approach to rehabilitation. To illustrate, I will focus on two major aspects of adolescents’ brain and behavior functioning. 

The socio-emotional network refers to brain systems responsible for emotion, rewards, and social processing, which undergo major changes in early adolescence, 

also a time of increased sensation-seeking, increased/easier emotional arousal, and 

increased attentiveness to social information. So, adolescence is characterized by a 

socio-emotional system that is easily aroused and highly sensitive to social feedback. 

At the same time, adolescence is characterized by a still-immature cognitive control system. Although intellectual ability peaks by about age 16, the capacity for 

planning, future orientation, and the ability to regulate oneself involve prefrontal 

and anterior cingulate portions of the brain that continue to develop well into young 

adulthood. Sometimes called the ‘‘CEO’’ of the brain, these areas activate during 

what we might consider mature or deliberate thinking—the abilities to identify and 

consider future consequences, understand possible sequences of events, and control 

impulses. 

As a result, adolescents are less able to control impulses, less able to resist pressure from peers, less likely to think ahead, and more driven by the thrill of rewards. 

Moreover, the effects of immaturity are probably even greater outside the control 

of a laboratory. Compared to adults, juveniles’ cognitive capacity is undermined by 

that socioemotional system in circumstances that are not controlled, deliberate, and 

calm—circumstances that may encompass much of adolescent delinquency risk. Theory suggests that with maturation comes the integration of the two systems, bringing their influence into greater balance and perhaps contributing to the reduction 

in risky behavior we see in adulthood. 

Let me be clear—the advances in brain imaging techniques are exciting and offer 

windows into the structure and function of the brain. However, research is still at 

the early stages. We cannot definitively tell you that certain regions are ‘‘responsible’’ for risky behavior, immature thinking, or delinquent acts. We can tell you 

that our initial brain research is consistent with the decades of behavioral research 

documenting important differences in the cognitive capacities, psychosocial development, and behavior of adolescents compared to adults. 

Now, there are certainly adults who engage in risky behavior or act immaturely. 

The crucial distinction, though, is that adolescents as a class are more likely to demonstrate these deficiencies due to normative development that is incomplete; most 

will mature into law-abiding, productive adult citizens. As a result, the research on 

developmental differences challenges policymakers and practitioners to sort and 

manage a young population that can appear simultaneously adult-like and immature. So, what guidance can developmental research provide? 

I believe the body of behavioral and brain research calls into question assumptions made by some that juveniles are simply ‘‘miniature adults’’ incapable of, or unlikely to change, simply because they are capable of committing certain offenses. 

Prior to age 16, they are different intellectually and emotionally. After age 16, they 

are still different emotionally. 

The importance of considering rehabilitation and amenability to treatment as we 

consider youth in long-term incarceration is a critical issue, particularly for youth 

incarcerated as adults. Youths’ foreshortened time perspective, for example, can 

mean that the same amount of time in isolation imposed for disciplinary sanctions 

for adults can have a more severe or excessive impact on youth. One study comparing the perceptions of youth transferred to the adult system with those retained 

in the juvenile system found youths reported that juvenile sanctions had an effect 

because they gained something (e.g., skills, hope, services); adult sanctions tended 

to have an effect on attitudes and behavior because they cost something (e.g., loss 

of hope, safety, respect). Sanctions imposed on juvenile offenders should hold them 

responsible, but should not harm them in ways that imperil their development. 

It is incumbent upon researchers and policymakers to ask questions about outcomes that extend beyond recidivism to include pathways of development (e.g., apVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:40 Nov 08, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\CRIME\120607\39480.000 HJUD1 PsN: 39480
16

propriate relationship formation, individual capacities) and positive engagement in 

the larger society (e.g., employment, contributions to society). The emphasis on, and 

possibility for, rehabilitation is crucial. These research findings, at a minimum, support the importance of a developmentally appropriate juvenile justice system that 

simultaneously works to prevent and reduce offending while augmenting the opportunity for youth to follow a successful and productive developmental pathway.

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Ms. LaBelle? 

TESTIMONY OF DEBORAH LaBELLE, J.D. DIRECTOR, JUVENILE 

LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE INITIATIVE, ANN ARBOR, MI 

Ms. LABELLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the 

Subcommittee. I, too, would like to address the bill that I think 

brings some equity back to juveniles who are sentenced to life without any possibility of parole. 

As Mr. Chairman mentioned, there are over 2,000 juveniles serving this sentence in this country, and there are nine now in the 

rest of the world, Australia having recently released their three 

children that were serving that sentence and altered the way that 

they have begun to treat and consider children. 

I think it would also add equity because in many of the 38 States 

that have this punishment, it is the harshest punishment that can 

be given for anyone who does any crime so that if an adult at 45 

years commits multiple murders, they will get the same punishment as a 14-year-old child who, in one of my States that I work 

in, commits a felony murder. 

And it is not only the same punishment. In fact, it is a harsher 

punishment for the child because if you look at the sentence that 

we are talking about, by virtue of its very sentence, a juvenile who 

is 14 or 15 who receives a life-without-possibility-of-parole sentence 

will serve many more years in that prison cell than an adult, a mature adult, who receives that sentence. So not only are you not having a consideration of the youthful status, but you are actually 

punishing a child harder for what may be the same crime. 

And as Justice Kennedy recently recognized in striking down the 

juvenile death penalty, he said that as any parent knows and as 

the science and sociological studies confirm, that this lack of maturity and underdeveloped sense of responsibility, peer pressures, are 

qualities that result in impetuous and ill-considered actions and decisions much more often in youth than they do in adults. 

Youth is a time and condition of life when a person is susceptible 

to influence and psychological damage, and that explains in part 

why the prevailing circumstances that juveniles have less control, 

less experience and less control over their own environment, which 

often adds to impetuous crimes. 

But we now have a system in which these youth, these children 

ranging from the age of 13 to 17, are placed in a cell without ever 

a second look until they die and without any consideration of their 

youthful status. And I think that one of the things that no one can 

say with assurance is what a child will be when they grow into 

adulthood. Yet in the United States, we stand virtually alone in rejecting the youth’s unique potential to grow, to change, to learn and 

to contribute to our society and our future. And we do that uniquely in the criminal justice system because in all of our civil and political laws, we recognize that children are less responsible. We recVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:40 Nov 08, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CRIME\120607\39480.000 HJUD1 PsN: 39480
17

ognize that they do not have the wherewithal to vote until they are 

18, that they can only drive when they are 16, that they cannot do 

contracts, that they cannot serve on the very juries that we allow 

to convict them and send them to prison for life without any second 

look at them. 

And so when we talk about equity and we talk about instilling 

a kind of discretion in our criminal justice system, what we have 

with regard to youth is a total disregard, just with a game of semantics, that we will treat youth as if they were adults. And neither judges nor jury in the majority of these States have any discretion to do otherwise, because for a whole range of crimes for 

many States, once you are the age of 14 and you commit a crime, 

which may be a felony murder, meaning that you have an adult 

who does the actual homicide, you are mandatorily automatically 

sent to an adult court. And once you are convicted, it is a mandatory sentence. Neither a judge nor a jury has the ability to look at 

that child’s status and make any determination. 

And what this bill simply does is it says we will look again. We 

will acknowledge that you are a child, and when you grow up, you 

may be an adult that may or may not be able to join society, and 

we will not arbitrarily say that we will sentence you from cradle 

to the grave at a cost of approximately $2 million per child without 

at least considering the concept of whether punishment has been 

served, whether you are a risk to public safety, and whether you 

can now as an adult rejoin our society. 

So I think that when you are looking at this bill, this really puts 

back in place some of the equities that are missing in the kind of 

reactive sentences that have occurred over the last 10 years with 

regard to our children, and I think that this matter is an issue not 

as much as criminal justice, but a consideration of how we are 

going to treat our children and how we are going to look at them 

in terms of whether they can be part of our future. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. LaBelle follows:]

18

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DEBORAH LABELLE


DL-1.eps
19


DL-2.eps
20


DL-3.eps
21


DL-4.eps
22


DL-5.eps
23


DL-6.eps
24


DL-7.eps
25


DL-8.eps
26


DL-9.eps
27


DL-10.eps
28


DL-11.eps
29


DL-12.eps
30


DL-13.eps
31


DL-14.eps
32


DL-15.eps
33


DL-16.eps
34


DL-17.eps
35


DL-18.eps
36


DL-19.eps
37


DL-20.eps
38


DL-21.eps
39


DL-22.eps
40

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Professor Turley? 

TESTIMONY OF JONATHAN TURLEY, THE J.B. AND MAURICE C. 

SHAPIRO PROFESSOR OF PUBLIC INTEREST LAW, GEORGE 

WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. TURLEY. Good afternoon. Chairman Scott, Ranking Member 

Forbes, Chairman Conyers, it is a great honor to appear before you 

today to talk about an important issue, which is in H.R. 261. I 

come to this question as someone who teaches in the field and also 

practices in the criminal law field and also as the founder and the 

executive director of the Project for Older Prisoners, or POPS, although listening now, I think I also can claim to be the father of 

four children under 9. So I have seen the ravages of recidivism and 

overcrowding in my own house as well as juvenile recidivism. But 

I am going to focus instead on older prisoners. 

The fact is—and it is a fact that we cannot avoid—our prisons 

are graying. They are graying with our society. Our prisons are a 

microcosm of our society, and our society is getting older, our prisons are getting older, and that is presenting serious problems 

across the board in all 50 States and the Federal system. 

As prisoners grow older, they become more expensive. They are 

on average two to three times the expense of a younger prisoner. 

They are in a system that has a very difficult time in handling 

them. We are in a serious overcrowding situation in this country. 

We have had a massive growth within our prison system. If you 

look simply at the Federal prison system, we have gone from in 

1986 33,000 inmates. We are now at 193,000. Within that system, 

we have seen the fastest-growing segment as older and geriatric inmates. 

Now many of our prisons are under overcrowded conditions, that 

is past their design capacity for those facilities, and it is getting 

worse. It is getting worse because we have ballooning hidden costs 

associated with the fact that these prisoners are becoming more expensive. They are becoming more expensive partially because of 

health problems. 

As you get older, you become more expensive, and if you are in 

the prison system, you get older faster. In fact, when we talk about 

a chronological age in terms of prisoners, that can be misleading. 

The number of physiologically older and geriatric prisoners is 

much, much higher. All the studies show that prisoners age about 

seven to 10 years beyond their chronological age, so the number of 

physiologically older prisoners is much, much higher, which is why 

we have these hidden ballooning costs. 

This is due often to masking. It is a medical term of when you 

get older, some conditions are masked by confusion with the normal appearance of aging, and so those conditions are often missed 

and they go into acute or chronic states. 

So we have a system that is not working. It is not working because we are ignoring the fact that we have a much more different 

prison population today than we have had before, and the population of the 21st century demands that we adjust with it. 

That does not mean releasing people because they are older. In 

fact, the Project for Older Prisoners has received, I am happy to 

41

say, as much conservative as liberal support. We have had some of 

the most conservative Members of Congress, some prior Administrations that have supported us, because we are extremely conservative in who we recommend for release. That decision is based 

upon recidivism. 

Now recidivism involves a lot of different factors, but the most 

reliable factor remains age. Everyone agrees on that. What we do 

not agree on is why. Some of us believe that it is the natural evolution of the body and its system. Some believe it is cultural. But 

we all agree that after age 30 certainly—and that is a conservative 

figure—recidivism drops dramatically. At POPS, we focus on prisoners who are 55 years or older, but that drop most certainly occurs after 40, as I mentioned in my testimony, where you see after 

40, someone is a third of the likelihood of recidivism than someone 

who is younger than that. 

H.R. 261 is a very important step, and it offers a framework for 

us to try to deal with this problem. As I mention in my testimony, 

I think that it should be tweaked, that it should be amended. We 

need to make sure that people simply do not get out because they 

reach a certain age. My understanding from its sponsor, Congresswoman Jackson Lee, is that she welcomes those changes and we 

have, in fact, talked about them. 

Some of the changes may include tweaking the age to increase 

it slightly. More importantly, I think we need to deal with habitual 

offenders that involve nonviolent offenses. Occasionally, you will 

find people who are avertable or habitual offenders that graduate 

up, and we can recognize those patterns. We can also exclude certain crimes. As Congressman Forbes has pointed out—and I think 

he is absolutely correct—there are some crimes that are nonviolent 

that we simply would not want to be subject to this release program. But I also agree with Congresswoman Jackson Lee that we 

do not want to cut this too closely to the bone. 

But we can rely on recidivism studies. There are recidivism categories that indicate that certain crimes are hard to predict. Child 

molesters, child pornographers tend to have a higher recidivism 

rate, and we can exclude those based on science, not emotion. 

I will end my comments today by simply saying that I think we 

can work together. POPS has worked with both parties across the 

country, and I think if you look at our record, you will find that 

we have been able to reach consensus, and I do believe that this 

is about victims, but I think that we need, if we really care about 

victims, to make fewer of them, and the way we do that is to make 

mature decisions about who we need to incarcerate and how, and 

I look forward to working with this Committee to achieve that goal. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Turley follows:]

42

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JONATHAN TURLEY


JT-1.eps
43


JT-2.eps
44


JT-3.eps
45


JT-4.eps
46


JT-5.eps
47


JT-6.eps
48


JT-7.eps
49


JT-8.eps
50


JT-9.eps
51


JT-10.eps
52


JT-11.eps
53


JT-12.eps
54


JT-13.eps
55


JT-14.eps
56


JT-15.eps
57

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Mr. Mosely? 

TESTIMONY OF FRED MOSELY, JUSTICE AFFILIATES, 

CLEVELAND, OH 

Mr. MOSELY. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Forbes, Members 

of this Subcommittee, I consider it an honor to be able to appear 

before this Subcommittee in support of H.R. 4752. 

I bring what I consider to be a unique experience to the work 

that I do in prison advocacy, having served as a trial attorney for 

the United States Justice Department, as an assistant Cuyahoga 

County prosecutor, as a defense attorney and as a municipal court 

judge. During my years in the legal profession, I did not realize the 

fine line that there is between the prosecutor’s side of the trial 

table and the defendant’s chair, nor did I realize that there is not 

much distance between the defense attorney’s chair and the defendant’s chair. And likewise I certainly was unaware of the fact 

that the judge, who may be presiding over the proceedings, is not 

immune from perhaps one day being seated on the defendant’s 

chair. 

I have come to realize that you can be on the top one day and 

on the bottom on another day. One can be in a position of authority 

at one time and at a later time at the lowest level of society. I have 

also learned that it is wise to show compassion because we find in 

the Word ‘‘blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.’’

My unique experience also includes the fact that I was indicted 

by a Federal grand jury and a grand jury seated in the State of 

Ohio for receiving kickbacks from contractors. I had a potential incarceration period of 132 years. I was convicted in 1985, sentenced 

to 10 years in Federal prison and 12 years concurrent in the State 

of Ohio. Also, I have the unique experience of not only having been 

a Federal inmate, a State inmate, but also a Federal and a State 

parolee. 

As a result of what I came to learn concerning the advantage of 

good time credit, I was able to return to my family much sooner 

than I would have been, and I had some very pressing issues at 

home. My youngest daughter who had been attacked by sudden infant death syndrome was operating at a much lower mental level 

than she should have been, my middle daughter who was a teenager was running away form home constantly because her dad was 

not home, and my oldest daughter was dealing with the stigma and 

embarrassment of a father being incarcerated. 

So, as a result of good time credit, I was able to return home and 

address some of those pressing issues. 

I met men at Big Spring from all walks of life. Some were judges, 

lawyers, medical doctors. You name a profession, it was represented in the prison camp at Big Spring, Texas. And many of 

these men were well educated and had various skills. But then 

again, there were many men from the urban areas of Dallas and 

Houston, Oklahoma City, and the District of Columbia, who did not 

have skills and who did not have an educational background. 

So these men also took advantage of good time credit, and many 

of them as a result of that were able to return home sooner. Some 

were able to get their GEDs. Some took college courses. Others 

58

were accomplished on their jobs. Men who had never had any 

meaningful employment previously had regular jobs that they were 

able to go to and develop a sense of pride while away. 

I can recall various instances, one in particular. A pharmacist, 

who came from Shelbyville, Tennessee, had two young boys. He 

was a divorcee, and he worked hard in a cable factory, and as a 

result of that, he was able to get home much sooner to address the 

concerns and the issues of those young sons that he had at home. 

Also, there was a young drug dealer from Lubbock, Texas, who 

did not have a high school diploma. He was able to get his GED, 

returned to Lubbock, Texas, and now he is a respected pastor at 

a church there in Lubbock. There was a farmer there who likewise 

took advantage of good time credit. He was in his 60’s when he arrived, returned to his farming career and home to his family. 

So I strongly support good time credit for the inmate community. 

I am invited to speak at various institutions, State and Federal, 

around the country. I encourage the men and women to whom I 

speak to take full advantage of any and all good time credit opportunities that are there, reminding them that preparation for release begins the day that you enter the institution as opposed to 

the day that you are released. 

So, in closing, again, I strongly support H.R. 4752, and I add to 

that that it should be extended to all Federal inmates, including 

those from Washington, DC. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mosely follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF FRED M. MOSELY

Mr. Chairman and Members, I am grateful for this opportunity to appear in support of HR-4752 (Literary, Education, and Rehabilitation Act). My name is Fred M 

Mosely and I am Founder and President of Justice Affiliates. Through our Justice 

Project, we provide assistance to men and women recently released from incarceration and we also provide counseling to their family members. Another component 

of Justice Affiliates is Justice Ministries, wherein as an ordained minister, I share 

a series entitled ‘‘The Laws of Life’’, with the inmate community. 

I bring a unique experience to the work that I do, having served as a trial attorney for the United States Justice Department, as a Special Ohio Assistant Attorney 

General, Assistant Cuyahoga County Prosecutor, defense attorney in private practice, and as a municipal court judge. 

I did not realize the fine line between various positions in the courtroom. I have 

however, learned that there is a very fine line between the prosecutor’s side of the 

trial table and the defense side. The distance between the defense attorney’s chair 

and the chair of the defendant is nearer than one would imagine. Surprisingly, the 

presiding judge is not immune from finding him or her seated on the defendant’s 

chair. 

Early in my career, I was not cognizant of the fact that an individual can be on 

top one day and on the bottom on another. Further, I did not realize that one can 

be in a position of authority in the legal community for a season and at the lowest 

level at a later time. Therefore, I have learned that it is wise to have compassion 

for the least of them because ‘‘Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy’’. 

My unique experience includes the fact that in 1984 I was indicted for the same 

offence by a Federal and State of Ohio Grand Jury for receiving kickbacks from contractors. I had a potential incarceration period of one hundred and thirty-two (132) 

years. I was convicted in 1985 and sentenced to ten (10) years in the federal system, 

and twelve years (12) concurrent in the State of Ohio. 

In addition to the fact that I have sat on almost every strategic seat in the courtroom, I also have had the experience of being a federal and state inmate, and parolee. As a result of these experiences, I truly appreciate the benefit of good time 

credit, and as a result of which I was able to return to my home in seven and one 

half (71⁄2) years. To have been released earlier than I would have been, enabled me 

to address several pressing issues concerning my children: one (1), my youngest 

59

daughter who was in her teens was functioning on a much lower mental level because of SIDS, two (2), my middle daughter, because of the hurt and disappointment 

of my incarceration, was frequently running away form home, and three (3), my oldest daughter who was having to deal with the embarrassment of negative pretrial 

and post trial press concerning her father. 

I am familiar with the re-entry process, having been away for a significant number of years: forty months (40), in the federal system and four (4) years in three 

(3) different Ohio institutions. I also understand the process of re-entering society 

after a long prison term. Similarly, I am mindful of dealing with scornful looks from 

former colleagues and I know what it is like to seek employment having the barriers 

of being a middle aged minority with a criminal record. 

My understanding of HR-4752 introduced by Representative Bobby Scott (D-Virginia 3rd) is that this bill would amend Title 18, United States Code , to award 

credit toward the service of a sentence to prisoners who participate in designated 

educational, vocational, treatment, assigned work, or other developmental programs. 

I support such efforts because of my personal experience and because of certain 

facts in numerated in the document of support of HR-4752 summarized below:

• Increased recidivism results in profound collateral consequences, including 

public health risk, homelessness, unemployment and disenfranchisement.

• Impact on children, the weakened ties among family members, and destabilized communities.

• That more than fifty percent (50%) of former inmates are unemployed.

• A large percentage of inmates function at the two (2) lowest literacy levels.

• A substantial number of local jail inmates have never completed high school 

or its equivalent.

• That participation in correctional educational programs lowers the likelihood 

of re-incarceration.

• Lengthy periods of incarceration should be reserved for offenders who pose 

the greatest danger to the community, and to those who commit the most serous offences.

• That the elimination of incentives such as parole, good time credit and funding for college courses means that fewer inmates participate in and excel in 

literacy, education, treatment, and other development programs.

I met men from all walks of life at FPC Big Spring, Texas. Some of these men 

were well educated and trained (i.e. judges, lawyers, federal and state legislators, 

medical doctors, educators, businessmen, pilots, ministers, etc.). Most of the inmates, however, at FPC Big Spring, Texas were men from urban areas such as Dallas, Houston, Oklahoma City, and from the District of Columbia who had no marketable skills and limited education. Many of these men took advantage of educational, vocational, treatment, assigned work and other developmental programs, 

and were able to earn additional good time credit. 

My memories of FBP Big Spring include seeing the pride on the faces of men pursuing their GED’s or college courses as they walked to class with school books in 

hand. I recall the look of accomplishment on some who had never had a meaningful 

job or a regular place of work to go to on a daily basis. These men were able to 

earn good time credit. I also reflect on the interest displayed by some of the men 

enrolled in various programs and the successful completion of same which also provided good time credit. 

I vividly recall a pharmacist, from Shelbyville, TN who was serving a six and one 

half (61⁄2) year sentence. He was a divorced father with two (2) young boys and was 

driven to do all in his power to return home as soon as possible to be a responsible 

parent and a guiding force in the lives of his two sons. Being aware of the good time 

credit he could earn based on work assignment, the pharmacist applied for work in 

the cable factory. He worked extremely hard and was able to send money home to 

help support his children. Also, because of his painstaking work ethic he earned sufficient good time credit to effectuate his release months sooner than scheduled. He 

has been restored to his career in pharmacy, and is remarried and active in ministry. 

Another individual at FPC Big Spring who availed himself to the benefits of good 

time credit was a young drug dealer from Lubbock, TX. This diligent individual 

worked long hours on his prison job, earned his GED and accumulated sufficient 

good time credit to allow him to return home sooner than his scheduled release 

date. He is now a well know and respected pastor in Lubbock, TX. 

There was a farmer from Guyman, Okalahoma who offered his skills as a heavy 

equipment operator. He was involved in most of the construction work on the comVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:40 Nov 08, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\CRIME\120607\39480.000 HJUD1 PsN: 39480
60

pound. This individual was in his sixties (60’s) upon his arrival of FPC Big Spring 

and longed to return to his wife of many years and his family in Oklahoma. The 

good time credit earned by him allowed him to do just that, and he returned to a 

successful farming career. 

Since my release I have been invited to speak to the inmate community in various 

institutions (state and federal) I have endeavored to give a message of hope and restoration. I encourage those to whom I speak to take advantage of every conceivable 

opportunity to better themselves, spiritually, mentally, and physically. They are also 

strongly encouraged to take advantage of every opportunity to earn additional good 

time credit. They are reminded of the fact that their preparation for return to society began the day they entered the institution, and not on the day of release. I encourage them not only to endeavor to better themselves, but also to be an integral 

part of the lives of their family members. 

On many occasions, as I walk through downtown Cleveland, I see men with whom 

I was incarcerated, in desperation of meaningful employment. The combination of 

race, age, criminal record, limited education and skills, all but preclude them from 

significant employment. I receive letters from around the country from men and 

women in need of re-entry assistance. 

I strongly support HR-4752. It is my opinion that good time credit should be 

based upon term of imprisonment imposed as apposed to time served. Further, good 

time credit should be extended to all federal inmates including those from the District of Columbia. I applaud Congressman Scott and the Members of this Sub Committee.

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Mr. Krone? 

TESTIMONY OF RAY KRONE, EXONERATED FROM DEATH ROW 

IN ARIZONA AFTER HIS INNOCENCE WAS CONCLUSIVELY ESTABLISHED, YORK, PA 

Mr. KRONE. Thank you. 

I consider it a great honor, too, to be here to address this meeting and also a great privilege. 

I do not hold any degrees, I do not hold any political offices, but 

I do think I represent a lot of people in this country. I was born 

in the 1950’s, I am a baby-boomer from a small town in Pennsylvania, high school graduate, Vietnam-era vet, 6 years in the U.S. 

Air Force, ex-U.S. Postal employee, 7 years for the Post Office, and 

also a convicted murderer, thankfully, an exoneree, too, and that 

is what I am here to address. And I am going to address the issue 

on bill H.R. 4063, restitution for the wrongfully convicted. 

It is hard for me to believe this could happen, would happen to 

me. I have never been in trouble in my life, graduated in the top 

15 percent of my class. I did not even have detention in high 

school. I served my country for 6 years, got out, worked for the Post 

Office. 

One day, I was questioned about a murder. Two days later, I was 

arrested based on the assumption that marks on the body matched 

my teeth. I went to trial in just 7 months, had a court-appointed 

attorney who was given $5,000 to defend me. At the time when I 

checked in, to get representation, it was over $100,000. My little 

pragmatic country mind thought about it, said, ‘‘Well, now I am 

making $30,000 a year at the Post Office. I bought a house 7 years 

ago that cost me $50,000. I am supposed to come up with over 

$100,000 to defend myself for something I did not do, and I am not 

going to get that money back?’’

And so I trusted the system with that court-appointed attorney. 

The trial lasted 31⁄2 days, found guilty of murder, found guilty of 

kidnapping, based on the bite mark testimony by an expert. I was 

61

sent to death row because I did not show remorse, I did not show 

regret, I did not plead for my life for something I did not do. My 

family stood by me all those years, friends and people that knew 

me at the age of 35 when I was arrested. I knew a lot of people, 

and a lot of people knew and believed in me. 

And I fought that system for 10 years, having a new trial at one 

point because the prosecution withheld evidence, again getting convicted, and this time the judge saying that there was lingering residual doubt. So he only sends me to 25 to life this time. 

After 10 years in prison, DNA finally was recovered from the victim’s clothing. That DNA was put in a nationwide DNA databank 

that came back and identified a known sexual predator who had 

a history of assaulting women and children. His DNA matched the 

DNA found at the crime scene, and I was finally released after 10 

years, 3 months, and 8 days. The judge told me good luck. The 

prosecutor would not even admit that he made a mistake. 

I got out, come home to my family in Pennsylvania, start my life 

over again at the age of 45, having lost my retirement at the Post 

Office, my career in the Post Office, having lost my home, all my 

personal property, just thankful—thankful—that somebody believed in me, and that I was finally able to walk free and hold my 

head up because they got the guy that did it. 

I am here to represent a lot of people that are also still in prison 

fighting for their day of freedom, their chance to prove their innocence. There was 123 other death row exonerees in our country 

that walked out of prison a free man, being exonerated, wishing 

they had some help. My family stood by me. My friends supported 

me. My small town, my community, supported me. I am so thankful for that. I am lucky. I am one of the few fortunate. A lot of people do not get out with being able to stand on their feet, and society 

turned their backs on them just like the justice system they trusted 

turned their backs on them. 

I am thankful and honored to be able to talk and address you 

today about this bill. It is important knowing that the interest of 

justice—I heard the word ‘‘fairness’’ mentioned. I heard ‘‘truth’’ 

mentioned. Those two go hand in hand. In order to have justice, 

you have to have the truth, and you have to have fairness. 

I know as a kid taking the Pledge of Allegiance before the class 

each day started school, with liberty and justice for all, and I believed in that and I stood for that. I found the day that it did not 

seem that it does come for all. 

But bad things do happen to good people. It is the luck of the 

draw when you get involved in the justice system, and that scares 

me because what happened to me could happen to any of your sons, 

your daughters, your brothers, your fathers, your uncles, your 

friends. 

As I said, I do not have a degree, I do not hold any offices. I am 

just an American that believes in my country, believes in justice, 

and wants to be able to believe in my government to recognize, respect, and protect that life and liberty, that pursuit of liberty and 

justice for all. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Krone follows:]

62

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RAY KRONE

A wrongful conviction is a nightmare for the innocent person, the crime’s victim, 

and for our society. I should know. I spent 10 years in an Arizona prison for a crime 

someone else committed. My incarceration included nearly three years on Arizona’s 

death row. 

When Kim Ancona was killed in 1991, a friend of hers mentioned someone named 

Ray to investigators, and the police focused on me as their only suspect. In fact, investigators were so focused on me that they ignored evidence that exonerated me, 

including a bloody footprint from the scene that did not match my size. In addition, 

I owned no shoes that matched the tread. 

Because I trusted the justice system, I did not bother to hire a private attorney 

and accepted court-appointed counsel. My attorney’s resources were woefully inadequate. The courts granted him a mere $5,000 to represent me. A bitemark was the 

one piece of evidence that led to my conviction, but my lawyer could not afford to 

hire a bitemark expert. He relied on a family dentist as our expert. 

At trial, my roommate testified on my behalf, stating that I was at home sleeping 

when Kim was killed, but the prosecuting attorney attacked his credibility. The 

prosecutor claimed that my roommate would lie on my behalf because I had taken 

him in during a rough period in his life. 

I was luckier than most, though. My family and friends came to my aid. My mother took out a second mortgage on her house and spent her retirement savings to 

help. High school friends held fundraisers for my legal defense. My cousin, Jim Rix, 

whom I had never met before I went to jail, heard my story and also offered his 

help. In total, my family and friends spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to help 

free me. 

A wrongful conviction is not just about the unlucky person who goes to jail. It’s 

also about the victims and the safety of society. We must not forget the simple and 

obvious truth that when we get it wrong, a guilty person goes free. 20 days after 

Kim was killed, Kenneth Phillips, the man whose DNA matched the evidence from 

the crime scene, assaulted a young girl, a crime for which he was incarcerated at 

the time of the DNA test that freed me. 

In fact, had investigators broadened their list of suspects, they may have found 

Phillips soon after the death of Kim Ancona. He lived just a few hundred yards from 

the bar where the crime occurred and was on probation at the time for assaulting 

a neighbor. 

I lost ten years of my life in jail, but I choose not to be bitter. Rather than focus 

on the ten years I lost, I’ve made a conscious decision to focus on the next ten years. 

By talking about my experience, I hope to impact significant change toward making 

our criminal justice system truly just. 

In that respect, to have justice, it must be about seeking truth and fairness for 

all. Just as we seek suitable and just punishment for a crime committed, so should 

we seek suitable and just restitution for those wrongly convicted. Our pledge of allegiance declares ‘‘with liberty and justice for all’’. The loss of liberty, liberty that our 

forefathers fought so hard to secure for all Americans, should never be taken lightly. 

It dishonors their efforts and diminishes us all as Americans. When our justice system, a system that we should all hold in high esteem, fails to protect our liberties, 

and in fact revokes our liberty, our freedom, in error, then fairness, neigh justice 

requires that this esteemed system of justice recompense those who the system 

failed. I ask that you carefully consider this bill and support it in the continued pursuit of fairness and thus justice for all.

—————

Ray Krone of York County was the 100th person since 1976 to be exonerated after spending 

time on death row. He is the director of communications and training for Witness to Innocence 

(www.witnesstoinnocence.org).

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Those bells indicate we have a vote coming up. I think we can 

probably get in the testimony of the next two witnesses. 

Mr. Wrigley? 

Mr. WRIGLEY. I am happy to wait if that is required as well. 

Mr. SCOTT. All right. Proceed. 

63

TESTIMONY OF DREW WRIGLEY, U.S. ATTORNEY,

DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA 

Mr. WRIGLEY. Good morning, Chairman Scott and Ranking Member Forbes and all of the Members of the Committee—I am indeed 

honored to be here with all of you as well as with this esteemed 

panel. 

And let me just start by saying that, Mr. Krone, I am particularly moved to be here with you this morning. I think anybody who 

respects and loves justice, although your story will wrench anybody, has to love about the system that it will also look to and provide ways for there to be exoneration, I am looking forward to talking to you after the hearing today because, as I say, anyone who 

loves justice would be wrenched by your story this morning. 

I want to point out that I am prepared to comment, Mr. Scott, 

on a couple of the bills that are before the Committee today, H.R. 

261, the ‘‘Federal Prison Bureau Nonviolent Offender Relief Act of 

2007,’’ as well as H.R. 4063, the ‘‘Restitution for the Exonerated 

Act of 2007.’’

I understand that some additional bills were introduced yesterday or today, and while I was not able to prepare comment on 

those proposals on behalf of the Justice Department, I can assure 

you and all the Members of the Committee that I will be happy to 

relay any concerns or questions that are raised here today, and if 

at all possible, I would be glad to answer questions as well. 

It has been an honor on my part to represent in my service as 

a prosecutor the interest of victims, crime victims and their aggrieved communities dating back to 1993. In that year, I began my 

career as a prosecutor by moving to Philadelphia. I took my oath 

of office as an assistant district attorney. Six years ago, on November 15, 2001, I had the privilege of again taking a similar oath, this 

time as the United States attorney for my home state of North Dakota. 

I am the 17th United States attorney in my State’s history. I 

look at the wall of my predecessors when I walk into the office each 

morning and realize that 100 years from now, there are going to 

be 17 more probably who have come and gone. Some will do a better job than me, some maybe worse, but I can assure this Committee that none will be more honored than I am and have been 

by the service with the Justice Department, with my colleagues in 

North Dakota and around the country. 

It is an honor to be here today. 

I am going to first discuss, if I may, H.R. 4063 and just jump 

right into it, I guess. While the Department of Justice opposes the 

enactment of H.R. 4063, I want to stress—I want to stress—that 

we support the purpose of that legislation, and then, again, the 

successful transition of wrongfully convicted persons back into their 

communities is not really a controversial concept. Toward that end, 

the Department of Justice supports Federal, State, and local programs that work to assist in such transitions. 

The Administration’s proposal in this regard would consolidate 

the Justice Department’s more than 70 existing grant programs 

into four flexible and competitive grant programs that would direct 

taxpayers’ dollars to the places and to the people where they are 

most needed. 

64

It sounds like the Committee is most needed someplace else, but 

I will proceed until instructed otherwise. 

The President’s fiscal year 2008 budget proposes $65 million for 

a single reintegration and ex-offenders program, including 

exonerees, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Labor that would enlist faith-based 

and community organizations in assisting those people return to 

their communities. 

If I might, I will turn now to H.R. 261, the so-called ‘‘Federal 

Prison Bureau Nonviolent Offender Public Relief Act of 2007.’’

I will be clear from the beginning the department strongly opposes the enactment of H.R. 261. The legislation is completely contrary to the longstanding truth in sentencing policy of the United 

States government. That policy has been promoted consistently by 

both Democratic and Republican administrations, by Democratic 

and Republican Congresses over the least 20 years. H.R. 261 and 

its arbitrary release-triggering mechanism would undermine the 

purposes of the sentencing reform that has been in place since 

1984, and, consequently, the thoughtful consideration of appropriate sentencing guidelines by the sentencing commission, which, 

of course, is not just a commission office without name. It is a commission comprised of a wide array of criminal justice experts. 

H.R. 261’s release mandate ignores the specifics of a particular 

defendant. It ignores the specifics of his or her crime. It ignores the 

specifics of his or her criminal history. In that way, H.R. 261 runs 

entirely counter to the factors the sentencing court is required to 

consider in imposing a sentence under United States law. 

Federal district court judges are required by law to take what we 

call the 3553 factors into account in the determination of an appropriate sentence in every single case. Nonetheless, H.R. 261 would 

turn its back on the judge’s determination, would arbitrarily release all qualifying 45 year olds who have served just 50 percent 

of what the public was led to believe that they would serve. 

That is an important concept. Across my more than a decade of 

prosecuting crimes, I can tell you it is incredibly important to victims of crime, to their families, and to the communities most affected. It is incredibly important to them to know that there is integrity in the sentence that has just been passed. After all, criminal sentences are not simply a matter of when will the person 

recidivate, will the person recidivate. They are also a matter of 

punishment, appropriate punishment handed out at the time as 

the sentence is passed. 

This legislation would inequitably and unjustly benefit an entire 

class of offenders whose release would present a clear and present 

danger to the public. It is unclear why these 45-year-olds would get 

the benefit of this much more lenient treatment simply because 

they have attained the age of 45, or if it was tweaked, if it was 

tweaked to 46 or 48 or 52, arbitrary nonetheless. 

And keep in mind the types of criminals over the age of 45 or 

55, whatever it would be, for whom the release would be required—

drug dealers, spies, others convicted of violating the Nation’s espionage laws, lifelong fraudsters, money launderers, members of terrorist organizations, gangsters, possessors of child pornography. 

65

Possessors of child pornography—I prosecute these cases personally. In a district my size, I try these cases. I can tell you that the 

people that are involved in that industry, people who are on the 

bad end of that industry, the victim, would be loath to stand before 

you and say these are not violent crimes, and they would like the 

people who are sentenced under these provisions to be released indiscriminately simply because they got to 45. 

The fact is all of these offenses constitute real threats to the security of the United States, whether or not the person committed 

what we will call a violent act of some kind. Lengthy sentences in 

such cases are appropriate and they are a true deterrent. 

I see that my time is going by here, and I do not wish to cut into 

the Committee’s time because I know the questions are more important than what perhaps I have to say this morning. 

I am just going to end, Mr. Chairman, by pointing out again that 

this sentencing regimen that we are called upon as Federal prosecutors so often to defend has been a sentencing regimen that has 

been passed on by the Congress and has been in the policy of the 

United States for 20 years. 

Now I can say from my perspective and in my district—I know 

people might snicker and say, ‘‘Well, is there crime in North Dakota?’’ I can assure you that there is. In my years as U.S. attorney, 

we have had a 300 percent increase in a number of Federal criminal violations that we are prosecuting, and that includes a 500 percent increase in the drug-trafficking cases that we are prosecuting, 

and these are drug-trafficking cases that reach all across the 

United States into many of your districts. I have cases reaching all 

across the United States into Canada and into Mexico. 

And so we are impacted by those problems, and we are trying to 

deal with it the best we can, and I think one of the most important 

tools is certainty in length of sentences. I think it has a dramatic 

impact on our communities, it keeps them safer, and it helps us 

live in a time when violent crime is a very, very serious problem 

that we all recognize. I think if we look at it statistically, we are 

in a position that we can feel that we are making real progress because the violent crime rates are in a position that were probably 

enviable in the 1960’s and 1970. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wrigley follows:]

66

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DREW WRIGLEY


DW-2.eps
67


DW-3.eps
68


DW-4.eps
69


DW-5.eps
70


DW-6.eps
71


DW-7.eps
72


DW-8.eps
73


DW-9.eps
74


DW-10.eps
75

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

And we just have a few minutes to get to the floor, so we will 

recess. I understand we have three votes. So it will be about 20 

minutes before we get back. 

The Committee is now in recess. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. SCOTT. The Committee will come to order. 

Reconvening the hearing, we will now hear from Mr. Ogiste. 

TESTIMONY OF LANCE P. OGISTE, COUNSEL, BROOKLYN DISTRICT ATTORNEY, MEMBER, NATIONAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S ASSOCIATION 

Mr. OGISTE. Good afternoon, Chairman Scott and Ranking Member Forbes and the rest of the Members of the Subcommittee. 

Thank you very much for having me here today. It is quite an 

honor. 

My name is Lance Ogiste, and I am counsel to the district attorney of Kings County, Brooklyn, New York, Charles J. Hynes. I 

have been a prosecutor for 20 years, and among my current responsibilities is I am in charge of the district attorney’s prisoner reentry program, ComALERT, which stands for Community and Law 

Enforcement Resources Together. I am also a member of the National District Attorneys Association. 

The successful rehabilitation and re-entry of ex-offenders into the 

community demands the attention of prosecutors throughout the 

country because, quite simply, the welfare and safety of the public 

are at stake. 

Recidivism by formerly incarcerated individuals takes a tremendous toll in terms of both the immediate harm caused by the criminal conduct and the direct and indirect costs of recidivism, such as 

the criminal justice system costs of investigation and prosecution, 

the incarceration costs, and the myriad social costs, such as medical care, foster care, and welfare system costs, resulting from the 

impact of the crime on the victim and the victim’s family and 

friends, and even on the offender’s family and friends and, of 

course, on the larger community. 

The NDAA recognizes the importance of reducing recidivism 

rates of ex-offenders and supports the development and implementation of innovative programs to assist with prisoner reentry 

issues. Because successful re-entry can have such a positive impact 

on an individual and, by extension, a community’s well-being, DA 

Hynes in 1999 created ComALERT in close collaboration with 

Counseling Service of EDNY, an out-patient drug treatment provider; the Doe Fund, a not-for-profit organization providing transitional employment and housing; the New York State Division of 

Parole; and numerous community-based social services providers. 

ComALERT is not a re-entry court. It is a re-entry partnership for 

Brooklyn residents who are on parole and who have been mandated to engage in substance abuse treatment. 

The program assumed its present structure in October 2004. 

There are currently approximately 150 active participants in 

ComALERT. For most clients, the program lasts 3 to 6 months. Between October 1, 2004, and October 1, 2007, 446 clients graduated 

76

from the program. The program graduation rate is approximately 

53 percent. 

Most ComALERT clients are recently released from prison and 

are referred to the program by parole. ComALERT representatives 

also regularly perform informational sessions via video hookup at 

various prisons throughout New York State explaining the program 

and the services offered. As a result, some clients, even if not referred to ComALERT by their parole officers, nevertheless choose 

to enroll in the program once they are released. 

At ComALERT’s downtown Brooklyn location, clients receive outpatient substance abuse treatment from state-licensed drug treatment counselors. Each week, clients attend one individual counseling session and one or two group sessions. They are also regularly tested for drug use. Once drug testing results verify that a 

ComALERT participant has been drug-and alcohol-free for at least 

30 days, he or she can begin engaging in other services and, per 

the referral of the primary counselor, will meet with ComALERT’s 

community resource coordinator, who is an employee of the district 

attorney’s office. 

Approximately one-third of ComALERT clients receive a referral 

to and preferential placement in the Doe Fund’s Ready Willing & 

Able program, which provides transitional employment, transitional housing, job skills training, 12-step programs, and courses on 

financial management and other life skills. 

RWA participants work full time in manual labor jobs, primarily 

street cleaning, and are paid $7.50 per hour. A portion of the salary 

is deposited directly into a savings account for the client. They receive meals and other services in a Doe Fund facility. After 9 

months of transitional employment, participants begin the search 

for a permanent job. During this process, they continue to receive 

a stipend. 

Once RWA participants secure permanent employment and housing, they graduate from the program, and the Doe Fund continues 

to provide them with $200 per month for up to 5 months. 

ComALERT’s weekly individual and group counseling sessions and 

periodic drug testing help clients maintain sobriety and their enrollment in RWA, which enforces a zero-tolerance policy for drugs 

and alcohol use. 

In addition to providing referrals for RWA and other transitional 

employment, ComALERT’s community resources coordinator also 

links participants to a wide range of other social services offered 

by community-based providers, such as transitional housing, vocational training, GED test preparation, family counseling, and job 

readiness programs. Service referrals are specifically tailored to 

meet the needs of the individual clients. 

Professor Bruce Western, formerly of Princeton University and 

now at Harvard, recently completed research evaluating 

ComALERT. Professor Western has analyzed the recidivism rates 

of ComALERT graduates from July 2004 to December 2006 and 

found that ComALERT attendees have done much better than 

those who did not receive ComALERT. 

I see already that my time is running very low. I will go right 

to our results. 

77

By contrast, 48 percent of matched parolees were re-arrested, 35 

percent were reconvicted, 7 percent were re-incarcerated on a new 

crime. That is in comparison to ComALERT graduates who had a 

29 percent re-arrest record or a 19 percent reconviction percentage 

or a 3 percent re-incarceration for a new crime. So, therefore, you 

can see that ComALERT has been much better than those individuals who have not been able to access these kind of services. 

I understand that the Subcommittee is now also looking at legislation that would provide Federal funding to agencies delivering coordinated social services to individuals who have been released 

from prison after being found factually innocent of the crimes for 

which they were incarcerated. 

Certainly, those who end up behind bars for crimes that they did 

not commit may well have social service needs, such as for drug 

treatment and employment assistance, that are no less acute as 

those of ex-offenders leaving prison. A coordinated effort to meet 

those needs would assist wrongly convicted individuals to successfully re-integrate into society after the disruptive and traumatic 

impact of imprisonment and would help them become healthy, productive citizens. 

Because we rely on a criminal justice system that can never be 

free of human error, we have a concurrent responsibility to assist 

in the re-integration of those who were unjustly removed from society as a result of that system. Moreover, prosecutors have an additional public safety interest in seeing that any person who is having difficulty re-integrating into the community following release 

from prison receive the support services that they need. A sober 

and employed former inmate who has strong connections to family 

and community is less likely to commit a crime than an unemployed drug addict who is alienated from society. 

I would caution, however, that the fact that a conviction has been 

vacated or reversed by a court is not tantamount to a finding of innocence, and the reversal or vacatur of a conviction should not 

make an individual immediately eligible for services. In fact, most 

of the time that there is a vacatur or reversal of a conviction, the 

prosecuting agency, be it the State or the Federal Government, will 

have the opportunity to retry the defendant. 

A defendant who has charges pending against him or her obviously stands on very different footing than an individual against 

whom all charges have been dismissed because, for example, DNA 

testing indicates that another person committed the crime. 

Finally, I would note that the NDAA supports increases in Federal funding to help correctional facilities not only develop and implement appropriate individualized re-entry plans for prison inmates, but also provide necessary medical and mental health care, 

including substance abuse treatment, vocational training, educational programs, and life-skills training, as a means of smoothing 

the transition back to productive community living. Such programs 

will benefit all incarcerated individuals. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ogiste follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LANCE P. OGISTE

Good morning. My name is Lance Ogiste and I am counsel to the District Attorney of Kings County (Brooklyn), New York, Charles J. Hynes. I have been a prosecutor for twenty years and among my current responsibilities, is being the execuVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:40 Nov 08, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\CRIME\120607\39480.000 HJUD1 PsN: 39480
78

tive in charge of the District Attorney’s prisoner re-entry program, ComALERT—

which stands for Community and Law Enforcement Resources Together. I am also 

a member of the National District Attorneys Association (NDAA). 

The successful rehabilitation and re-entry of ex-offenders into the community demands the attention of prosecutors throughout the country, because, quite simply, 

the welfare and safety of the public are at stake. Recidivism by formerly incarcerated individuals takes a tremendous toll—in terms of both the immediate harm 

caused by the criminal conduct, and the direct and indirect costs of recidivism, such 

as the criminal justice system costs of investigation and prosecution, the incarceration costs, and the myriad social costs (medical care, foster-care, and welfare system costs) resulting from the impact of the crime on the victim and victim’s family 

and friends, and even on the offender’s family and friends. Communities, often already economically fragile, are threatened with further destabilization. The NDAA 

recognizes the importance of reducing recidivism rates of ex-offenders and supports 

the development and implementation of innovative programs to assist with prisoner 

reentry issues. 

Because successful re-entry can have such a positive impact on an individual’s 

and, by extension a community’s, well-being, Kings County District Attorney 

Charles J. Hynes, in 1999, created in ComALERT (Community and Law Enforcement Resources Together)—in close collaboration with Counseling Service of EDNY 

(an out-patient drug treatment provider), the Doe Fund (a not-for-profit organization 

providing transitional employment and housing), the New York State Division of Parole, and numerous community-based social services providers. ComALERT is not

a re-entry court. It is a re-entry partnership for Brooklyn residents who are on parole and who have been mandated to engage in substance abuse treatment. 

The program assumed its present structure in October 2004. There are currently 

approximately 150 active participants in ComALERT. For most clients, the program 

lasts three to six months. Between October 1, 2004, and October 1, 2007, 446 clients 

graduated from the program. The program graduation rate is approximately 53%. 

Most ComALERT clients are recently released from prison and are referred to the 

program by Parole. ComALERT representatives also regularly perform informational sessions, via video hookup, at various prisons throughout New York State, explaining the program and the services offered. As a result, some clients, even if not 

referred to ComALERT by their parole officer, nevertheless choose to enroll in the 

program once they are released. 

At ComALERT’s downtown Brooklyn location in the Municipal Building, 

ComALERT clients receive outpatient substance abuse treatment from state-licensed drug treatment counselors. Each week, clients attend one individual counseling session and one or two group sessions. They are also regularly tested for drug 

use. Once drug testing results verify that a ComALERT participant has been drugand alcohol-free for at least 30 days, he or she can begin engaging in other services, 

and, per the referral of the primary counselor, will meet with ComALERT’s Community Resources Coordinator, an employee of the District Attorney’s Office. 

Approximately one-third of ComALERT clients receive a referral to, and preferential placement in, the Doe Fund’s Ready Willing & Able (RWA) program, which 

provides transitional employment, transitional housing (if needed), job skills training, 12-step programs, and courses on financial management and other life skills. 

RWA participants work full time in manual labor jobs, primarily street cleaning, 

and are paid $7.50 per hour. A portion of the salary is deposited directly into a savings account for the client. They receive meals and other services in a Doe Fund 

facility. After nine months of transitional employment, participants begin the search 

for a permanent job. During this process, they continue to receive a stipend. Once 

RWA participants secure permanent employment and housing, they graduate from 

the program, and the Doe Fund continues to provide them with $200 per month for 

five months. ComALERT’s weekly individual and group counseling sessions and 

periodic drug testing help clients maintain sobriety and their enrollment in RWA, 

which enforces a zero-tolerance policy for drug and alcohol use. 

In addition to providing referrals for RWA and other transitional employment, 

ComALERT’s Community Resources Coordinator also links participants to a wide 

range of other social services offered by community-based providers, such as transitional housing, vocational training, GED test preparation, family counseling, and job 

readiness programs. Service referrals are specifically tailored to meet the needs of 

the individual clients. 

On site, at the ComALERT Re-Entry Center, participants may attend HIV/STD/

hepatitis workshops, and be seen by an on-site doctor who conducts physical health 

assessments and provides referrals as necessary. ComALERT participants who need 

mental health treatment, but only at a moderate level, may receive such treatment 

from their ComALERT primary counselor. If the client has a serious and persistent 

79

1 Erin Jacobs, ComALERT’s Research Director, collaborated with Professor Western on this research. 2 Although the comparison is imperfect, the recidivism rates of ComALERT graduates were 

dramatically lower than for prisoners released from state prisons in general. A study conducted 

in 2002 of inmates released from state prisons in 1994, concluded that, two years after release, 

approximately 59% had been re-arrested, 36% re-convicted, and 19% re-incarcerated for a new 

crime. P. Langan & D. Levin, RECIDIVISM OF PRISONERS RELEASED IN 1994 at 3, table 2 (U.S. 

Dep’t of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ 193427, June 2002). 

mental illness and needs treatment involving medication, the primary counselor or 

the on-site doctor will refer the client to an outside mental health treatment provider. ComALERT plans to augment, in the near future, the range of wraparound 

services offered on site. 

Professor Bruce Western, formerly of Princeton University and now at Harvard, 

recently completed research evaluating ComALERT. Professor Western has analyzed the recidivism rates of ComALERT graduates from July 2004 to December 

2006, and compared those rates to all ComALERT attendees for that period (i.e., for 

all participants regardless of whether they graduated or were discharged) and to 

those of a matched control group of Brooklyn parolees who did not participate in 

ComALERT.1 Outcome percentages for ComALERT graduates were substantially

better in all categories when compared to those of a matched control group. One 

year after release from prison, parolees in the matched control group (who did not 

have the benefit of ComALERT) were over twice as likely to have been re-arrested, 

re-convicted, or re-incarcerated as ComALERT graduates. Even two years out of 

prison, ComALERT graduates showed far less recidivism than the parolees of the 

matched control group. Twenty-nine percent of ComALERT graduates were re-arrested, 19% re-convicted, and only 3% re-incarcerated for a new crime.2 By contrast, 

48% of the matched parolees were re-arrested, 35% re-convicted, and 7% re-incarcerated on a new crime. Even re-incarceration based on parole violations occurred 

much less frequently for ComALERT graduates (16%) than for parolees in the 

matched control group (24%). 

As to employment, ComALERT graduates were nearly four times as likely to be 

employed as the parolees in the matched control group, and they also had much 

higher earnings than parolees in the control group. 

These results validate ComALERT as an effective collaborative model for ensuring 

that ex-offenders make a successful transition from prison to the community. 

Certain aspects of ComALERT appear to be very important to its success. For example, the program’s emphasis on substance abuse treatment and employment assistance addresses two major stumbling blocks to successful re-entry and re-integration-drug use and unemployment. 

In addition, the speed with which those leaving prisons are linked, through a referral from Parole, to the ComALERT program is important to ensure that former 

inmates begin receiving treatment and supportive services at a time when they 

might be most vulnerable to start slipping back into their old lifestyle of drug use 

and crime-namely, the first few months after release from prison. Moreover, 

ComALERT’s substance abuse treatment provider partner, Counseling Service of 

EDNY, has secured state funding so that even if a ComALERT client does not have 

a Medicaid card, the client can begin engaging in substance abuse treatment immediately. So that clients become Medicaid eligible as soon as possible, ComALERT 

also has staff on site to assist with obtaining needed documentation (such as birth 

certificates, etc.) for rapid benefits enrollment. 

Finally, the fact that both the client’s linkage to social services and the delivery 

of those services are coordinated and tracked by a single program, ComALERT, 

which itself maintains constant contact with the Division of Parole, means that parolees receive the services that they really need without an inefficient waste of resources. 

In considering legislation that is aimed at promoting inmate rehabilitation and 

successful re-integration into society, I would urge this Subcommittee to consider 

the importance of an ex-offender’s speedy and coordinated linkage to social services, 

especially substance abuse treatment and employment assistance. 

I understand that the Subcommittee is also now looking at legislation that would 

provide federal funding to agencies delivering coordinated social services to individuals who have been released from prison after being found factually innocent of the 

crimes for which they were incarcerated. 

Certainly, those who end up behind bars for crimes that they did not commit may 

well have social service needs, such as for drug treatment and employment assistance, that are no less acute as those of ex-offenders leaving prison. A coordinated 

effort to meet those needs would assist wrongly convicted individuals successfully 

80

re-integrate into society after the disruptive and potentially traumatic impact of imprisonment, and would help them become healthy, productive citizens. Because we 

rely on a criminal justice system that can never be free of human error, we have 

a concurrent responsibility to assist in the re-integration of those who were unjustly 

removed from society as a result of that system. Moreover, prosecutors have an additional public safety interest in seeing that any person who is having difficulty reintegrating into the community following release from prison receive the support 

services that they need. A sober and employed former inmate who has strong connections to family and community is less likely to commit a crime than an unemployed drug addict who is alienated from any social network. 

I would caution, however, that the fact that a conviction has been vacated or reversed by a court is not tantamount to a finding of innocence, and the reversal or 

vacatur of a conviction should not make an individual immediately eligible for services. In fact, most of the time that there is a vacatur or reversal of a conviction, 

the prosecuting agency, be it the state or the federal government, will have the opportunity to retry the defendant. A defendant who has charges pending against him 

or her obviously stands on very different footing than an individual against whom 

all charges have been dismissed because, for example, DNA testing indicates that 

another person committed the crime. 

Finally, I would note that the NDAA supports increases in federal funding to help 

correctional facilities not only develop and implement appropriate individualized reentry plans for prison inmates, but also provide necessary medical and mental 

health care (including substance abuse treatment), vocational training, educational 

programs, and life-skills training, as a means of smoothing the transition back to 

productive community living. Such programs will benefit all incarcerated individuals

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. Thank you very much. 

I thank all the witnesses for your testimony. 

We will now have our panel pose questions, and I will recognize 

myself to begin for 5 minutes. 

Ms. Woolard, is there any research to say whether primary prevention and-or early intervention actually reduces recidivism with 

juveniles or reduces crime with juveniles? 

Ms. WOOLARD. There certainly have been evaluations of particular programs that indicate that early intervention can be successful. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 

for example, has their Blueprints programs out of the Web site on 

the University of Colorado that has documented scientifically 

through experimental evaluation the success of some programs in 

reducing recidivism among juveniles. 

Mr. SCOTT. What evidence is there about locking up more juveniles as adults increasing the number, that is to say those who are 

not now locked up prosecuted as adults, but increasing the number? Would that be helpful or counterproductive? 

Ms. WOOLARD. Well, the research that we have coming out of 

Florida where I used to be and New York-New Jersey comparisons 

indicates that for the majority of crimes they study, where they 

compare kids that have been prosecuted as adults or not, that 

those who were prosecuted as adults recidivated more often and 

faster, I think, for almost all the crimes they studied. There was 

either no effect or it actually exacerbated recidivism for the studies 

we have so far. 

Mr. SCOTT. Were the crimes more or less likely to be violent? 

Ms. WOOLARD. That I actually do not recall, the type of crime 

that was different. 

Mr. SCOTT. Ms. LaBelle, on eliminating life without parole, you 

indicated that the bill would eliminate life without parole. Would 

it be more accurate to say that it may not eliminate life without 

81

parole, but it would make the person eligible for parole. Some may 

not ever make parole. Is that right? 

Ms. LABELLE. That is correct, that the child would just be reviewed for parole. There may be a decision that that person would 

have to continue to stay in, but at least it would provide for individualized review, an opportunity. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Professor Turley, if our goal is to reduce crime in a cost-effective 

manner, how useful is it to deny the possibility of any consideration for parole for those over 45 or certainly over 55 years of age? 

Mr. TURLEY. Well, we have already seen what happens. That is 

when we talk about the reforms in 1983, as Mr. Krone did, since 

1983 and since many of the changes in the States, we have seen 

an increase in recidivism that most States are experiencing, recidivism rates. The average in the Federal system and the State systems is 67 percent. Most parole boards did a lot better than that, 

and some did exceptionally well before they were eliminated. 

And the reason is it is based on a lot of data that shows that as 

you get older, you become statistically less likely to commit a new 

offense. It does not mean that it applies to everybody. There are 

late bloomers. There are habitual offenders, avertable recidivists. 

But if you take a look at the Department of Justice’s own studies, for example, if you look at the uniform crime reports from November 2003, the age-specific arrest rates, you will see on this 

chart that when you are above age 50, the rate of recidivism is the 

same as people who are 14 and younger. 

[The information referred to follows:]

82


DOJ.eps
83

Mr. TURLEY. So you see what happens to recidivism is it peaks 

and then it continues to fall. We need to rely on science and to 

have some logical connection between our policies of incarceration 

and what we know of our recidivism. We know a lot more about 

recidivism now than when I went to law school. 

In the age of computers, we have been able to identify and predict with a very high likelihood of success. We should use that not 

to give people a free ride, but to make mature decisions that can 

reduce recidivism because right now the wrong people are getting 

out. The younger prisoners that are being released are much higher 

in likelihood of committing a crime. But we hold on to people who 

may become statistically a low risk. 

Some of the prisoners I interview in prison are statistically lower 

risk than the students I drive to prison with. 

Mr. SCOTT. Is the age of release as important to consider as the 

length of the sentence? 

Mr. TURLEY. Well, there are a number of factors. What age does 

is it identifies a population where the yield of low-risk, high-cost 

prisoners is the greatest. It is not a magical number, but what it 

does is it gives you a body of people where the yield is the greatest, 

and then you, with these other elements, sort out people who are 

higher risk, mid risk, low risk. 

The crime that they are in for is very, very relevant. If someone 

is in there for a violent crime, you measure that harshly. Also, if 

someone has not served beyond the average of their offense, we 

generally do not consider them at POPS. We also look at the pattern of criminality. If it is a first offender, it is very different from 

somebody who has been a habitual offender, and you can also track 

people that seem to be graduating up. 

So there are lots of ways to do it. This is not some smoke and 

mirrors thing where we all sit there and just guess at things. You 

know, this is a science, and it has become very, very accurate. It 

does not mean it is 100 percent, but I can promise you this. I do 

not know any recidivism test that would come anywhere near the 

failure rate of the current system. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you very much. 

My time has expired. 

Mr. Forbes? 

Mr. FORBES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Once again, I want to thank all of you for being here, but also 

your patience with us going back and forth to votes. It is very difficult for us because we have seven of you here. We would love to 

ask you a lot of questions. I have 42 seconds for each person, so 

I cannot do that. So I want to just address a few things and feel 

free to put anything in the record that you might want to supplement or add to because I have to be kind of brief in the 5 minutes 

that I have. 

You know, the gentlelady from Texas concluded her remarks earlier by saying we just have philosophical differences. 

But, you know, Professor Woolard, you went to one of the greatest universities in the world. You could not have done better. 

And, Professor Turley, you know, you all get to sit in class and 

think lofty thoughts and ideas. 

84

You know, here, this is not about philosophy. This is about a 

piece of legislation that is ultimately going to put a key in the door 

and let somebody out or it is going to put somebody in jail, and so 

we have to look at the wording. We have to look at the legislation. 

That is what we do here. We pass legislation, not ideas. 

On this particular piece of legislation, I just want to make everybody sure of one thing. I agree that we need prison reform. I mean, 

we have had testimony about people who are raped in prison. We 

know the situation. We need to change that. 

Mr. Krone, your testimony, nobody questions that for somebody 

who is proven factually innocent we need to do something to compensate that. You went through hell, and, you know, I am just 

amazed that you could withstand that and you could come out and 

do the stuff that you do. And I read some of your stuff of your faith 

and all that got you through that, and I admire you for that. So 

we do not disagree with that. 

But there is a difference in your situation and someone that a 

governor sits back somewhere and just says, be it for political reasons or whatever, ‘‘I am just going to pardon that person,’’ and the 

legislation before us does not differentiate that. 

The second thing that we look at is we cannot have our cake and 

eat it, too. We are overcriminalizing stuff every single day. In this 

Committee alone, we are passing legislation on what people say 

and sometimes what they think because we do not like that and 

that is politically correct. We have to stop doing that because a lot 

of people that commit criminal acts today, have no idea that they 

did something that was criminally wrong. 

Ms. LaBelle, you have talked about children and the child, and, 

you know, when you have this connotation of—I have four children—you know, somebody in there with a little Teddy bear that 

I am putting my arm around. Most of the people we are talking 

about who get life without parole are not little people holding 

Teddy bears. 

I mean, you know, the case that you mentioned, the Simmons 

case, this guy plotted a murder where he looked at his co-defendants and he said, ‘‘We are not going to get punished because we 

are minors,’’ you know, and ‘‘We are going to go in there and kill 

this woman.’’ They went in there. He intentionally did it. He took 

her out, put tape around her, wrapped her feet up with wire, threw 

her over a bridge to drown, and I am going to tell you I do not have 

any problem at all looking to somebody like that who is 17 years 

old—he could have been a month before he is 18—and looking at 

them and saying, ‘‘Buddy, you are gone for life without parole.’’

Lee Malvo killed 10 people, many of them from my State, you 

know. I cannot look at their children that will never see their parents again or the brothers and sisters. I cannot say to them, ‘‘Okay, 

now we are going to have a relook at this where you all get to go 

back to the husband or wife that you lost.’’

We do not get that shot again, and so I do not have a problem 

looking to Lee Malvo and saying—you know, at 17 years old, I have 

to balance this some way. I have to look at what the States do, the 

courts do, and the juries do, and they say, ‘‘He needs to go away. 

You know, he needs to go away for life without parole.’’ And he is 

not a little speeder. He is somebody that killed 10 people. 

85

We have had testimony in here of ladies whose husbands were 

killed by a gang member, 17, put a gun to their husbands’ heads 

and killed them for one reason—to be initiated into a gang. You 

know, I do not have as much sympathy in those situations. 

And, Mr. Turley and Ms. Woolard, you know, you all have competing claims here. I mean, Ms. Woolard is saying we ought to be 

easier on younger people because they cannot formulate their decisions as well, Mr. Turley is saying we ought to let older people out 

because they are not going to commit the crimes as much. And the 

reality is, if any of you have been in sentencing hearings and proceed rings—Ms. Woolard is shaking her head. I am sure Mr. Turley 

has—that judge has to take into account a lot of things. He gets 

a lot of testimony—the previous record that they have, the gravity 

of the crime, the effects on the victim, the likelihood to commit another crime—and that judge and jury makes a sentence at that 

particular point in time. 

To have a piece of legislation like we have before us today—Mr. 

Turley, I do not even think you would agree with—that says at 45, 

if you have committed half of your sentence, we are going to automatically mandate that we open that jail cell and you walk out. 

You would not even agree with that, would you? 

Mr. TURLEY. I think that the language should be changed 

and——

Mr. FORBES. Well, that is the language we have, you know, that 

is here. 

And the final thing I just want to tell you, when we do that, it 

is an absolute affront to every judge, every jury, every prosecutor 

that has worked hard in getting that sentence right at the beginning and then to say, ‘‘We do not care what you did, we are going 

to over rule it, and we are going to let these people out.’’

And the last thing I just want to tell you is this. Ms. Woolard, 

I think you mentioned this. You said those prosecuted as adults are 

more likely to have recidivism. Is that a fair statement? 

Sure! I mean, part of the reason is because if they are prosecuted 

as adults, most of the time, it is because they have done something 

that is, you know, a lot worse, you know, I think in a lot of situations. So I think that makes good sense. 

But, once again, thank you all for being here. Please feel free to 

submit anything to the record. 

The red light is on, and I yield back. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Mr. Conyers? 

Mr. CONYERS. Randy Forbes, our Ranking Member, has underscored my idea for a discussion amongst us that is provoked by the 

subject matter and presence here. And everybody has agreed to it—

the Chairman of the Committee, the Ranking Member—and I have 

not talked to Judge Gohmert about it yet, nor Howard Coble, but 

I think we need these kind of enlightened public discussions where 

we talk among ourselves. We might even invite you to sit in as 

invitees, so I am going to be pushing that forward, and you will be 

hearing more about it. 

Professor Turley, I have gotten over your unconstitutional view 

of voting rights for the District of Columbia and—— [Laughter.] 

86

Mr. CONYERS. —I am feeling very good about you as I always 

had before I heard your explanation of that, and so I am glad that 

you are here. 

And I am always happy to see a Wayne State University Law 

School graduate there for very obvious reasons, and I welcome Attorney LaBelle. And I wanted to ask you and Ms. Woolard this 

question. With two guys, 17 and 12—and I try to let them in on 

everything we are doing—what would be the benefit or harm of 

talking with my boys about what you two have talked about today? 

I mean, is it good for them to hear about the fact that they may 

be going through a little bit of a period of beast ability and maybe 

emotional turmoil just to let them know that I know how they are 

feeling, and I have science to back me up, or what? I mean, how 

do we approach this on a very personal level now that I have both 

of you in the room, and we are just talking among ourselves? What 

do you think? 

Ms. LABELLE. Well, speaking of someone who has a new 13-yearold, I think that we all as parents do recognize that there are some 

significant differences between children. To be very non-scientific, 

they can be just incredibly goofy and immature at times and make 

ill-considered decisions. 

While Mr. Forbes spoke of 17-year-olds, there are also 13-, 12-

, 14- and 15-year-olds that are caught up in this mandatory life 

without parole in many States where the judge has no discretion. 

And no one can individualize, and one of the important things that 

we have learned in talking, in polling and focus groups, is that 

what citizens of the United States greatly need in their criminal 

justice system is individualized consideration and some sense of equity. 

What happens now is no individual consideration of a 14-year-old 

who just goes along with an adult and is convicted of a felony murder and a 17-year-old that was described that does a homicide or 

a multiple homicide. And what this bill would do would put back 

in individual consideration as to the crime and as to the child and 

allow an opportunity for them to maybe go home. 

Mr. CONYERS. I have been thinking about all of the cases. I 

mean, we passed one of our bills out on the floor yesterday. There 

were lynchings in America up until 1968. You say, ‘‘Well, wait a 

minute. Did you transpose a figure there by accident?’’

I am thinking about what if we started a bank of all the cases, 

all the criminal justice cases, State and Federal, that there have 

been obvious or grave miscarriages, not just the ones that were corrected, but the ones that are happening. Maybe a bank like that 

exists somewhere, but I think that we ought to start one until 

somebody calls up and says that we are doing the same thing. So 

I want to leave that for my Chairman of Crime Committee to help 

us think about. 

Do you have any thoughts on that, Professor Turley? 

Mr. TURLEY. Well, in response to your first question, I am the 

father of four habitual offenders, so I have talked to them about 

it. In fact, the testimony today I have talked to them about, what 

this hearing is about, and I think that it does raise a very important issue, which is how do we explain the current system to our 

87

children? I mean, what is the point of it, that we have a system 

that is cranking out high recidivism? 

I just did a study of California which took my breath away. I 

thought the statistics were wrong. I called up their correctional department to say, ‘‘There must be something wrong here. You are 

showing recidivism rates in some categories of 90 percent. You are 

showing an average of 70.’’ Now that is basically having a system 

that is no better if you take it off line. I mean, it is doing nothing. 

And I think that the important thing about your question is I 

cannot explain to them what we are trying to achieve because we 

are not achieving much. I believe in punishment, and I believe in 

old people being punished because they have a right to be punished 

if they have done the crime, but I also believe in a system that has 

a purpose, that makes mature decisions, and we do not have that. 

So whatever disagreement we have on this bill and how it might 

be changed, the one thing I do not think we can argue much about 

is we do not have a system now that is achieving anything but generating high recidivists in crime. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, I am taking this all back. We may need another hearing to check out our results in our individual families. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Conyers. 

The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Coble? 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Good to have you all with us. 

Professor Turley, I do not mean to be speaking for the entire Judiciary Committee, but I think they would all agree with me in expressing appreciation to you for the very fine article you wrote in 

memory of the late Henry Hyde. I think that appeared in The Chicago Tribune? 

Mr. TURLEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. COBLE. It is an excellent article, and we thank you for that. 

Mr. Krone, thank you for your testimony. There is no way I can 

say to you I know how you feel, did not go through it, but thank 

you for being here with us. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, the distinguished Ranking Member from 

your state of Virginia, has raised some good points, I think, that 

indicate that some fine-tuning may be necessary. I do not think we 

need to major overhaul the bill. And, Mr. Chairman, as you remember, I supported the Second Chance Act, sort of a companion bill 

with this one. 

Let me ask the U.S. attorney a question, if I may. Mr. Wrigley, 

describe for us, if you will, the situations where a person may be 

retried after their conviction is vacated or reversed. 

Mr. WRIGLEY. I apologize. I could not hear the end of your question. I am sorry. 

Mr. COBLE. I say describe for us the circumstances, the situation 

in which a person may be retried after his or her conviction is vacated or reversed. 

Mr. WRIGLEY. Okay. Well, let me give you an example from my 

State. Shortly after I became U.S. attorney, there was a rather notorious—it happened to be a murder case, but it could be any kind 

of a case—criminal case. A notorious murder case was tried in 

State court across the river in Minnesota. The judge there made a 

88

ruling that was not on the firmest ground, you know, made a discretionary call on an evidentiary matter and allowed the person’s 

wife to testify against him because he ruled that their marriage 

was a sham, and he should not be afforded protection under the 

marital privilege, and so she was allowed to testify in Minnesota 

state court, he was convicted, and the matter went up to——

Mr. COBLE. Make it quick because I only have 5 minutes. 

Mr. WRIGLEY. Oh, yes, sir. It went up to the State supreme court, 

and the State supreme court reversed it in Minnesota. It came 

back, and that county court over across the river would have been 

allowed to try that case again just not using that evidence. Basically, the court sent it back, said, ‘‘Try it again, but now do it within the confines of our ruling and our evidentiary ruling.’’

So that is fairly common, frankly. It gets sent back, and it is just 

determined that an improper ruling was made by the trial court on 

an evidentiary matter, and I think that would probably be your 

most common retrial purpose. 

Mr. COBLE. All right. I thank you, sir. 

Professor Turley, is it your opinion that a lower likelihood of recidivism should be grounds for early release? 

Mr. TURLEY. Yes, sir. 

I mean, first of all, let me thank you for your comment, and it 

is a privilege to be here. I know Henry Hyde is being buried tomorrow, I believe, and it is a great privilege to be in this room with 

his portrait and to think about his wonderful service to this Committee which he loved a great deal. 

Yes, I do believe that the touchtone of whatever we do has to be 

recidivism, and we have a wealth of studies to make decisions 

based on recidivism, and we have had a revolution in science in the 

last 20 years. In 1983, the science was not nearly as evolved as it 

is today. So we can make decisions, and the rate of recidivism, if 

we make the decisions correct—we have not had, as far as I know, 

any POPS prisoner that has recidivated, but we are very, very 

careful, and we are very conservative in how we select. 

It is not that you are going to have a perfect system, but if the 

measure is the current system, I can promise you that I can do a 

lot better in the Federal system than, you know, a 67 percent failure rate. I mean, we are talking about less than a 10 percent failure rate. If I am over 10 percent, I would be appalled. I would consider that a terrible system. 

Mr. COBLE. Let me try one more question before the red light illuminates and the Chairman comes after me. 

We all know, I think—I will put this to anybody on the panel—

sex offenders have one of the highest, if not the highest, rates of 

recidivism of any class of offenders. Do you all have any objection 

to the early release of those convicted of possession of child pornography or sexual solicitation of a minor, neither of which would be 

classified as a crime of violence? What do you all say to that? 

Professor Woolard? 

Ms. WOOLARD. Well, certainly, the recidivism rates that you talk 

about we do see higher among certain classes of sex offenders than 

we do for other categories of crime. So that, I think, is pretty well 

established. 

89

In terms of your specific question about what the bill should include or not include, you know, I can provide you information about 

recidivism, and then I think it is your decision, you know, as the 

policymakers, in terms of what crimes are included or not included. 

They do have a higher rate of recidivism, certain groups of them 

do. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you all for being with us. 

Mr. Chairman, I see my time has expired. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

The gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

And I want to again associate myself with the Chairman of the 

full Committee by applauding him for giving us another one or two 

or three bites at this apple which is enormous, and it is an important discussion where we can grapple with what I, frankly, believe 

is a broken system. 

My good friend from Virginia has indicated a philosophical difference, and what I was suggesting to him is the philosophy in discussion results in policy, and that is what we are to do, policy and 

law, and so there is a difference in the philosophy of what results 

in progress or success and what we all want. 

Really, I think, the best of all worlds is a crime-free world and 

a world that we can account for those who have perpetrated crimes 

and we can say truly rehabilitated and present and ready to contribute back to society. So that is the framework of the Federal Bureau of Prisons Nonviolent Offender Act. 

And, Mr. Mosely, I agree that there is a partnership to good 

time, though it is different, and what I would like to do is just 

delay the framework and ask that this be submitted into the 

record. But if you look at our own state of Texas, now we are at 

147,993. That is in 2003. So our numbers are not complete. But we 

are spending $2 billion in the incarceration of persons, and I would 

say to you that there are probably a good number of bad actors 

that are incarcerated there, but there are probably a good number 

of elderly persons there or people that are aging in the prison system, and, of course, we know that Texas does have an early release 

program. 

If we look at the cost of Federal and State corrections, we are 

seeing that in 1980 we spent $9 million, and now we are spending 

$60 billion, and to incarcerate a person, it costs about $24,000. To 

have a person in community corrections, it costs $20,000, but to 

have someone on a Federal offender supervised program, it costs 

about $3,000. And, of course, you can finish your term in the Federal system and be on probation. You have sort of a probation period, and I think that is important to note. 

So, Professor Turley, let me also suggest to you, as I ask you 

some pointed questions, that we want to find solutions, and I have 

already indicated—we used the words ‘‘tweak,’’ ‘‘amended’’—I think 

we have a good framework to amend. 

I want to ask, Mr. Chairman, that those poster boards—at least 

the text of those poster boards—be submitted into the record. 

Mr. SCOTT. The information from the poster boards will be——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you. The text I said of the poster 

boards. 

90

And I do want to thank your staff and Bobby Vassar and all of 

your staff, and I want to offer into the record a document that says 

Uniform Crime Reports, November 2003, which shows a graph that 

says that an elderly person has as much propensity to perpetrate 

a crime—this is science, as we have said—as about a 12-year-old. 

We do know that people getting younger who are committing 

crimes, but statistically it says that these ages are at the lowest 

level of committing a crime. 

I would like to submit that into the record as well, and that is 

only one sheet, Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous consent to submit 

this into the record. 

[See U.S. Department of Justice information on page 82 of this 

publication.] 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you. 

So I want to pose these questions with that framework, Professor 

Turley, and that is, one, let me just say that I accept the fact that 

we want to frame the legislation through an amending process, and 

I am delighted to note that with that tweaking my Chairman of the 

full Committee is to be and very interested in joining us, as I expect a number of others in co-sponsoring the legislation. I appreciate it. 

One, the legislation on its face does not define the question of violence, and that, obviously, is something that we would look at, but 

neither have we found that in the Federal Bureau of Prisons. So 

we want to work on accepting the fact that there are certain actions or certain crimes that we would be willing to eliminate. 

But going to the point of recidivism, how reliable is age in predicting recidivism, coming from you and your research that you 

have done? 

And then you referred to making mature decisions about our 

prison system and preventing new victims that are due to overcrowding. How does overcrowding produce victims, which is what 

we are facing in our prison system today? 

You also mentioned that you have reservations. What I would 

like you to do is to give us sort of a road map of what might help 

strengthen the legislation for its very premise, which is documented science that recidivism is very low in older populations, 

and my component is that not only is it low, but they could be contributing, 45, 48, 50—the age may vary—can still be contributing 

even to the extent of restitution and, of course, helping their families become independent of public assistance. 

I gave you three questions, and I appreciate your response. 

Mr. TURLEY. Thank you very much. I do not remember the order, 

so I will just take them as best I can. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. That is okay. 

Mr. TURLEY. First, I think the legislation is a wonderful framework for us to work in, and like many pieces of legislation, it can 

be tailored. I think some of the objections raised so far—not really 

objections, but observations—I think it was foreseen that those 

would have to be incorporated. 

You can exclude certain categories of crime. I think we can all 

agree that terrorists should not be on this list and spies cannot be 

on this list. I have represented both, but I would be the first to say 

that they should not be on the list. 

91

I also want to note you are talking about a handful of people 

with those exclusions. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Absolutely. 

Mr. TURLEY. So that is not——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And right now, they are probably not in our 

system. 

Mr. TURLEY. Right. I mean, that would——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. In our population. 

Mr. TURLEY. Yes, a few dozen people very likely that could ever 

be under this law. And we also will probably want to exclude areas 

that science shows are simply a poor yield in terms of recidivism, 

things like molestation, child pornography. Those are the types of 

crimes that recidivist studies have shown do not diminish with age. 

So, if we agree on using the scientific foundation that we have, 

I think we can come to a very easy accommodation as to framing 

this question. 

In terms, however, of age, as you have raised, I do not know of 

anybody in this bill that does not agree that age is the most reliable predictor of recidivism, and when you graft on to that process 

other elements—age, criminal pattern, and other elements—it becomes very, very accurate. When I say very accurate, I am saying 

it is much, much more accurate than our current system. I do not 

know of any legitimate system of recidivism that would produce the 

types of results that we have under the current system. 

Now it gets to the last question. When we talk about protecting 

victims, I think the greatest victim protection law is a law that produces fewer victims, and we only talk about this in a post hoc way 

of, you know, what are we going to do with these victims. Let us 

have fewer victims. 

The problem with just saying, ‘‘Well, you know, let us just lock 

them up,’’ is I do not want to make this decision, no one wants to 

make this decision, and so we let the system go into chronic overcrowding. We let the system release the people of highest risk, and 

those people go out and commit new crimes, and nobody is answering for it because nobody wants to sign a piece of paper, nobody 

wants to come here and say, ‘‘We have to make choices.’’ And we 

need to fix that system because there are people being victimized 

today who would not be victimized if we had a prison system that 

worked. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I think what is also important to put on the 

record is that we are facing this problem in the Federal system because we have mandatory sentencing without parole, any kind of 

release whatsoever. 

And, Mr. Chairman, could he just finish this question. The point 

has been raised that the victim——

Mr. SCOTT. Very briefly because your time——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SCOTT [continuing]. Expired some time ago. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. If you could reiterate again that the argument 

that is made is that you are hurting the victims again. You know, 

the article suggested you do not want these outrageous persons to 

be out, like a Jack Abramoff or others, because there are victims. 

How do you respond to that? 

92

Mr. TURLEY. Well, first of all, Abramoff would not be subject to 

this law because he has to serve at least 50 percent of his sentence, 

and after we——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I am glad you put that on the record, but——

Mr. TURLEY. And furthermore, you know, if you make further 

tweaks, you can deal with people that have certain types of crimes, 

but I have to say even if Abramoff did finish half his sentence, you 

know, I do think that if you have a long sentence and someone has 

served half of it, then we can consider whether that person, as a 

first offender, should be released. 

My preference would be having what we had before. You know, 

Mr. Krone talks in glowing terms of what happened in 1983. What 

happened in 1983 is we eliminated the United States Parole Commission that made case-by-case decisions. The reason we are talking about a trigger law like we have here is because we have no 

body that can make case-by-case decisions, which is what I would 

prefer. 

Mr. SCOTT. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you. 

Mr. SCOTT. The gentleman from Texas. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I do appreciate 

the witnesses being here today. I do have a number of comments. 

Having been a prosecutor, a judge, a chief justice and also having 

been ordered to handle some criminal cases—in one case, a death 

penalty appeal—I think all of which I did a pretty amazing job on, 

including having the death penalty reversed, I understand about 

both sides of the docket, and I think there is no question we have 

an obligation as a society and responsibility to attempt to rehabilitate prison inmates. But we also have to be very careful not to create incentives to do the very things that people are being punished 

for, and that is a concern I have had. 

We saw the pendulum in the 1970’s, and I think in the early 

1980’s, in Texas was more to release people early. People through 

the 1980’s in Texas were getting cut loose with just a tiny fraction 

of their time, sometimes doing 1/12th or less of a sentence, and so 

there was a push for truth in sentencing. When the Republicans 

had the majority in Congress and the Republicans took the majority in Texas, there was this huge push toward truth in sentencing. 

So judges and juries knew exactly what the consequences of the 

sentences would be. 

What we have seen in the recent few years is a retreat from that 

position, and, you know, if you are a historian like I am, you see 

these pendulums going back and forth. And I get the impression 

the pendulum for a couple of years now has been swinging back the 

other way toward cutting slack. We saw crime rates dropping as 

we got tougher in Texas and dropping and dropping and dropping, 

and now they are a little bit more on the upswing. 

So, Mr. Turley, I have tremendous respect for your legal intellect. 

Sometimes we have agreed, and sometimes we have not, and I appreciate you whether we agree or not. But when you say this is a 

science, if that is true, it is one of the most inexact sciences there 

is. 

93

And also the point needs to be made this is not simply about 

science. This is also about justice. Now we can bring in here case 

after case——

And, Mr. Krone, I have nothing but sympathy for you, and there 

are so many others where there has been injustice, but there are 

also as many victims who have never to this day seen justice. And 

so when we have a bill that is being proposed as one of these is 

today, that we are going to start paying people who have been pardoned, which means they were not exonerated, they were just pardoned, but we are going to create a definition that says, ‘‘We are 

going to consider you exonerated just because you have been pardoned’’ or your conviction has been vacated or reversed, and people 

like me know that you have cases which have been reversed because some judge did a problem. I have seen a couple of them in 

other courts in our country, reversed because of some technical 

problem. 

And so they are retried and, in some cases, three times get convictions, and by the time it ultimately gets sent back for trial 

again, witnesses have died and the courts have ruled you cannot 

use those people’s prior testimony because they are not allowed to 

confront the witnesses with new issues that have arisen. Therefore, 

guilty people have walked free. And that happens. 

And under this bill, we are saying we are still going to pay you. 

The victims in those cases never got justice, and yet we are going 

to say we are going to aggravate that circumstance by paying defendants simply because they hit the jackpot and got released because of some problem in the trial court, I think that would be a 

problem. 

There has been a big push in recent years to have life without 

parole instead of the death penalty. What we are saying with some 

of this legislation is: Keep in mind if we convince you to get rid of 

the death penalty and go with life without parole, we are going to 

come in, pull the rug out from under you, and cut your guys loose 

in 15 years. That is not exactly right either. 

There is another message from some of this legislation we are 

considering today, and that is if you want to commit crimes, do 

what this couple that was caught yesterday did, get involved in 

stealing identities, wrecking lives, destroying lives where people 

cannot buy homes, cannot get credit, cannot get jobs, do that kind 

of crime because that would be a nonviolent crime, and we are already showing that we want to cut you all kinds of slack. White 

collar crime, Enron felons, we want to cut you slack. That is the 

pace to go if you are going to be an organized criminal. Make sure 

you get involved. 

I have had testimony from gang members and we have seen testimony from organized crime members who say, ‘‘Look, we are 

businesspeople. We go where the percentages are best, and the 

punishment is least.’’ We also see—and I have had testimony in my 

court—these folks are juveniles that actually pulled the trigger because they were encouraged. ‘‘You are a juvenile. You are going to 

get cut slack that the rest of us cannot.’’ They are businesspeople. 

They know how to play the odds. 

94

And I think that those things have to be considered. You cannot 

just consider recidivism. You have to consider deterrents, public 

safety, and, yes, punishment for punishment’s sake. 

My time is up. Thank you very much. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you very much. 

I had just a couple other questions. 

Mr. Turley, we have heard about the idea of a governor’s pardon 

might pardon a person who is factually guilty or factually innocent. 

Isn’t it true that if the governor’s exercises his discretion that it 

could be for absolute innocence? 

Mr. TURLEY. Oh, absolutely. Yes. 

Mr. SCOTT. And that as a matter, a lot of people who are absolutely exonerated are not exonerated in a court of law, they are exonerated because a governor issues a pardon and that a lot of the 

100 who have been exonerated by DNA evidence, for many reasons, 

could not even get into court? 

Mr. TURLEY. Oh, indeed. In fact, one of the problems that we 

have, one of the frustrating problems, is the view of courts that exclude exculpatory evidence because of various reasons. The evidence may be excluded because of error of counsel. It may be excluded because it was raised too late under laws passed by Congress. There are limits on your ability to raise new issues on appeal. So all of those reasons can lead to the failure to consider evidence in a court of law that, in fact, could be considered by a governor. 

Mr. SCOTT. Now we have heard a lot about when you have socalled truth in sentencing that they keep talking about the sentence as if the sentence is the same in all proposals. I, frankly, 

have never seen a proposal to abolish parole that did not concurrently reduce the sentence at least 50 percent—if you are being 

honest, three-fourths—because that is what a good comparison 

would be. If you double the average time served, in the situation 

of Virginia, you have 11⁄2 to 10 years, average 21⁄2. You double the 

average time served. Everybody got out in 5 years. Those that 

could not make parole are getting out in half the time. 

Have you seen any proposal to abolish parole that kept the sentence exactly the same in the new system as the old? 

Mr. TURLEY. Well, I have not. As a criminal defense attorney, I 

can tell you that one of the big jokes among criminal defense attorneys is that the tough-on-crime legislation tends to favor the really 

hardened criminal because that guy would never have gotten 

through a U.S. Parole Commission, would never have gotten 

through a State commission. These are people that on parole 

boards would sit there and just take one look at your guy and say, 

‘‘There is no way I am going to release you early. I take one look 

at you, and I see an avertable or habitual offender.’’ Under these 

laws, that guy benefits because he gets out automatically. 

The other thing I want to note is, in my testimony, I mentioned 

that some of the recent studies on the State level have actually 

presented some interesting results. One of them is that people who 

are in a parole system have a lower recidivism rate than people 

who max out in a non-parole system so that it is actually a significant difference, that if you are in the old parole system, you have 

a lower likelihood of recidivism. 

95

And if you look at some of the States, there are a handful of 

States that have actually lowered their recidivism and lowered 

their prison population. That State, which I talk about in my testimony, is actually a State that went back to indeterminate sentencing and put people into alternatives for incarceration. So the 

studies are actually going against our current system in terms of 

its effectiveness. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, in going back to what Virginia did 11⁄2 to 10 

years, you call it a 10-year sentence, average 21⁄2, we doubled the 

average time served, spending billions of dollars. If you look at 

what you did, following up on what you just said, for the lowest 

risk prisoner, you triple the time. For the average prisoner, you 

double the time. And for the worst prisoner that could never make 

parole, they are getting out in half the time. 

And for a proposal that lets the worst criminals out in half the time, you are going to spend $2 billion construction and $1 billion 

a year, $200 million per congressional district construction and 

$100 million operating every year, to start a proposal that lets the 

worst criminals out in half the time. 

Ms. Woolard, you indicated that on sex offenders, some sex offenders recidivate more than others. Could you provide us with the 

research that shows which of the crimes have higher recidivism 

rates and which do not, because I think most of our legislation kind 

of puts them all in the same basket. 

Ms. WOOLARD. Sure. I would be happy to bring that to you all 

and have you——

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

The gentleman from Texas, any questions? 

Mr. GOHMERT. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A little follow up. 

And some of your comments brought to mind—and Professor 

Turley’s—we have one of those cases that is going on right now 

where there was a great injustice, I believe, a tremendous injustice 

at the trial, and that was two Border Patrol agents, Ramos and 

Compean, where the U.S. attorney’s office apparently was not honest with the court and with the jury, and an injustice occurred, and 

I am certainly feeling that we owe those two Border Patrol agents 

some monetary help when they get out. 

So I realize that there are some good intentions and some good 

ideas here, but just like in the Second Chance Act, there is a right 

idea. We have to do a better job of rehabilitation, retraining, or 

educating in some cases for the first time, but, you know, my concern, as I said, through that bill was we are going about some 

wrong ways to try to get to the right result. 

You know, what we have seen in some of the recidivism numbers, and I agree whether it is parole or probation, it helps if you 

have a stick and carrot both out there for people when they are released. Whether it is an alcoholic or a drug addict, they need that 

supervision, they need the monitoring, they need some accountability, and that those can be very helpful in cutting recidivism 

from the numbers I have seen, and I would sure agree with that, 

and I am hopeful that that is more the direction we would go. 

But I also have to note that some of the things that I have heard 

today—and for part of this, I was sitting in the back room watching 

on television and taking notes—I have heard from a dear judge 

96

friend of mine. I think the world of her, she is one of the finest people you could ever meet, but she took some of these similar positions and that is what caused her in one particular case to keep 

giving a young juvenile a chance when he should have been locked 

up and should not have been let out. 

And because he was let out under that same type thinking—we 

need to help, we need to encourage, we need to train, we need to 

educate, we need to do these things instead of just punishing somebody when they have done something very wrong—he got a couple 

other guys, they went out, they found an elderly fruit stand vendor, 

they kidnapped this poor gentleman, they terrorized this poor gentleman, and then they shot him in the back of the head and left 

him dead, and then ended up abandoning the idea of the bank that 

they were going to rob because they could not drive the stick shift 

truck of the gentleman. 

So, you know, some experiences like that cause me to go, yes, we 

do need to cut recidivism. There is no question. We need to do a 

better job of rehabilitation, no question. But sometimes when somebody is dangerous, they need to be locked up so that we do not create more victims, and that is also why the statistic about juveniles 

that commit terribly violent acts are more inclined to have recidivism. Sometimes they are just what under the old DSM used to be 

sociopath, but now I think would be antisocial personality. 

So there is work to be done. I think the intention is right, but, 

my goodness, we have to be more careful with the messages we 

send with the legislation that we take up. 

And thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Further comments? The gentlelady from Texas? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I wanted to pose a question to Mr. Mosely. You had a very moving story, and I did not get a chance to speak to Mr. Krone, but 

I think the legislation that comments on compensation late but 

squarely responds to you as a victim. When we use the term ‘‘victim,’’ there are victims, and we do not want to be insensitive to the 

crime victim. 

In your instance, Mr. Krone, you did not commit that crime, so 

the victim was not your victim or the victim that you victimized. 

You on the other hand had become a victim. 

And Mr. Moseley’s point is those who have been sentenced—I 

was listening to you say 100 years, 125 years. Mr. Mosely, just on 

your particular offense, was that extraordinary? How did you wind 

up with—did you kill someone? 

Mr. MOSELY. No. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. You need to get the mike, sir. 

Mr. MOSELY. Is it on? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MOSELY. I was indicted by a Federal grand jury on six 

counts. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. So some of yours was mandatory sentencing, 

I take it. 

Mr. MOSELY. Well, I was facing 132 years, 120 in the Federal 

system, and I was also indicted for the same offense by the State 

of Ohio carrying another 12 years. 

97

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And you served how many? 

Mr. MOSELY. Well, I was sentenced to 10 years in the Federal 

system and 12 years concurrent in the State of Ohio, and I served 

a total of 71⁄2 years. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. All right. And did you receive a good time response? Is that what you are saying? 

Mr. MOSELY. Yes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. All right. And so there allegedly were victims 

in your crime. How do you answer the question that there are victims? How do you answer the question of how you have been able 

to turn your life around and how you have been able to help your 

family by having a reasonable response to your incarceration, 

which is good time, utilization of good time? 

Mr. MOSELY. Well, in several respects. Firstly, my crime was a 

money crime, kickbacks from contractors that were working for the 

city wherein I sat on the bench—I have been making restitution in 

that regard—together with the fact that I have had an opportunity 

to go to various institutions around the country, speak to men and 

women who are incarcerated, and encourage them with respect to 

paying back in any way that they possibly can. But also I am invited from time to time to speak to high school students and college 

students, and I make them aware in a talk that I give that ‘‘it 

could happen to you.’’ And I try to instill in them that the shortcuts 

of life can cause one to forfeit many opportunities that might come 

their way. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. So you have turned around to be of assistance 

by having an early release through good time? 

Mr. MOSELY. Yes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And turned you around? 

Mr. MOSELY. Yes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Professor Turley, again, if I could just point 

out, I think I just want to leave on the table the fact that we are 

not ignoring victims, the original victims of the incarcerated person 

who now may have the opportunity to come out because they are 

older, because they are 45 or 50. Can you just pointedly answer the 

question how do you resolve that conflict? There is a victim left, 

whether or not it was fraud or some other offense, again, and now 

someone is getting out short of the—I am going to go on the Federal system—the mandatory 35 years. They have served 171⁄2, and 

they are coming out. How do you reconcile those two distinct aspects? 

Mr. TURLEY. I would be happy to answer that. 

First of all, I wanted to apologize to Mr. Krone. I meant to refer 

to Mr. Wrigley in his testimony in terms of the elimination of parole. I am sure Mr. Krone was wondering why he was being associated with the elimination of parole. 

But the answer, I believe, is, first of all, the standard of the 50 

percent of the sentencing is not out of line with what you see in 

the State system in terms of time that is actually served before 

people become eligible for release, either under parole or with discounted time, under one rule or the other, and so it is not a great 

departure in that sense. At POPS, we use the average served for 

a crime, but that is a bit too fluid for a provision of this type. You 

are trying to create an automatic trigger because we no longer have 

98

a parole commission, and so we are trying to craft a law that will 

allow for the safe release of individuals under these criteria. 

As for the victims, I think that we have to speak to victims and 

the public and say that we have a responsibility. We have a system 

that is dysfunctional, that is generating crime, generating more victims. We are not really doing anything. We have a system that is 

basically a warehousing system. That is what we went to in 1983. 

We ripped up a lot of rehabilitative systems. We went into overcrowding. 

If you work in prisons like I do, you would have witnessed rooms 

that were dedicated to education, rehabilitation that were ripped 

out and just literally bunk beds put in. I have been in rooms where 

hundreds of men are basically held in giant settings with multiple 

bunks. We are warehousing them. 

So we do not have a true correctional system in any modern 

sense of that term with a rehabilitative element. We have a 

warehousing system, and as a result, recidivism is soaring. So what 

I would say to those victims is this: We want to guarantee that 

people serve time for these crimes, and we want to make sure they 

serve significant time, but we also want to make society safer, and 

we need a correctional system that is tied to that purpose, not 

warehousing, but to reduce crime by reducing people who commit 

crime. That is your recidivism. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, just as I heard my good friend 

from Texas, Professor Turley ended where I would like to end. I 

think the legislative initiatives before us are to reduce crime, are 

to reduce the number of victims, are to make our communities 

safer, are to ensure that people who are released can be rehabilitated, that they can be contributing, that they can give back to the 

community, to get men, particularly in the African-American community, back into their home where their families need them, and 

I think that the populations that are most impacted are the numbers that are soaring in other areas. So I hope we can move forward on this theme, philosophy, which results in policy and law, 

and I certainly think we can do it in a bipartisan way and be effective in making America safer and reducing crime. 

I yield back. Thank you. 

I would like, excuse me, unanimous consent to put this article in 

the record, ‘‘Why Early Release Programs, Especially for the Elderly and Infirm Prisoners Are a Good Way for Kentucky and Other 

States to Address Budget Shortages.’’ I ask unanimous consent. 

Mr. SCOTT. Without objection. 

[The information referred to follows:]

99


E-1.eps
100


E-2.eps
101

Mr. SCOTT. I would like to thank the witnesses for their testimony today. Members may have additional questions which we will 

forward to you and ask that you answer as promptly as you can. 

Without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 1 

week for submission of additional material, and we have a list of 

materials already to be submitted: a letter from the ACLU, some 

articles from The New York Times, reports about Juvenile Life 

Without Parole and Sentencing from both Amnesty International 

and the Human Rights Watch, reports on reducing prison population from the JFA, the James F. Austin, Institute, and a chapter 

from the book ‘‘Capital Consequences’’ about Mr. Krone’s specific 

case. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, can I——

Mr. SCOTT. The gentleman from Texas? 

Mr. GOHMERT. I just had a question, clarification. Is one of the 

results of this hearing the inference by this Committee that 45 is 

elderly? I just wanted to be sure. [Laughter.] 

Mr. SCOTT. I think you and I both would not consider 45 elderly. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to be clear. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Possibly in mind, though. 

Mr. SCOTT. Without objection, the Committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 2:12 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(103)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

104


A-1.eps
105


A-2.eps
106


A-3.eps
107


A-4.eps
108


A-5.eps
109


A-6.eps
110


A-7.eps
111


A-8.eps
112


A-9.eps
113


A-10.eps
114


A-11.eps
115


A-12.eps
116


A-13.eps
117


A-14.eps
118


A-15.eps
119


A-16.eps
120


A-17.eps
121


A-18.eps
122


A-19.eps
123


A-20.eps
124

f


A-21.eps
125


B-1.eps
126

f


B-2.eps
127


CLEFT-1.eps
128


CRITE-1.eps
129


CLEFT-2.eps
130


CRITE-2.eps
131


CLEFT-3.eps
132


CRITE-3.eps
133


CLEFT-4.eps
134


CRITE-4.eps
135


CLEFT-5.eps
136


CRITE-5.eps
137


CLEFT-6.eps
138


CRITE-6.eps
139


CLEFT-7.eps
140


CRITE-7.eps
141


CLEFT-8.eps
142


CRITE-8.eps
143


CLEFT-9.eps
144


CRITE-9.eps
145


CLEFT-10.eps
146


CRITE-10.eps
147


CLEFT-11.eps
148


CRITE-11.eps
149


CLEFT-12.eps
150


CRITE-12.eps
151


CLEFT-13.eps
152


CRITE-13.eps
153


CLEFT-14.eps
154


CRITE-14.eps
155


CLEFT-15.eps
156


CRITE-15.eps
157


CLEFT-16.eps
158


CRITE-16.eps
159


CLEFT-17.eps
160


CRITE-17.eps
161


CLEFT-18.eps
162


CRITE-18.eps
163

f


CLEFT-19.eps
164


D-1.eps
165


D-2.eps
166


D-3.eps
167


D-4.eps
168


D-5.eps
169

Æ


D-6.eps