To the Congress of the United States: This sixth message to the Congress on the State of the Union concerns our Federal system of criminal justice. It discusses both the progress we have made in improving that system and the additional steps we must take to consolidate our accomplishments and to further our efforts to achieve a safe, just, and law-abiding society. In the period from 1960 to 1968 serious crime in the United States increased by 122 percent according to the FBI's Uniform Crime Index. The rate of increase accelerated each year until it reached a peak of 17 percent in 1968. In 1968 one major public opinion poll showed that Americans considered lawlessness to be the top domestic problem facing the Nation. Another poll showed that four out of five Americans believed that "Law and order has broken down in this country." There was a very real fear that crime and violence were becoming a threat to the stability of our society. The decade of the 1960s was characterized in many quarters by a growing sense of permissiveness in America--as well intentioned as it was poorly reasoned-in which many people were reluctant to take the steps necessary to control crime. It is no coincidence that within a few years' time, America experienced a crime wave that threatened to become uncontrollable. This Administration came to office in 1969 with the conviction that the integrity of our free institutions demanded stronger and firmer crime control. I promised that the wave of crime would not be the wave of the future. An all-out attack was mounted against crime in the United States. --The manpower of Federal enforcement and prosecution agencies was increased. --New legislation was proposed and passed by the Congress to put teeth into Federal enforcement efforts against organized crime, drug trafficking, and crime in the District of Columbia. --Federal financial aid to State and local criminal justice systems--a forerunner of revenue sharing--was greatly expanded through Administration budgeting and Congressional appropriations, reaching a total of $1.5 billion in the three fiscal years from 1970 through 1972. These steps marked a clear departure from the philosophy which had come to dominate Federal crime fighting efforts, and which had brought America to record-breaking levels of lawlessness. Slowly, we began to bring America back. The effort has been long, slow, and difficult. In spite of the difficulties, we have made dramatic progress. In the last four years the Department of Justice has obtained convictions against more than 2500 organized crime figures, including a number of bosses and under-bosses in major cities across the country. The pressure on the underworld is building constantly. Today, the capital of the United States no longer bears the stigma of also being the Nation's crime capital. As a result of decisive reforms in the criminal justice system the serious crime rate has been cut in half in Washington, D.C. From a peak rate of more than 200 serious crimes per day reached during one month in 1969, the figure has been cut by more than half to 93 per day for the latest month of record in 1973. Felony prosecutions have increased from 2100 to 3800, and the time between arrest and trial for felonies has fallen from ten months to less than two. Because of the combined efforts of Federal, State, and local agencies, the wave of serious crime in the United States is being brought under control. Latest figures from the FBI's Uniform Crime Index show that serious crime is increasing at the rate of only one percent a year--the lowest recorded rate since 1960. A majority of cities with over 100,000 population have an actual reduction in crime. These statistics and these indices suggest that our anti-crime program is on the right track. They suggest that we are taking the right measures. They prove that the only way to attack crime in America is the way crime attacks our people--without pity. Our program is based on this philosophy, and it is working. Now we. intend to maintain the momentum we have developed by taking additional steps to further improve law enforcement and to further protect the people of the United States. LAW ENFORCEMENT SPECIAL REVENUE SHARING Most crime in America does not fall under Federal jurisdiction. Those who serve in the front lines of the battle against crime are the State and local law enforcement authorities. State and local police are supported in turn by many other elements of the criminal justice system, including prosecuting and defending attorneys, judges, and probation and corrections officers. All these elements need assistance and some need dramatic reform, especially the prison systems. While the Federal Government does not have full jurisdiction in the field of criminal law enforcement, it does have a broad, constitutional responsibility to insure domestic tranquility. I intend to meet that responsibility. At my direction, the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) has greatly expanded its efforts to aid in the improvement of State and local criminal justice systems. In the last three years of the previous Administration, Federal grants to State and local law enforcement authorities amounted to only See million. In the first three years of my Administration, this same assistance totaled more than $1.5 billion--more than 67 times as much. I consider this money to be an investment in justice and safety on our streets, an investment which has been yielding encouraging dividends. But the job has not been completed. We must now act further to improve the Federal role in the granting of aid for criminal justice. Such improvement can come with the adoption of Special Revenue Sharing for law enforcement. I believe the transition to Special Revenue Sharing for law enforcement will be a relatively easy one. Since its inception, the LEAA has given block grants which allow State and local authorities somewhat greater discretion than does the old-fashioned categorical grant system. But States and localities still lack both the flexibility and the clear authority they need in spending Federal monies to meet their law enforcement challenges. Under my proposed legislation, block grants, technical assistance grants, manpower development grants, and aid for correctional institutions would be combined into one $680 million Special Revenue Sharing fund which would be distributed to States and local governments on a formula basis. This money could be used for improving any area of State and local criminal justice systems. I have repeatedly expressed my conviction that decisions affecting those at State and local levels should be made to the fullest possible extent at State and local levels. This is the guiding principle behind revenue sharing. Experience has demonstrated the validity of this approach and I urge that it now be fully applied to the field of law enforcement and criminal justice. THE CRIMINAL CODE REFORM ACT The Federal criminal laws of the United States date back to 1790 and are based on statutes then pertinent to effective law enforcement. With the passage of new criminal laws, with the unfolding of new court decisions interpreting those laws, and with the development and growth of our Nation, many of the concepts still reflected in our criminal laws have become inadequate, clumsy, or outmoded. In 1966, the Congress established the National Commission on Reform of the Federal Criminal Laws to analyze and evaluate the criminal Code. The Commission's final report of January 7, 1971, has been studied and further refined by the Department of Justice, working with the Congress. In some areas this Administration has substantial disagreements with the Commission's recommendations. But we agree fully with the almost universal recognition that modification of the Code is not merely desirable but absolutely imperative. Accordingly, I will soon submit to the Congress the Criminal Code Reform Act aimed at a comprehensive revision of existing Federal criminal laws. This act will provide a rational, integrated code of Federal criminal law that is workable and responsive to the demands of a modem Nation. The act is divided into three parts: --1--general provisions and principles, --2--definitions of Federal offenses, and --3--provisions for sentencing. Part 1 of the Code establishes general provisions and principles regarding such matters as Federal criminal jurisdiction, culpability, complicity, and legal defenses, and contains a number of significant innovations. Foremost among these is a more effective test for establishing Federal criminal jurisdiction. Those circumstances giving rise to Federal jurisdiction are clearly delineated in the proposed new Code and the extent of jurisdiction is clearly defined. I am emphatically opposed to encroachment by Federal authorities on State sovereignty, by unnecessarily increasing the areas over which the Federal Government asserts jurisdiction. To the contrary, jurisdiction has been relinquished in those areas where the States have demonstrated no genuine need for assistance in protecting their citizens. In those instances where jurisdiction is expanded, care has been taken to limit that expansion to areas of compelling Federal interest which are not adequately dealt with under present law. An example of such an instance would be the present law which states that it is a Federal crime to travel in interstate commerce to bribe a witness in a State court proceeding, but it is not a crime to travel in interstate commerce to threaten or intimidate the same witness, though intimidation might even take the form of murdering the witness. The Federal interest is the same in each case--to assist the State in safeguarding the integrity of its judicial processes. In such a case, an extension of Federal jurisdiction is clearly warranted and is provided for under my proposal. The rationalization of jurisdictional bases permits greater clarity of drafting, uniformity of interpretation, and the consolidation of numerous statutes presently applying to basically the same conduct. For example, title 18 of the criminal Code as presently drawn, lists some 70 theft offenses--each written in a different fashion to cover the taking of various kinds of property in different jurisdictional situations. In the proposed new Code, these have been reduced to 5 general sections. Almost 80 forgery, counterfeiting, and related offenses have been replaced by only 3 sections. Over 50 statutes involving perjury and false statements have been reduced to 7 sections. Approximately 70 arson and property destruction offenses have been consolidated into 4 offenses. Similar changes have been made in the Code's treatment of culpability. Instead of 79 undefined terms or combinations of terms presently found in title 18, the Code uses four clearly defined terms. Another major innovation reflected in Part One is a codification of general defenses available to a defendant. This change permits clarification of areas in which the law is presently confused and, for the first time, provides uniform Federal standards for defense. The most significant feature of this chapter is a codification of the "insanity" defense. At present the test is determined by the courts and varies across the country. The standard has become so vague in some instances that it has led to unconscionable abuse by defendants. My proposed new formulation would provide an insanity defense only if the defendant did not know what he was doing. Under this formulation, which has considerable support in psychiatric and legal circles, the only question considered germane in a murder case, for example, would be whether the defendant knew that he was pulling the trigger of a gun. Questions such as the existence of a mental disease or defect and whether the defendant requires treatment or deserves imprisonment would be reserved for consideration at the time of sentencing. Part Two of the Code consolidates the definitions of all Federal felonies, as well as certain related Federal offenses of a less serious character. Offenses and, in appropriate instances, specific defenses, are defined in simple, concise terms, and those existing provisions found to be obsolete or unusable have been eliminated--for example, operating a pirate ship on behalf of a "foreign prince," or detaining a United States carrier pigeon. Loopholes in existing law have been closed--for example, statutes concerning the theft of union funds, and new offenses have been created where necessary, as in the case of leaders of organized crime. We have not indulged in changes merely for the sake of changes. Where existing law has proved satisfactory and where existing statutory language has received favorable interpretation by the courts, the law and the operative language have been retained. In other areas, such as pornography, there has been a thorough revision to reassert the Federal interest in protecting our citizens. The reforms set forth in Parts One and Two of the Code would be of little practical consequence without a more realistic approach to those problems which arise in the post-conviction phase of dealing with Federal offenses. For example, the penalty structure prescribed in the present criminal Code is riddled with inconsistencies and inadequacies. Title 18 alone provides 18 different terms of imprisonment and 14 different fines, often with no discernible relationship between the possible term of imprisonment and the possible levying of a fine. Part Three of the new Code classifies offenses into 8 categories for purposes of assessing and levying imprisonment and fines. It brings the present structure into line with current judgments as to the seriousness of various offenses and with the best opinions of penologists as [to] the efficacy of specific penalties. In some instances, more stringent sanctions are provided. For example, sentences for arson are increased from 5 to 15 years. In other cases penalties are reduced. For example, impersonating a foreign official carries a three year sentence, as opposed to the 10 year term originally prescribed. To reduce the possibility of unwarranted disparities in sentencing, the Code establishes criteria for the imposition of sentence. At the same time, it provides for parole supervision after all prison sentences, so that even hardened criminals who serve their full prison terms will receive supervision following their release. There are certain crimes reflecting such a degree of hostility to society that a decent regard for the common welfare requires that a defendant convicted of those crimes be removed from free society. For this reason my proposed new Code provides mandatory minimum prison terms for trafficking in hard narcotics; it provides mandatory minimum prison terms for persons using dangerous weapons in the execution of a crime; and it provides mandatory minimum prison sentences for those convicted as leaders of organized crime. The magnitude of the proposed revision of the Federal criminal Code will require careful detailed consideration by the Congress. I have no doubt this will be time-consuming. There are, however, two provisions in the Code which I feel require immediate enactment. I have thus directed that provisions relating to the death penalty and to heroin trafficking also be transmitted as separate bills in order that the Congress may act more rapidly on these two measures. DEATH PENALTY The sharp reduction in the application of the death penalty was a component of the more permissive attitude toward crime in the last decade. I do not contend that the death penalty is a panacea that will cure crime. Crime is the product of a variety of different circumstances--sometimes social, sometimes psychological--but it is committed by human beings and at the point of commission it is the product of that individual's motivation. If the incentive not to commit crime is stronger than the incentive to commit it, then logic suggests that crime will be reduced. It is in part the entirely justified feeling of the prospective criminal that he will not suffer for his deed which, in the present circumstances, helps allow those deeds to take place. Federal crimes are rarely "crimes of passion." Airplane hi-jacking is not done in a blind rage; it has to be carefully planned. The use of incendiary devices and bombs is not a crime of passion, nor is kidnapping; all these must be thought out in advance. At present those who plan these crimes do not have to include in . their deliberations the possibility that they will be put to death for their deeds. I believe that in making their plans, they should have to consider the fact that if a death results from their crime, they too may die. Under those conditions, I am confident that the death penalty can be a valuable deterrent. By making the death penalty available, we will provide Federal enforcement authorities with additional leverage to dissuade those individuals who may commit a Federal crime from taking the lives of others in the course of committing that crime. Hard experience has taught us that with due regard for the rights of all--including the right to life itself we must return to a greater concern with protecting those who might otherwise be the innocent victims of violent crime than with protecting those who have committed those crimes. The society which fails to recognize this as a reasonable ordering of its priorities must inevitably find itself, in time, at the mercy of criminals. America was heading in that direction in the last decade, and I believe that we must not risk returning to it again. Accordingly, I am proposing the re-institution of the death penalty for war-related treason, sabotage, and espionage, and for all specifically enumerated crimes under Federal jurisdiction from which death results. The Department of Justice has examined the constitutionality of the death penalty in the light of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Furman v. Georgia. It is the Department's opinion that Furman holds unconstitutional the imposition of the death penalty only insofar as it is applied arbitrarily and capriciously. I believe the best way to accommodate the reservations of the Court is to authorize the automatic imposition of the death penalty where it is warranted. Under the proposal drafted by the Department of Justice, a hearing would be required after the trial for the purpose of determining the existence or nonexistence of certain rational standards which delineate aggravating factors or mitigating factors. Among those mitigating factors which would preclude the imposition of a death sentence are the youth of the defendant, his or her mental capacity, or the fact that the crime was committed under duress. Aggravating factors include the creation of a grave risk of danger to the national security, or to the life of another person, or the killing of another person during the commission of one of a circumscribed list of serious offenses, such as treason, kidnapping, or aircraft piracy. The hearing would be held before the judge who presided at the trial and before either the same jury, or, if circumstances require, a jury specially impaneled. Imposition of the death penalty by the judge would be mandatory if the jury returns a special verdict finding the existence of one or more aggravating factors and the absence of any mitigating factor. The death sentence is prohibited if the jury finds the existence of one or more mitigating factors. Current statutes containing the death penalty would be amended to eliminate the requirement for jury recommendation, thus limiting the imposition of the death penalty to cases in which the legislative guidelines for its imposition clearly require it, and eliminating arbitrary and capricious application of the death penalty which the Supreme Court has condemned in the Furman case. DRUG ABUSE No single law enforcement problem has occupied more time, effort and money in the past four years than that of drug abuse and drug addiction. We have regarded drugs as "public enemy number one," destroying the most precious resource we have--our young people--and breeding lawlessness, violence and death. When this Administration assumed Office in 1969, only $82 million was budgeted by the Federal Government for law enforcement, prevention, and rehabilitation in the field of drug abuse. Today that figure has been increased to $785 million for 1974--nearly 10 times as much. Narcotics production has been disrupted, more traffickers and distributors have been put out of business, and addicts and abusers have been treated and started on the road to rehabilitation. Since last June, the supply of heroin on the East Coast has been substantially reduced. The scarcity of heroin in our big Eastern cities has driven up the price of an average "fix" from $4.31 to $9.88, encouraging more addicts to seek medical treatment. At the same time the heroin content of that fix has dropped from 6.5 to 3.7 percent. Meanwhile, through my Cabinet Committee on International Narcotics Control, action plans are underway to help 59 foreign countries develop and carry out their own national control programs. These efforts, linked with those of the Bureau of Customs and the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, have produced heartening results. Our worldwide narcotics seizures almost tripled in 1972 over 1971. Seizures by our anti-narcotics allies abroad are at an all-time high. In January, 1972, the French seized a half-ton of heroin on a shrimp boat headed for this country. Argentine, Brazilian and Venezuelan agents seized 285 pounds of heroin in three raids in 1972, and with twenty arrests crippled the existing French-Latin American connection. The ringleader was extradited to the U.S. by Paraguay and has just begun to serve a 20-year sentence in Federal prison. Thailand's Special Narcotics Organization recently seized a total of almost eleven tons of opium along the Burmese border, as well as a half-ton of morphine and heroin. Recently Iran scored the largest opium seizure on record--over 12 tons taken from smugglers along the Afghanistan border. Turkey, as a result of a courageous decision by the government under Prime Minister Erim in 1971, has prohibited all cultivation of opium within her borders. These results are all the more gratifying in light of the fact that heroin is wholly a foreign import to the United States. We do not grow opium here; we do not produce heroin here; yet we have the largest addict population in the world. Clearly we will end our problem faster with continued foreign assistance. Our domestic accomplishments are keeping pace with international efforts and are producing equally encouraging results. Domestic drug seizures, including seizures of marijuana and hashish, almost doubled in 1972 over 1971. Arrests have risen by more than one-third and convictions have doubled. In January of 1972, a new agency, the Office of Drug Abuse Law Enforcement (DALE), was created within the Department of Justice. Task forces composed of investigators, attorneys, and special prosecuting attorneys have been assigned to more than forty cities with heroin problems. DALE now arrests pushers at the rate of 550 a month and has obtained 750 convictions. At my direction, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) established a special unit to make intensive tax investigations of suspected domestic traffickers. To date, IRS has collected $18 million in currency and property, assessed tax penalties of more than $100 million, and obtained 25 convictions. This effort can be particularly effective in reaching the high level traffickers and financiers who never actually touch the heroin, but who profit from the misery of those who do. The problem of drug abuse in America is not a law enforcement problem alone. Under my Administration, the Federal Government has pursued a balanced, comprehensive approach to ending this problem. Increased law enforcement efforts have been coupled with expanded treatment programs. The Special Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention was created to aid in preventing drug abuse before it begins and in rehabilitating those who have fallen victim to it. In each year of my Administration, more Federal dollars have been spent on treatment, rehabilitation, prevention, and research in the field of drug abuse than has been budgeted for law enforcement in the drug field. The Special Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention is currently developing a special program of Treatment Alternatives to Street Crime (TASC) to break the vicious cycle of addiction, crime, arrest, bail, and more crime. Under the TASC program, arrestees who are scientifically identified as heroin-dependent may be assigned by judges to treatment programs as a condition for release on bail, or as a possible alternative to prosecution. Federally funded treatment programs have increased from sixteen in January, 1969, to a current level of 400. In the last fiscal year, the Special Action Office created more facilities for treating drug addiction than the Federal Government had provided in all the previous fifty years. Today, federally funded treatment is available for 100,000 addicts a year. We also have sufficient funds available to expand our facilities to treat 250,000 addicts if required. Nationwide, in the last two years, the rate of new addiction to heroin registered its first decline since 1964. This is a particularly important trend because it is estimated that one addict "infects" six of his peers. The trend in narcotic-related deaths is also clearly on its way down. My advisers report to me that virtually complete statistics show such fatalities declined approximately 6 percent in 1972 compared to 1971. In spite of these accomplishments, however, it is still estimated that one-third to one-half of all individuals arrested for street crimes continue to be narcotics abusers and addicts. What this suggests is that in the area of enforcement we are still only holding our own, and we must increase the tools available to do the job. The work of the Special Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention has aided in smoothing the large expansion of Federal effort in the area of drug treatment and prevention. Now we must move to improve Federal action in the area of law enforcement. Drug abuse treatment specialists have continuously emphasized in their discussions with me the need for strong, effective law enforcement to restrict the availability of drugs and to punish the pusher. One area where I am convinced of the need for immediate action is that of jailing heroin pushers. Under the Bail Reform Act of 1966, a Federal judge is precluded from considering the danger to the community when setting bail for suspects arrested for selling heroin. The effect of this restriction is that many accused pushers are immediately released on bail and are thus given the opportunity to go out and create more misery, generate more violence, and commit more crimes while they are waiting to be tried for these same activities. In a study of 422 accused violators, the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs found that 71 percent were freed on bail for a period ranging from three months to more than one year between the time of arrest and the time of trial. Nearly 40 percent of the total were free for a period ranging from one-half year to more than one year. As for the major cases, those involving pushers accused of trafficking in large quantities of heroin, it was found that one-fourth were free for over three months to one-half year; one-fourth were free for one-half year to one year; and 16 percent remained free for over one year prior to their trial. In most cases these individuals had criminal records. One-fifth had been convicted of a previous drug charge and a total of 64 percent had a record of prior felony arrests. The cost of obtaining such a pre-trial release in most cases was minimal; 19 percent of the total sample were freed on personal recognizance and only 23 percent were required to post bonds of $10,000 or more. Sentencing practices have also been found to be inadequate in many cases. In a study of 955 narcotics drug violators who were arrested by the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs and convicted in the courts, a total of 27 percent received sentences other than imprisonment. Most of these individuals were placed on probation. This situation is intolerable. I am therefore calling upon the Congress to promptly enact a new Heroin Trafficking Act. The first part of my proposed legislation would increase the sentences for heroin and morphine offenses. For a first offense of trafficking in less than four ounces of a mixture or substance containing heroin or morphine, it provides a mandatory sentence of not less than five years nor more than fifteen years. For a first offense of trafficking in four or more ounces, it provides a mandatory, sentence of not less than ten years or for life. For those with a prior felony narcotic conviction who are convicted of trafficking in less than four ounces, my proposed legislation provides a mandatory prison term of ten years to life imprisonment. For second offenders who are convicted of trafficking in more than four ounces, I am proposing a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without parole. While four ounces of a heroin mixture may seem a very small amount to use as the criterion for major penalties, that amount is actually worth 12-15,000 dollars and would supply about 180 addicts for a day. Anyone selling four or more ounces cannot be considered a small time operator. For those who are convicted of possessing large amounts of heroin but cannot be convicted of trafficking, I am proposing a series of lesser penalties. To be sure that judges actually apply these tough sentences, my legislation would provide that the mandatory minimum sentences cannot be suspended, nor probation granted. The second portion of my proposed legislation would deny pre-trial release to those charged with trafficking in heroin or morphine unless the judicial officer finds that release will not pose a danger to the persons or property of others. It would also prohibit the release of anyone convicted of one of the above felonies who is awaiting sentencing or the results of an appeal. These are very harsh measures, to be applied within very rigid guidelines and providing only a minimum of sentencing discretion to judges. But circumstances warrant such provisions. All the evidence shows that we are now doing a more effective job in the areas of enforcement and rehabilitation. In spite of this progress, however, we find an intolerably high level of street crime being committed by addicts. Part of the reason, I believe, lies in the court system which takes over after drug pushers have been apprehended. The courts are frequently little more than an escape hatch for those who are responsible for the menace of drugs. Sometimes it seems that as fast as we bail water out of the boat through law enforcement and rehabilitation, it runs right back in through the holes in our judicial system. I intend to plug those holes. Until then, all the money we spend, all the enforcement we provide, and all the rehabilitation services we offer are not going to solve the drug problem in America. Finally, I want to emphasize my continued opposition to legalizing the possession, sale or use of marijuana. There is no question about whether marijuana is dangerous, the only question is how dangerous. While the matter is still in dispute, the only responsible governmental approach is to prevent marijuana from being legalized. I intend, as I have said before, to do just that. CONCLUSION This Nation has fought hard and sacrificed greatly to achieve a lasting peace in the world. Peace in the world, however, must be accompanied by peace in our own land. Of what ultimate value is it to end the threat to our national safety in the world if our citizens face a constant threat to their personal safety in our own streets? The American people are a law-abiding people. They have faith in the law. It is now time for Government to justify that faith by insuring that the law works, that our system of criminal justice works, and that "domestic tranquility" is preserved. I believe we have gone a long way toward erasing the apprehensions of the last decade. But we must go further if we are to achieve that peace at home which will truly complement peace abroad. In the coming months I will propose legislation aimed at curbing the manufacture and sale of cheap handguns commonly known as "Saturday night specials," I will propose reforms of the Federal criminal system to provide speedier and more rational criminal trial procedures, and I will continue to press for innovation and improvement in our correctional systems. The Federal Government cannot do everything. Indeed, it is prohibited from doing everything. But it can do a great deal. The crime legislation I will submit to the Congress can give us the tools we need to do all that we can do. This is sound, responsible legislation. I am confident that the approval of the American people for measures of the sort that I have suggested will be reflected in the actions of the Congress. RICHARD NIXON 
The White House, 
March 14, 1973.
To the Congress of the United States: This sixth message to the Congress on the State of the Union concerns our Federal system of criminal justice. It discusses both the progress we have made in improving that system and the additional steps we must take to consolidate our accomplishments and to further our efforts to achieve a safe, just, and law-abiding society. In the period from 1960 to 1968 serious crime in the United States increased by 122 percent according to the FBI's Uniform Crime Index. The rate of increase accelerated each year until it reached a peak of 17 percent in 1968. In 1968 one major public opinion poll showed that Americans considered lawlessness to be the top domestic problem facing the Nation. Another poll showed that four out of five Americans believed that "Law and order has broken down in this country." There was a very real fear that crime and violence were becoming a threat to the stability of our society. The decade of the 1960s was characterized in many quarters by a growing sense of permissiveness in America--as well intentioned as it was poorly reasoned-in which many people were reluctant to take the steps necessary to control crime. It is no coincidence that within a few years' time, America experienced a crime wave that threatened to become uncontrollable. This Administration came to office in 1969 with the conviction that the integrity of our free institutions demanded stronger and firmer crime control. I promised that the wave of crime would not be the wave of the future. An all-out attack was mounted against crime in the United States. --The manpower of Federal enforcement and prosecution agencies was increased. --New legislation was proposed and passed by the Congress to put teeth into Federal enforcement efforts against organized crime, drug trafficking, and crime in the District of Columbia. --Federal financial aid to State and local criminal justice systems--a forerunner of revenue sharing--was greatly expanded through Administration budgeting and Congressional appropriations, reaching a total of $1.5 billion in the three fiscal years from 1970 through 1972. These steps marked a clear departure from the philosophy which had come to dominate Federal crime fighting efforts, and which had brought America to record-breaking levels of lawlessness. Slowly, we began to bring America back. The effort has been long, slow, and difficult. In spite of the difficulties, we have made dramatic progress. In the last four years the Department of Justice has obtained convictions against more than 2500 organized crime figures, including a number of bosses and under-bosses in major cities across the country. The pressure on the underworld is building constantly. Today, the capital of the United States no longer bears the stigma of also being the Nation's crime capital. As a result of decisive reforms in the criminal justice system the serious crime rate has been cut in half in Washington, D.C. From a peak rate of more than 200 serious crimes per day reached during one month in 1969, the figure has been cut by more than half to 93 per day for the latest month of record in 1973. Felony prosecutions have increased from 2100 to 3800, and the time between arrest and trial for felonies has fallen from ten months to less than two. Because of the combined efforts of Federal, State, and local agencies, the wave of serious crime in the United States is being brought under control. Latest figures from the FBI's Uniform Crime Index show that serious crime is increasing at the rate of only one percent a year--the lowest recorded rate since 1960. A majority of cities with over 100,000 population have an actual reduction in crime. These statistics and these indices suggest that our anti-crime program is on the right track. They suggest that we are taking the right measures. They prove that the only way to attack crime in America is the way crime attacks our people--without pity. Our program is based on this philosophy, and it is working. Now we. intend to maintain the momentum we have developed by taking additional steps to further improve law enforcement and to further protect the people of the United States. LAW ENFORCEMENT SPECIAL REVENUE SHARING Most crime in America does not fall under Federal jurisdiction. Those who serve in the front lines of the battle against crime are the State and local law enforcement authorities. State and local police are supported in turn by many other elements of the criminal justice system, including prosecuting and defending attorneys, judges, and probation and corrections officers. All these elements need assistance and some need dramatic reform, especially the prison systems. While the Federal Government does not have full jurisdiction in the field of criminal law enforcement, it does have a broad, constitutional responsibility to insure domestic tranquility. I intend to meet that responsibility. At my direction, the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) has greatly expanded its efforts to aid in the improvement of State and local criminal justice systems. In the last three years of the previous Administration, Federal grants to State and local law enforcement authorities amounted to only See million. In the first three years of my Administration, this same assistance totaled more than $1.5 billion--more than 67 times as much. I consider this money to be an investment in justice and safety on our streets, an investment which has been yielding encouraging dividends. But the job has not been completed. We must now act further to improve the Federal role in the granting of aid for criminal justice. Such improvement can come with the adoption of Special Revenue Sharing for law enforcement. I believe the transition to Special Revenue Sharing for law enforcement will be a relatively easy one. Since its inception, the LEAA has given block grants which allow State and local authorities somewhat greater discretion than does the old-fashioned categorical grant system. But States and localities still lack both the flexibility and the clear authority they need in spending Federal monies to meet their law enforcement challenges. Under my proposed legislation, block grants, technical assistance grants, manpower development grants, and aid for correctional institutions would be combined into one $680 million Special Revenue Sharing fund which would be distributed to States and local governments on a formula basis. This money could be used for improving any area of State and local criminal justice systems. I have repeatedly expressed my conviction that decisions affecting those at State and local levels should be made to the fullest possible extent at State and local levels. This is the guiding principle behind revenue sharing. Experience has demonstrated the validity of this approach and I urge that it now be fully applied to the field of law enforcement and criminal justice. THE CRIMINAL CODE REFORM ACT The Federal criminal laws of the United States date back to 1790 and are based on statutes then pertinent to effective law enforcement. With the passage of new criminal laws, with the unfolding of new court decisions interpreting those laws, and with the development and growth of our Nation, many of the concepts still reflected in our criminal laws have become inadequate, clumsy, or outmoded. In 1966, the Congress established the National Commission on Reform of the Federal Criminal Laws to analyze and evaluate the criminal Code. The Commission's final report of January 7, 1971, has been studied and further refined by the Department of Justice, working with the Congress. In some areas this Administration has substantial disagreements with the Commission's recommendations. But we agree fully with the almost universal recognition that modification of the Code is not merely desirable but absolutely imperative. Accordingly, I will soon submit to the Congress the Criminal Code Reform Act aimed at a comprehensive revision of existing Federal criminal laws. This act will provide a rational, integrated code of Federal criminal law that is workable and responsive to the demands of a modem Nation. The act is divided into three parts: --1--general provisions and principles, --2--definitions of Federal offenses, and --3--provisions for sentencing. Part 1 of the Code establishes general provisions and principles regarding such matters as Federal criminal jurisdiction, culpability, complicity, and legal defenses, and contains a number of significant innovations. Foremost among these is a more effective test for establishing Federal criminal jurisdiction. Those circumstances giving rise to Federal jurisdiction are clearly delineated in the proposed new Code and the extent of jurisdiction is clearly defined. I am emphatically opposed to encroachment by Federal authorities on State sovereignty, by unnecessarily increasing the areas over which the Federal Government asserts jurisdiction. To the contrary, jurisdiction has been relinquished in those areas where the States have demonstrated no genuine need for assistance in protecting their citizens. In those instances where jurisdiction is expanded, care has been taken to limit that expansion to areas of compelling Federal interest which are not adequately dealt with under present law. An example of such an instance would be the present law which states that it is a Federal crime to travel in interstate commerce to bribe a witness in a State court proceeding, but it is not a crime to travel in interstate commerce to threaten or intimidate the same witness, though intimidation might even take the form of murdering the witness. The Federal interest is the same in each case--to assist the State in safeguarding the integrity of its judicial processes. In such a case, an extension of Federal jurisdiction is clearly warranted and is provided for under my proposal. The rationalization of jurisdictional bases permits greater clarity of drafting, uniformity of interpretation, and the consolidation of numerous statutes presently applying to basically the same conduct. For example, title 18 of the criminal Code as presently drawn, lists some 70 theft offenses--each written in a different fashion to cover the taking of various kinds of property in different jurisdictional situations. In the proposed new Code, these have been reduced to 5 general sections. Almost 80 forgery, counterfeiting, and related offenses have been replaced by only 3 sections. Over 50 statutes involving perjury and false statements have been reduced to 7 sections. Approximately 70 arson and property destruction offenses have been consolidated into 4 offenses. Similar changes have been made in the Code's treatment of culpability. Instead of 79 undefined terms or combinations of terms presently found in title 18, the Code uses four clearly defined terms. Another major innovation reflected in Part One is a codification of general defenses available to a defendant. This change permits clarification of areas in which the law is presently confused and, for the first time, provides uniform Federal standards for defense. The most significant feature of this chapter is a codification of the "insanity" defense. At present the test is determined by the courts and varies across the country. The standard has become so vague in some instances that it has led to unconscionable abuse by defendants. My proposed new formulation would provide an insanity defense only if the defendant did not know what he was doing. Under this formulation, which has considerable support in psychiatric and legal circles, the only question considered germane in a murder case, for example, would be whether the defendant knew that he was pulling the trigger of a gun. Questions such as the existence of a mental disease or defect and whether the defendant requires treatment or deserves imprisonment would be reserved for consideration at the time of sentencing. Part Two of the Code consolidates the definitions of all Federal felonies, as well as certain related Federal offenses of a less serious character. Offenses and, in appropriate instances, specific defenses, are defined in simple, concise terms, and those existing provisions found to be obsolete or unusable have been eliminated--for example, operating a pirate ship on behalf of a "foreign prince," or detaining a United States carrier pigeon. Loopholes in existing law have been closed--for example, statutes concerning the theft of union funds, and new offenses have been created where necessary, as in the case of leaders of organized crime. We have not indulged in changes merely for the sake of changes. Where existing law has proved satisfactory and where existing statutory language has received favorable interpretation by the courts, the law and the operative language have been retained. In other areas, such as pornography, there has been a thorough revision to reassert the Federal interest in protecting our citizens. The reforms set forth in Parts One and Two of the Code would be of little practical consequence without a more realistic approach to those problems which arise in the post-conviction phase of dealing with Federal offenses. For example, the penalty structure prescribed in the present criminal Code is riddled with inconsistencies and inadequacies. Title 18 alone provides 18 different terms of imprisonment and 14 different fines, often with no discernible relationship between the possible term of imprisonment and the possible levying of a fine. Part Three of the new Code classifies offenses into 8 categories for purposes of assessing and levying imprisonment and fines. It brings the present structure into line with current judgments as to the seriousness of various offenses and with the best opinions of penologists as [to] the efficacy of specific penalties. In some instances, more stringent sanctions are provided. For example, sentences for arson are increased from 5 to 15 years. In other cases penalties are reduced. For example, impersonating a foreign official carries a three year sentence, as opposed to the 10 year term originally prescribed. To reduce the possibility of unwarranted disparities in sentencing, the Code establishes criteria for the imposition of sentence. At the same time, it provides for parole supervision after all prison sentences, so that even hardened criminals who serve their full prison terms will receive supervision following their release. There are certain crimes reflecting such a degree of hostility to society that a decent regard for the common welfare requires that a defendant convicted of those crimes be removed from free society. For this reason my proposed new Code provides mandatory minimum prison terms for trafficking in hard narcotics; it provides mandatory minimum prison terms for persons using dangerous weapons in the execution of a crime; and it provides mandatory minimum prison sentences for those convicted as leaders of organized crime. The magnitude of the proposed revision of the Federal criminal Code will require careful detailed consideration by the Congress. I have no doubt this will be time-consuming. There are, however, two provisions in the Code which I feel require immediate enactment. I have thus directed that provisions relating to the death penalty and to heroin trafficking also be transmitted as separate bills in order that the Congress may act more rapidly on these two measures. DEATH PENALTY The sharp reduction in the application of the death penalty was a component of the more permissive attitude toward crime in the last decade. I do not contend that the death penalty is a panacea that will cure crime. Crime is the product of a variety of different circumstances--sometimes social, sometimes psychological--but it is committed by human beings and at the point of commission it is the product of that individual's motivation. If the incentive not to commit crime is stronger than the incentive to commit it, then logic suggests that crime will be reduced. It is in part the entirely justified feeling of the prospective criminal that he will not suffer for his deed which, in the present circumstances, helps allow those deeds to take place. Federal crimes are rarely "crimes of passion." Airplane hi-jacking is not done in a blind rage; it has to be carefully planned. The use of incendiary devices and bombs is not a crime of passion, nor is kidnapping; all these must be thought out in advance. At present those who plan these crimes do not have to include in . their deliberations the possibility that they will be put to death for their deeds. I believe that in making their plans, they should have to consider the fact that if a death results from their crime, they too may die. Under those conditions, I am confident that the death penalty can be a valuable deterrent. By making the death penalty available, we will provide Federal enforcement authorities with additional leverage to dissuade those individuals who may commit a Federal crime from taking the lives of others in the course of committing that crime. Hard experience has taught us that with due regard for the rights of all--including the right to life itself we must return to a greater concern with protecting those who might otherwise be the innocent victims of violent crime than with protecting those who have committed those crimes. The society which fails to recognize this as a reasonable ordering of its priorities must inevitably find itself, in time, at the mercy of criminals. America was heading in that direction in the last decade, and I believe that we must not risk returning to it again. Accordingly, I am proposing the re-institution of the death penalty for war-related treason, sabotage, and espionage, and for all specifically enumerated crimes under Federal jurisdiction from which death results. The Department of Justice has examined the constitutionality of the death penalty in the light of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Furman v. Georgia. It is the Department's opinion that Furman holds unconstitutional the imposition of the death penalty only insofar as it is applied arbitrarily and capriciously. I believe the best way to accommodate the reservations of the Court is to authorize the automatic imposition of the death penalty where it is warranted. Under the proposal drafted by the Department of Justice, a hearing would be required after the trial for the purpose of determining the existence or nonexistence of certain rational standards which delineate aggravating factors or mitigating factors. Among those mitigating factors which would preclude the imposition of a death sentence are the youth of the defendant, his or her mental capacity, or the fact that the crime was committed under duress. Aggravating factors include the creation of a grave risk of danger to the national security, or to the life of another person, or the killing of another person during the commission of one of a circumscribed list of serious offenses, such as treason, kidnapping, or aircraft piracy. The hearing would be held before the judge who presided at the trial and before either the same jury, or, if circumstances require, a jury specially impaneled. Imposition of the death penalty by the judge would be mandatory if the jury returns a special verdict finding the existence of one or more aggravating factors and the absence of any mitigating factor. The death sentence is prohibited if the jury finds the existence of one or more mitigating factors. Current statutes containing the death penalty would be amended to eliminate the requirement for jury recommendation, thus limiting the imposition of the death penalty to cases in which the legislative guidelines for its imposition clearly require it, and eliminating arbitrary and capricious application of the death penalty which the Supreme Court has condemned in the Furman case. DRUG ABUSE No single law enforcement problem has occupied more time, effort and money in the past four years than that of drug abuse and drug addiction. We have regarded drugs as "public enemy number one," destroying the most precious resource we have--our young people--and breeding lawlessness, violence and death. When this Administration assumed Office in 1969, only $82 million was budgeted by the Federal Government for law enforcement, prevention, and rehabilitation in the field of drug abuse. Today that figure has been increased to $785 million for 1974--nearly 10 times as much. Narcotics production has been disrupted, more traffickers and distributors have been put out of business, and addicts and abusers have been treated and started on the road to rehabilitation. Since last June, the supply of heroin on the East Coast has been substantially reduced. The scarcity of heroin in our big Eastern cities has driven up the price of an average "fix" from $4.31 to $9.88, encouraging more addicts to seek medical treatment. At the same time the heroin content of that fix has dropped from 6.5 to 3.7 percent. Meanwhile, through my Cabinet Committee on International Narcotics Control, action plans are underway to help 59 foreign countries develop and carry out their own national control programs. These efforts, linked with those of the Bureau of Customs and the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, have produced heartening results. Our worldwide narcotics seizures almost tripled in 1972 over 1971. Seizures by our anti-narcotics allies abroad are at an all-time high. In January, 1972, the French seized a half-ton of heroin on a shrimp boat headed for this country. Argentine, Brazilian and Venezuelan agents seized 285 pounds of heroin in three raids in 1972, and with twenty arrests crippled the existing French-Latin American connection. The ringleader was extradited to the YOU.S. by Paraguay and has just begun to serve a 20-year sentence in Federal prison. Thailand's Special Narcotics Organization recently seized a total of almost eleven tons of opium along the Burmese border, as well as a half-ton of morphine and heroin. Recently Iran scored the largest opium seizure on record--over 12 tons taken from smugglers along the Afghanistan border. Turkey, as a result of a courageous decision by the government under Prime Minister Erim in 1971, has prohibited all cultivation of opium within her borders. These results are all the more gratifying in light of the fact that heroin is wholly a foreign import to the United States. We do not grow opium here; we do not produce heroin here; yet we have the largest addict population in the world. Clearly we will end our problem faster with continued foreign assistance. Our domestic accomplishments are keeping pace with international efforts and are producing equally encouraging results. Domestic drug seizures, including seizures of marijuana and hashish, almost doubled in 1972 over 1971. Arrests have risen by more than one-third and convictions have doubled. In January of 1972, a new agency, the Office of Drug Abuse Law Enforcement (DALE), was created within the Department of Justice. Task forces composed of investigators, attorneys, and special prosecuting attorneys have been assigned to more than forty cities with heroin problems. DALE now arrests pushers at the rate of 550 a month and has obtained 750 convictions. At my direction, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) established a special unit to make intensive tax investigations of suspected domestic traffickers. To date, IRS has collected $18 million in currency and property, assessed tax penalties of more than $100 million, and obtained 25 convictions. This effort can be particularly effective in reaching the high level traffickers and financiers who never actually touch the heroin, but who profit from the misery of those who do. The problem of drug abuse in America is not a law enforcement problem alone. Under my Administration, the Federal Government has pursued a balanced, comprehensive approach to ending this problem. Increased law enforcement efforts have been coupled with expanded treatment programs. The Special Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention was created to aid in preventing drug abuse before it begins and in rehabilitating those who have fallen victim to it. In each year of my Administration, more Federal dollars have been spent on treatment, rehabilitation, prevention, and research in the field of drug abuse than has been budgeted for law enforcement in the drug field. The Special Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention is currently developing a special program of Treatment Alternatives to Street Crime (TASC) to break the vicious cycle of addiction, crime, arrest, bail, and more crime. Under the TASC program, arrestees who are scientifically identified as heroin-dependent may be assigned by judges to treatment programs as a condition for release on bail, or as a possible alternative to prosecution. Federally funded treatment programs have increased from sixteen in January, 1969, to a current level of 400. In the last fiscal year, the Special Action Office created more facilities for treating drug addiction than the Federal Government had provided in all the previous fifty years. Today, federally funded treatment is available for 100,000 addicts a year. We also have sufficient funds available to expand our facilities to treat 250,000 addicts if required. Nationwide, in the last two years, the rate of new addiction to heroin registered its first decline since 1964. This is a particularly important trend because it is estimated that one addict "infects" six of his peers. The trend in narcotic-related deaths is also clearly on its way down. My advisers report to me that virtually complete statistics show such fatalities declined approximately 6 percent in 1972 compared to 1971. In spite of these accomplishments, however, it is still estimated that one-third to one-half of all individuals arrested for street crimes continue to be narcotics abusers and addicts. What this suggests is that in the area of enforcement we are still only holding our own, and we must increase the tools available to do the job. The work of the Special Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention has aided in smoothing the large expansion of Federal effort in the area of drug treatment and prevention. Now we must move to improve Federal action in the area of law enforcement. Drug abuse treatment specialists have continuously emphasized in their discussions with me the need for strong, effective law enforcement to restrict the availability of drugs and to punish the pusher. One area where I am convinced of the need for immediate action is that of jailing heroin pushers. Under the Bail Reform Act of 1966, a Federal judge is precluded from considering the danger to the community when setting bail for suspects arrested for selling heroin. The effect of this restriction is that many accused pushers are immediately released on bail and are thus given the opportunity to go out and create more misery, generate more violence, and commit more crimes while they are waiting to be tried for these same activities. In a study of 422 accused violators, the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs found that 71 percent were freed on bail for a period ranging from three months to more than one year between the time of arrest and the time of trial. Nearly 40 percent of the total were free for a period ranging from one-half year to more than one year. As for the major cases, those involving pushers accused of trafficking in large quantities of heroin, it was found that one-fourth were free for over three months to one-half year; one-fourth were free for one-half year to one year; and 16 percent remained free for over one year prior to their trial. In most cases these individuals had criminal records. One-fifth had been convicted of a previous drug charge and a total of 64 percent had a record of prior felony arrests. The cost of obtaining such a pre-trial release in most cases was minimal; 19 percent of the total sample were freed on personal recognizance and only 23 percent were required to post bonds of $10,000 or more. Sentencing practices have also been found to be inadequate in many cases. In a study of 955 narcotics drug violators who were arrested by the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs and convicted in the courts, a total of 27 percent received sentences other than imprisonment. Most of these individuals were placed on probation. This situation is intolerable. I am therefore calling upon the Congress to promptly enact a new Heroin Trafficking Act. The first part of my proposed legislation would increase the sentences for heroin and morphine offenses. For a first offense of trafficking in less than four ounces of a mixture or substance containing heroin or morphine, it provides a mandatory sentence of not less than five years nor more than fifteen years. For a first offense of trafficking in four or more ounces, it provides a mandatory, sentence of not less than ten years or for life. For those with a prior felony narcotic conviction who are convicted of trafficking in less than four ounces, my proposed legislation provides a mandatory prison term of ten years to life imprisonment. For second offenders who are convicted of trafficking in more than four ounces, I am proposing a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without parole. While four ounces of a heroin mixture may seem a very small amount to use as the criterion for major penalties, that amount is actually worth 12-15,000 dollars and would supply about 180 addicts for a day. Anyone selling four or more ounces cannot be considered a small time operator. For those who are convicted of possessing large amounts of heroin but cannot be convicted of trafficking, I am proposing a series of lesser penalties. To be sure that judges actually apply these tough sentences, my legislation would provide that the mandatory minimum sentences cannot be suspended, nor probation granted. The second portion of my proposed legislation would deny pre-trial release to those charged with trafficking in heroin or morphine unless the judicial officer finds that release will not pose a danger to the persons or property of others. It would also prohibit the release of anyone convicted of one of the above felonies who is awaiting sentencing or the results of an appeal. These are very harsh measures, to be applied within very rigid guidelines and providing only a minimum of sentencing discretion to judges. But circumstances warrant such provisions. All the evidence shows that we are now doing a more effective job in the areas of enforcement and rehabilitation. In spite of this progress, however, we find an intolerably high level of street crime being committed by addicts. Part of the reason, I believe, lies in the court system which takes over after drug pushers have been apprehended. The courts are frequently little more than an escape hatch for those who are responsible for the menace of drugs. Sometimes it seems that as fast as we bail water out of the boat through law enforcement and rehabilitation, it runs right back in through the holes in our judicial system. I intend to plug those holes. Until then, all the money we spend, all the enforcement we provide, and all the rehabilitation services we offer are not going to solve the drug problem in America. Finally, I want to emphasize my continued opposition to legalizing the possession, sale or use of marijuana. There is no question about whether marijuana is dangerous, the only question is how dangerous. While the matter is still in dispute, the only responsible governmental approach is to prevent marijuana from being legalized. I intend, as I have said before, to do just that. CONCLUSION This Nation has fought hard and sacrificed greatly to achieve a lasting peace in the world. Peace in the world, however, must be accompanied by peace in our own land. Of what ultimate value is it to end the threat to our national safety in the world if our citizens face a constant threat to their personal safety in our own streets? The American people are a law-abiding people. They have faith in the law. It is now time for Government to justify that faith by insuring that the law works, that our system of criminal justice works, and that "domestic tranquility" is preserved. I believe we have gone a long way toward erasing the apprehensions of the last decade. But we must go further if we are to achieve that peace at home which will truly complement peace abroad. In the coming months I will propose legislation aimed at curbing the manufacture and sale of cheap handguns commonly known as "Saturday night specials," I will propose reforms of the Federal criminal system to provide speedier and more rational criminal trial procedures, and I will continue to press for innovation and improvement in our correctional systems. The Federal Government cannot do everything. Indeed, it is prohibited from doing everything. But it can do a great deal. The crime legislation I will submit to the Congress can give us the tools we need to do all that we can do. This is sound, responsible legislation. I am confident that the approval of the American people for measures of the sort that I have suggested will be reflected in the actions of the Congress. RICHARD NIXON The White House, March 14, 1973.
to the congress of the united states this sixth message to the congress on the state of the union concerns our federal system of criminal justice it discusses both the progress we have made in improving that system and the additional steps we must take to consolidate our accomplishments and to further our efforts to achieve a safe just and society in the period from 1960 to 1968 serious crime in the united states increased by 122 percent according to the fbi uniform crime index the rate of increase accelerated each year until it reached a peak of 17 percent in 1968 in 1968 one major public opinion poll showed that americans considered lawlessness to be the top domestic problem facing the nation another poll showed that four out of five americans believed that law and order has broken down in this country there was a very real fear that crime and violence were becoming a threat to the stability of our society the decade of the 1960s was characterized in many quarters by a growing sense of permissiveness in america as well intentioned as it was poorly which many people were reluctant to take the steps necessary to control crime it is no coincidence that within a few years time america experienced a crime wave that threatened to become uncontrollable this administration came to office in 1969 with the conviction that the integrity of our free institutions demanded stronger and firmer crime control i promised that the wave of crime would not be the wave of the future an attack was mounted against crime in the united states the manpower of federal enforcement and prosecution agencies was increased new legislation was proposed and passed by the congress to put teeth into federal enforcement efforts against organized crime drug trafficking and crime in the district of columbia federal financial aid to state and local criminal justice systems a forerunner of revenue sharing was greatly expanded through administration budgeting and congressional appropriations reaching a total of billion in the three fiscal years from 1970 through 1972 these steps marked a clear departure from the philosophy which had come to dominate federal crime fighting efforts and which had brought america to levels of lawlessness slowly we began to bring america back the effort has been long slow and difficult in spite of the difficulties we have made dramatic progress in the last four years the department of justice has obtained convictions against more than 2500 organized crime figures including a number of bosses and in major cities across the country the pressure on the underworld is building constantly today the capital of the united states no longer bears the stigma of also being the nation crime capital as a result of decisive reforms in the criminal justice system the serious crime rate has been cut in half in washington from a peak rate of more than 200 serious crimes per day reached during one month in 1969 the figure has been cut by more than half to 93 per day for the latest month of record in 1973 felony prosecutions have increased from 2100 to 3800 and the time between arrest and trial for felonies has fallen from ten months to less than two because of the combined efforts of federal state and local agencies the wave of serious crime in the united states is being brought under control latest figures from the fbi uniform crime index show that serious crime is increasing at the rate of only one percent a year the lowest recorded rate since 1960 a majority of cities with over population have an actual reduction in crime these statistics and these indices suggest that our program is on the right track they suggest that we are taking the right measures they prove that the only way to attack crime in america is the way crime attacks our people without pity our program is based on this philosophy and it is working now we intend to maintain the momentum we have developed by taking additional steps to further improve law enforcement and to further protect the people of the united states law enforcement special revenue sharing most crime in america does not fall under federal jurisdiction those who serve in the front lines of the battle against crime are the state and local law enforcement authorities state and local police are supported in turn by many other elements of the criminal justice system including prosecuting and defending attorneys judges and probation and corrections officers all these elements need assistance and some need dramatic reform especially the prison systems while the federal government does not have full jurisdiction in the field of criminal law enforcement it does have a broad constitutional responsibility to insure domestic tranquility i intend to meet that responsibility at my direction the law enforcement assistance administration leaa has greatly expanded its efforts to aid in the improvement of state and local criminal justice systems in the last three years of the previous administration federal grants to state and local law enforcement authorities amounted to only see million in the first three years of my administration this same assistance totaled more than billion more than 67 times as much i consider this money to be an investment in justice and safety on our streets an investment which has been yielding encouraging dividends but the job has not been completed we must now act further to improve the federal role in the granting of aid for criminal justice such improvement can come with the adoption of special revenue sharing for law enforcement i believe the transition to special revenue sharing for law enforcement will be a relatively easy one since its inception the leaa has given block grants which allow state and local authorities somewhat greater discretion than does the categorical grant system but states and localities still lack both the flexibility and the clear authority they need in spending federal monies to meet their law enforcement challenges under my proposed legislation block grants technical assistance grants manpower development grants and aid for correctional institutions would be combined into one 680 million special revenue sharing fund which would be distributed to states and local governments on a formula basis this money could be used for improving any area of state and local criminal justice systems i have repeatedly expressed my conviction that decisions affecting those at state and local levels should be made to the fullest possible extent at state and local levels this is the guiding principle behind revenue sharing experience has demonstrated the validity of this approach and i urge that it now be fully applied to the field of law enforcement and criminal justice the criminal code reform act the federal criminal laws of the united states date back to 1790 and are based on statutes then pertinent to effective law enforcement with the passage of new criminal laws with the unfolding of new court decisions interpreting those laws and with the development and growth of our nation many of the concepts still reflected in our criminal laws have become inadequate clumsy or outmoded in 1966 the congress established the national commission on reform of the federal criminal laws to analyze and evaluate the criminal code the commission final report of january 7 1971 has been studied and further refined by the department of justice working with the congress in some areas this administration has substantial disagreements with the commission recommendations but we agree fully with the almost universal recognition that modification of the code is not merely desirable but absolutely imperative accordingly i will soon submit to the congress the criminal code reform act aimed at a comprehensive revision of existing federal criminal laws this act will provide a rational integrated code of federal criminal law that is workable and responsive to the demands of a modem nation the act is divided into three parts 1 general provisions and principles 2 definitions of federal offenses and 3 provisions for sentencing part 1 of the code establishes general provisions and principles regarding such matters as federal criminal jurisdiction culpability complicity and legal defenses and contains a number of significant innovations foremost among these is a more effective test for establishing federal criminal jurisdiction those circumstances giving rise to federal jurisdiction are clearly delineated in the proposed new code and the extent of jurisdiction is clearly defined i am emphatically opposed to encroachment by federal authorities on state sovereignty by unnecessarily increasing the areas over which the federal government asserts jurisdiction to the contrary jurisdiction has been relinquished in those areas where the states have demonstrated no genuine need for assistance in protecting their citizens in those instances where jurisdiction is expanded care has been taken to limit that expansion to areas of compelling federal interest which are not adequately dealt with under present law an example of such an instance would be the present law which states that it is a federal crime to travel in interstate commerce to bribe a witness in a state court proceeding but it is not a crime to travel in interstate commerce to threaten or intimidate the same witness though intimidation might even take the form of murdering the witness the federal interest is the same in each case to assist the state in safeguarding the integrity of its judicial processes in such a case an extension of federal jurisdiction is clearly warranted and is provided for under my proposal the rationalization of jurisdictional bases permits greater clarity of drafting uniformity of interpretation and the consolidation of numerous statutes presently applying to basically the same conduct for example title 18 of the criminal code as presently drawn lists some 70 theft offenses each written in a different fashion to cover the taking of various kinds of property in different jurisdictional situations in the proposed new code these have been reduced to 5 general sections almost 80 forgery counterfeiting and related offenses have been replaced by only 3 sections over 50 statutes involving perjury and false statements have been reduced to 7 sections approximately 70 arson and property destruction offenses have been consolidated into 4 offenses similar changes have been made in the code treatment of culpability instead of 79 undefined terms or combinations of terms presently found in title 18 the code uses four clearly defined terms another major innovation reflected in part one is a codification of general defenses available to a defendant this change permits clarification of areas in which the law is presently confused and for the first time provides uniform federal standards for defense the most significant feature of this chapter is a codification of the insanity defense at present the test is determined by the courts and varies across the country the standard has become so vague in some instances that it has led to unconscionable abuse by defendants my proposed new formulation would provide an insanity defense only if the defendant did not know what he was doing under this formulation which has considerable support in psychiatric and legal circles the only question considered germane in a murder case for example would be whether the defendant knew that he was pulling the trigger of a gun questions such as the existence of a mental disease or defect and whether the defendant requires treatment or deserves imprisonment would be reserved for consideration at the time of sentencing part two of the code consolidates the definitions of all federal felonies as well as certain related federal offenses of a less serious character offenses and in appropriate instances specific defenses are defined in simple concise terms and those existing provisions found to be obsolete or unusable have been eliminated for example operating a pirate ship on behalf of a foreign prince or detaining a united states carrier pigeon loopholes in existing law have been closed for example statutes concerning the theft of union funds and new offenses have been created where necessary as in the case of leaders of organized crime we have not indulged in changes merely for the sake of changes where existing law has proved satisfactory and where existing statutory language has received favorable interpretation by the courts the law and the operative language have been retained in other areas such as pornography there has been a thorough revision to reassert the federal interest in protecting our citizens the reforms set forth in parts one and two of the code would be of little practical consequence without a more realistic approach to those problems which arise in the phase of dealing with federal offenses for example the penalty structure prescribed in the present criminal code is riddled with inconsistencies and inadequacies title 18 alone provides 18 different terms of imprisonment and 14 different fines often with no discernible relationship between the possible term of imprisonment and the possible levying of a fine part three of the new code classifies offenses into 8 categories for purposes of assessing and levying imprisonment and fines it brings the present structure into line with current judgments as to the seriousness of various offenses and with the best opinions of penologists as to the efficacy of specific penalties in some instances more stringent sanctions are provided for example sentences for arson are increased from 5 to 15 years in other cases penalties are reduced for example impersonating a foreign official carries a three year sentence as opposed to the 10 year term originally prescribed to reduce the possibility of unwarranted disparities in sentencing the code establishes criteria for the imposition of sentence at the same time it provides for parole supervision after all prison sentences so that even hardened criminals who serve their full prison terms will receive supervision following their release there are certain crimes reflecting such a degree of hostility to society that a decent regard for the common welfare requires that a defendant convicted of those crimes be removed from free society for this reason my proposed new code provides mandatory minimum prison terms for trafficking in hard narcotics it provides mandatory minimum prison terms for persons using dangerous weapons in the execution of a crime and it provides mandatory minimum prison sentences for those convicted as leaders of organized crime the magnitude of the proposed revision of the federal criminal code will require careful detailed consideration by the congress i have no doubt this will be there are however two provisions in the code which i feel require immediate enactment i have thus directed that provisions relating to the death penalty and to heroin trafficking also be transmitted as separate bills in order that the congress may act more rapidly on these two measures death penalty the sharp reduction in the application of the death penalty was a component of the more permissive attitude toward crime in the last decade i do not contend that the death penalty is a panacea that will cure crime crime is the product of a variety of different circumstances sometimes social sometimes psychological but it is committed by human beings and at the point of commission it is the product of that individual motivation if the incentive not to commit crime is stronger than the incentive to commit it then logic suggests that crime will be reduced it is in part the entirely justified feeling of the prospective criminal that he will not suffer for his deed which in the present circumstances helps allow those deeds to take place federal crimes are rarely crimes of passion airplane is not done in a blind rage it has to be carefully planned the use of incendiary devices and bombs is not a crime of passion nor is kidnapping all these must be thought out in advance at present those who plan these crimes do not have to include in their deliberations the possibility that they will be put to death for their deeds i believe that in making their plans they should have to consider the fact that if a death results from their crime they too may die under those conditions i am confident that the death penalty can be a valuable deterrent by making the death penalty available we will provide federal enforcement authorities with additional leverage to dissuade those individuals who may commit a federal crime from taking the lives of others in the course of committing that crime hard experience has taught us that with due regard for the rights of all including the right to life itself we must return to a greater concern with protecting those who might otherwise be the innocent victims of violent crime than with protecting those who have committed those crimes the society which fails to recognize this as a reasonable ordering of its priorities must inevitably find itself in time at the mercy of criminals america was heading in that direction in the last decade and i believe that we must not risk returning to it again accordingly i am proposing the of the death penalty for treason sabotage and espionage and for all specifically enumerated crimes under federal jurisdiction from which death results the department of justice has examined the constitutionality of the death penalty in the light of the supreme court recent decision in furman georgia it is the department opinion that furman holds unconstitutional the imposition of the death penalty only insofar as it is applied arbitrarily and capriciously i believe the best way to accommodate the reservations of the court is to authorize the automatic imposition of the death penalty where it is warranted under the proposal drafted by the department of justice a hearing would be required after the trial for the purpose of determining the existence or nonexistence of certain rational standards which delineate aggravating factors or mitigating factors among those mitigating factors which would preclude the imposition of a death sentence are the youth of the defendant his or her mental capacity or the fact that the crime was committed under duress aggravating factors include the creation of a grave risk of danger to the national security or to the life of another person or the killing of another person during the commission of one of a circumscribed list of serious offenses such as treason kidnapping or aircraft piracy the hearing would be held before the judge who presided at the trial and before either the same jury or if circumstances require a jury specially impaneled imposition of the death penalty by the judge would be mandatory if the jury returns a special verdict finding the existence of one or more aggravating factors and the absence of any mitigating factor the death sentence is prohibited if the jury finds the existence of one or more mitigating factors current statutes containing the death penalty would be amended to eliminate the requirement for jury recommendation thus limiting the imposition of the death penalty to cases in which the legislative guidelines for its imposition clearly require it and eliminating arbitrary and capricious application of the death penalty which the supreme court has condemned in the furman case drug abuse no single law enforcement problem has occupied more time effort and money in the past four years than that of drug abuse and drug addiction we have regarded drugs as public enemy number one destroying the most precious resource we have our young people and breeding lawlessness violence and death when this administration assumed office in 1969 only 82 million was budgeted by the federal government for law enforcement prevention and rehabilitation in the field of drug abuse today that figure has been increased to 785 million for 1974 nearly 10 times as much narcotics production has been disrupted more traffickers and distributors have been put out of business and addicts and abusers have been treated and started on the road to rehabilitation since last june the supply of heroin on the east coast has been substantially reduced the scarcity of heroin in our big eastern cities has driven up the price of an average fix from to encouraging more addicts to seek medical treatment at the same time the heroin content of that fix has dropped from to percent meanwhile through my cabinet committee on international narcotics control action plans are underway to help 59 foreign countries develop and carry out their own national control programs these efforts linked with those of the bureau of customs and the bureau of narcotics and dangerous drugs have produced heartening results our worldwide narcotics seizures almost tripled in 1972 over 1971 seizures by our allies abroad are at an high in january 1972 the french seized a of heroin on a shrimp boat headed for this country argentine brazilian and venezuelan agents seized 285 pounds of heroin in three raids in 1972 and with twenty arrests crippled the existing american connection the ringleader was extradited to the by paraguay and has just begun to serve a sentence in federal prison thailand special narcotics organization recently seized a total of almost eleven tons of opium along the burmese border as well as a of morphine and heroin recently iran scored the largest opium seizure on record over 12 tons taken from smugglers along the afghanistan border turkey as a result of a courageous decision by the government under prime minister erim in 1971 has prohibited all cultivation of opium within her borders these results are all the more gratifying in light of the fact that heroin is wholly a foreign import to the united states we do not grow opium here we do not produce heroin here yet we have the largest addict population in the world clearly we will end our problem faster with continued foreign assistance our domestic accomplishments are keeping pace with international efforts and are producing equally encouraging results domestic drug seizures including seizures of marijuana and hashish almost doubled in 1972 over 1971 arrests have risen by more than and convictions have doubled in january of 1972 a new agency the office of drug abuse law enforcement dale was created within the department of justice task forces composed of investigators attorneys and special prosecuting attorneys have been assigned to more than forty cities with heroin problems dale now arrests pushers at the rate of 550 a month and has obtained 750 convictions at my direction the internal revenue service irs established a special unit to make intensive tax investigations of suspected domestic traffickers to date irs has collected 18 million in currency and property assessed tax penalties of more than 100 million and obtained 25 convictions this effort can be particularly effective in reaching the high level traffickers and financiers who never actually touch the heroin but who profit from the misery of those who do the problem of drug abuse in america is not a law enforcement problem alone under my administration the federal government has pursued a balanced comprehensive approach to ending this problem increased law enforcement efforts have been coupled with expanded treatment programs the special action office for drug abuse prevention was created to aid in preventing drug abuse before it begins and in rehabilitating those who have fallen victim to it in each year of my administration more federal dollars have been spent on treatment rehabilitation prevention and research in the field of drug abuse than has been budgeted for law enforcement in the drug field the special action office for drug abuse prevention is currently developing a special program of treatment alternatives to street crime tasc to break the vicious cycle of addiction crime arrest bail and more crime under the tasc program arrestees who are scientifically identified as may be assigned by judges to treatment programs as a condition for release on bail or as a possible alternative to prosecution federally funded treatment programs have increased from sixteen in january 1969 to a current level of 400 in the last fiscal year the special action office created more facilities for treating drug addiction than the federal government had provided in all the previous fifty years today federally funded treatment is available for addicts a year we also have sufficient funds available to expand our facilities to treat addicts if required nationwide in the last two years the rate of new addiction to heroin registered its first decline since 1964 this is a particularly important trend because it is estimated that one addict infects six of his peers the trend in deaths is also clearly on its way down my advisers report to me that virtually complete statistics show such fatalities declined approximately 6 percent in 1972 compared to 1971 in spite of these accomplishments however it is still estimated that to of all individuals arrested for street crimes continue to be narcotics abusers and addicts what this suggests is that in the area of enforcement we are still only holding our own and we must increase the tools available to do the job the work of the special action office for drug abuse prevention has aided in smoothing the large expansion of federal effort in the area of drug treatment and prevention now we must move to improve federal action in the area of law enforcement drug abuse treatment specialists have continuously emphasized in their discussions with me the need for strong effective law enforcement to restrict the availability of drugs and to punish the pusher one area where i am convinced of the need for immediate action is that of jailing heroin pushers under the bail reform act of 1966 a federal judge is precluded from considering the danger to the community when setting bail for suspects arrested for selling heroin the effect of this restriction is that many accused pushers are immediately released on bail and are thus given the opportunity to go out and create more misery generate more violence and commit more crimes while they are waiting to be tried for these same activities in a study of 422 accused violators the bureau of narcotics and dangerous drugs found that 71 percent were freed on bail for a period ranging from three months to more than one year between the time of arrest and the time of trial nearly 40 percent of the total were free for a period ranging from year to more than one year as for the major cases those involving pushers accused of trafficking in large quantities of heroin it was found that were free for over three months to year were free for year to one year and 16 percent remained free for over one year prior to their trial in most cases these individuals had criminal records had been convicted of a previous drug charge and a total of 64 percent had a record of prior felony arrests the cost of obtaining such a release in most cases was minimal 19 percent of the total sample were freed on personal recognizance and only 23 percent were required to post bonds of or more sentencing practices have also been found to be inadequate in many cases in a study of 955 narcotics drug violators who were arrested by the bureau of narcotics and dangerous drugs and convicted in the courts a total of 27 percent received sentences other than imprisonment most of these individuals were placed on probation this situation is intolerable i am therefore calling upon the congress to promptly enact a new heroin trafficking act the first part of my proposed legislation would increase the sentences for heroin and morphine offenses for a first offense of trafficking in less than four ounces of a mixture or substance containing heroin or morphine it provides a mandatory sentence of not less than five years nor more than fifteen years for a first offense of trafficking in four or more ounces it provides a mandatory sentence of not less than ten years or for life for those with a prior felony narcotic conviction who are convicted of trafficking in less than four ounces my proposed legislation provides a mandatory prison term of ten years to life imprisonment for second offenders who are convicted of trafficking in more than four ounces i am proposing a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without parole while four ounces of a heroin mixture may seem a very small amount to use as the criterion for major penalties that amount is actually worth dollars and would supply about 180 addicts for a day anyone selling four or more ounces can not be considered a small time operator for those who are convicted of possessing large amounts of heroin but can not be convicted of trafficking i am proposing a series of lesser penalties to be sure that judges actually apply these tough sentences my legislation would provide that the mandatory minimum sentences can not be suspended nor probation granted the second portion of my proposed legislation would deny release to those charged with trafficking in heroin or morphine unless the judicial officer finds that release will not pose a danger to the persons or property of others it would also prohibit the release of anyone convicted of one of the above felonies who is awaiting sentencing or the results of an appeal these are very harsh measures to be applied within very rigid guidelines and providing only a minimum of sentencing discretion to judges but circumstances warrant such provisions all the evidence shows that we are now doing a more effective job in the areas of enforcement and rehabilitation in spite of this progress however we find an intolerably high level of street crime being committed by addicts part of the reason i believe lies in the court system which takes over after drug pushers have been apprehended the courts are frequently little more than an escape hatch for those who are responsible for the menace of drugs sometimes it seems that as fast as we bail water out of the boat through law enforcement and rehabilitation it runs right back in through the holes in our judicial system i intend to plug those holes until then all the money we spend all the enforcement we provide and all the rehabilitation services we offer are not going to solve the drug problem in america finally i want to emphasize my continued opposition to legalizing the possession sale or use of marijuana there is no question about whether marijuana is dangerous the only question is how dangerous while the matter is still in dispute the only responsible governmental approach is to prevent marijuana from being legalized i intend as i have said before to do just that conclusion this nation has fought hard and sacrificed greatly to achieve a lasting peace in the world peace in the world however must be accompanied by peace in our own land of what ultimate value is it to end the threat to our national safety in the world if our citizens face a constant threat to their personal safety in our own streets the american people are a people they have faith in the law it is now time for government to justify that faith by insuring that the law works that our system of criminal justice works and that domestic tranquility is preserved i believe we have gone a long way toward erasing the apprehensions of the last decade but we must go further if we are to achieve that peace at home which will truly complement peace abroad in the coming months i will propose legislation aimed at curbing the manufacture and sale of cheap handguns commonly known as saturday night specials i will propose reforms of the federal criminal system to provide speedier and more rational criminal trial procedures and i will continue to press for innovation and improvement in our correctional systems the federal government can not do everything indeed it is prohibited from doing everything but it can do a great deal the crime legislation i will submit to the congress can give us the tools we need to do all that we can do this is sound responsible legislation i am confident that the approval of the american people for measures of the sort that i have suggested will be reflected in the actions of the congress richard nixon the white house march 14 1973
congress united states sixth message congress state union concerns federal system criminal justice discusses progress made improving system additional steps must take consolidate accomplishments efforts achieve safe society period 1960 1968 serious crime united states increased 122 percent according fbi uniform crime index rate increase accelerated year reached peak 17 percent 1968 1968 one major public opinion poll showed americans considered lawlessness top domestic problem facing nation another poll showed four five americans believed law order broken country real fear crime violence becoming threat stability society decade 1960s characterized many quarters growing sense permissiveness america well intentioned poorly many people reluctant take steps necessary control crime coincidence within years time america experienced crime wave threatened become uncontrollable administration came office 1969 conviction integrity free institutions demanded stronger firmer crime control promised wave crime would wave future attack mounted crime united states manpower federal enforcement prosecution agencies increased new legislation proposed passed congress put teeth federal enforcement efforts organized crime drug trafficking crime district columbia federal financial aid state local criminal justice systems forerunner revenue sharing greatly expanded administration budgeting congressional appropriations reaching total billion three fiscal years 1970 1972 steps marked clear departure philosophy come dominate federal crime fighting efforts brought america levels lawlessness slowly began bring america back effort long slow difficult spite difficulties made dramatic progress last four years department justice obtained convictions 2500 organized crime figures including number bosses major cities across country pressure underworld building constantly today capital united states longer bears stigma also nation crime capital result decisive reforms criminal justice system serious crime rate cut half washington peak rate 200 serious crimes per day reached one month 1969 figure cut half 93 per day latest month record 1973 felony prosecutions increased 2100 3800 time arrest trial felonies fallen ten months less two combined efforts federal state local agencies wave serious crime united states brought control latest figures fbi uniform crime index show serious crime increasing rate one percent year lowest recorded rate since 1960 majority cities population actual reduction crime statistics indices suggest program right track suggest taking right measures prove way attack crime america way crime attacks people without pity program based philosophy working intend maintain momentum developed taking additional steps improve law enforcement protect people united states law enforcement special revenue sharing crime america fall federal jurisdiction serve front lines battle crime state local law enforcement authorities state local police supported turn many elements criminal justice system including prosecuting defending attorneys judges probation corrections officers elements need assistance need dramatic reform especially prison systems federal government full jurisdiction field criminal law enforcement broad constitutional responsibility insure domestic tranquility intend meet responsibility direction law enforcement assistance administration leaa greatly expanded efforts aid improvement state local criminal justice systems last three years previous administration federal grants state local law enforcement authorities amounted see million first three years administration assistance totaled billion 67 times much consider money investment justice safety streets investment yielding encouraging dividends job completed must act improve federal role granting aid criminal justice improvement come adoption special revenue sharing law enforcement believe transition special revenue sharing law enforcement relatively easy one since inception leaa given block grants allow state local authorities somewhat greater discretion categorical grant system states localities still lack flexibility clear authority need spending federal monies meet law enforcement challenges proposed legislation block grants technical assistance grants manpower development grants aid correctional institutions would combined one 680 million special revenue sharing fund would distributed states local governments formula basis money could used improving area state local criminal justice systems repeatedly expressed conviction decisions affecting state local levels made fullest possible extent state local levels guiding principle behind revenue sharing experience demonstrated validity approach urge fully applied field law enforcement criminal justice criminal code reform act federal criminal laws united states date back 1790 based statutes pertinent effective law enforcement passage new criminal laws unfolding new court decisions interpreting laws development growth nation many concepts still reflected criminal laws become inadequate clumsy outmoded 1966 congress established national commission reform federal criminal laws analyze evaluate criminal code commission final report january 7 1971 studied refined department justice working congress areas administration substantial disagreements commission recommendations agree fully almost universal recognition modification code merely desirable absolutely imperative accordingly soon submit congress criminal code reform act aimed comprehensive revision existing federal criminal laws act provide rational integrated code federal criminal law workable responsive demands modem nation act divided three parts 1 general provisions principles 2 definitions federal offenses 3 provisions sentencing part 1 code establishes general provisions principles regarding matters federal criminal jurisdiction culpability complicity legal defenses contains number significant innovations foremost among effective test establishing federal criminal jurisdiction circumstances giving rise federal jurisdiction clearly delineated proposed new code extent jurisdiction clearly defined emphatically opposed encroachment federal authorities state sovereignty unnecessarily increasing areas federal government asserts jurisdiction contrary jurisdiction relinquished areas states demonstrated genuine need assistance protecting citizens instances jurisdiction expanded care taken limit expansion areas compelling federal interest adequately dealt present law example instance would present law states federal crime travel interstate commerce bribe witness state court proceeding crime travel interstate commerce threaten intimidate witness though intimidation might even take form murdering witness federal interest case assist state safeguarding integrity judicial processes case extension federal jurisdiction clearly warranted provided proposal rationalization jurisdictional bases permits greater clarity drafting uniformity interpretation consolidation numerous statutes presently applying basically conduct example title 18 criminal code presently drawn lists 70 theft offenses written different fashion cover taking various kinds property different jurisdictional situations proposed new code reduced 5 general sections almost 80 forgery counterfeiting related offenses replaced 3 sections 50 statutes involving perjury false statements reduced 7 sections approximately 70 arson property destruction offenses consolidated 4 offenses similar changes made code treatment culpability instead 79 undefined terms combinations terms presently found title 18 code uses four clearly defined terms another major innovation reflected part one codification general defenses available defendant change permits clarification areas law presently confused first time provides uniform federal standards defense significant feature chapter codification insanity defense present test determined courts varies across country standard become vague instances led unconscionable abuse defendants proposed new formulation would provide insanity defense defendant know formulation considerable support psychiatric legal circles question considered germane murder case example would whether defendant knew pulling trigger gun questions existence mental disease defect whether defendant requires treatment deserves imprisonment would reserved consideration time sentencing part two code consolidates definitions federal felonies well certain related federal offenses less serious character offenses appropriate instances specific defenses defined simple concise terms existing provisions found obsolete unusable eliminated example operating pirate ship behalf foreign prince detaining united states carrier pigeon loopholes existing law closed example statutes concerning theft union funds new offenses created necessary case leaders organized crime indulged changes merely sake changes existing law proved satisfactory existing statutory language received favorable interpretation courts law operative language retained areas pornography thorough revision reassert federal interest protecting citizens reforms set forth parts one two code would little practical consequence without realistic approach problems arise phase dealing federal offenses example penalty structure prescribed present criminal code riddled inconsistencies inadequacies title 18 alone provides 18 different terms imprisonment 14 different fines often discernible relationship possible term imprisonment possible levying fine part three new code classifies offenses 8 categories purposes assessing levying imprisonment fines brings present structure line current judgments seriousness various offenses best opinions penologists efficacy specific penalties instances stringent sanctions provided example sentences arson increased 5 15 years cases penalties reduced example impersonating foreign official carries three year sentence opposed 10 year term originally prescribed reduce possibility unwarranted disparities sentencing code establishes criteria imposition sentence time provides parole supervision prison sentences even hardened criminals serve full prison terms receive supervision following release certain crimes reflecting degree hostility society decent regard common welfare requires defendant convicted crimes removed free society reason proposed new code provides mandatory minimum prison terms trafficking hard narcotics provides mandatory minimum prison terms persons using dangerous weapons execution crime provides mandatory minimum prison sentences convicted leaders organized crime magnitude proposed revision federal criminal code require careful detailed consideration congress doubt however two provisions code feel require immediate enactment thus directed provisions relating death penalty heroin trafficking also transmitted separate bills order congress may act rapidly two measures death penalty sharp reduction application death penalty component permissive attitude toward crime last decade contend death penalty panacea cure crime crime product variety different circumstances sometimes social sometimes psychological committed human beings point commission product individual motivation incentive commit crime stronger incentive commit logic suggests crime reduced part entirely justified feeling prospective criminal suffer deed present circumstances helps allow deeds take place federal crimes rarely crimes passion airplane done blind rage carefully planned use incendiary devices bombs crime passion kidnapping must thought advance present plan crimes include deliberations possibility put death deeds believe making plans consider fact death results crime may die conditions confident death penalty valuable deterrent making death penalty available provide federal enforcement authorities additional leverage dissuade individuals may commit federal crime taking lives others course committing crime hard experience taught us due regard rights including right life must return greater concern protecting might otherwise innocent victims violent crime protecting committed crimes society fails recognize reasonable ordering priorities must inevitably find time mercy criminals america heading direction last decade believe must risk returning accordingly proposing death penalty treason sabotage espionage specifically enumerated crimes federal jurisdiction death results department justice examined constitutionality death penalty light supreme court recent decision furman georgia department opinion furman holds unconstitutional imposition death penalty insofar applied arbitrarily capriciously believe best way accommodate reservations court authorize automatic imposition death penalty warranted proposal drafted department justice hearing would required trial purpose determining existence nonexistence certain rational standards delineate aggravating factors mitigating factors among mitigating factors would preclude imposition death sentence youth defendant mental capacity fact crime committed duress aggravating factors include creation grave risk danger national security life another person killing another person commission one circumscribed list serious offenses treason kidnapping aircraft piracy hearing would held judge presided trial either jury circumstances require jury specially impaneled imposition death penalty judge would mandatory jury returns special verdict finding existence one aggravating factors absence mitigating factor death sentence prohibited jury finds existence one mitigating factors current statutes containing death penalty would amended eliminate requirement jury recommendation thus limiting imposition death penalty cases legislative guidelines imposition clearly require eliminating arbitrary capricious application death penalty supreme court condemned furman case drug abuse single law enforcement problem occupied time effort money past four years drug abuse drug addiction regarded drugs public enemy number one destroying precious resource young people breeding lawlessness violence death administration assumed office 1969 82 million budgeted federal government law enforcement prevention rehabilitation field drug abuse today figure increased 785 million 1974 nearly 10 times much narcotics production disrupted traffickers distributors put business addicts abusers treated started road rehabilitation since last june supply heroin east coast substantially reduced scarcity heroin big eastern cities driven price average fix encouraging addicts seek medical treatment time heroin content fix dropped percent meanwhile cabinet committee international narcotics control action plans underway help 59 foreign countries develop carry national control programs efforts linked bureau customs bureau narcotics dangerous drugs produced heartening results worldwide narcotics seizures almost tripled 1972 1971 seizures allies abroad high january 1972 french seized heroin shrimp boat headed country argentine brazilian venezuelan agents seized 285 pounds heroin three raids 1972 twenty arrests crippled existing american connection ringleader extradited paraguay begun serve sentence federal prison thailand special narcotics organization recently seized total almost eleven tons opium along burmese border well morphine heroin recently iran scored largest opium seizure record 12 tons taken smugglers along afghanistan border turkey result courageous decision government prime minister erim 1971 prohibited cultivation opium within borders results gratifying light fact heroin wholly foreign import united states grow opium produce heroin yet largest addict population world clearly end problem faster continued foreign assistance domestic accomplishments keeping pace international efforts producing equally encouraging results domestic drug seizures including seizures marijuana hashish almost doubled 1972 1971 arrests risen convictions doubled january 1972 new agency office drug abuse law enforcement dale created within department justice task forces composed investigators attorneys special prosecuting attorneys assigned forty cities heroin problems dale arrests pushers rate 550 month obtained 750 convictions direction internal revenue service irs established special unit make intensive tax investigations suspected domestic traffickers date irs collected 18 million currency property assessed tax penalties 100 million obtained 25 convictions effort particularly effective reaching high level traffickers financiers never actually touch heroin profit misery problem drug abuse america law enforcement problem alone administration federal government pursued balanced comprehensive approach ending problem increased law enforcement efforts coupled expanded treatment programs special action office drug abuse prevention created aid preventing drug abuse begins rehabilitating fallen victim year administration federal dollars spent treatment rehabilitation prevention research field drug abuse budgeted law enforcement drug field special action office drug abuse prevention currently developing special program treatment alternatives street crime tasc break vicious cycle addiction crime arrest bail crime tasc program arrestees scientifically identified may assigned judges treatment programs condition release bail possible alternative prosecution federally funded treatment programs increased sixteen january 1969 current level 400 last fiscal year special action office created facilities treating drug addiction federal government provided previous fifty years today federally funded treatment available addicts year also sufficient funds available expand facilities treat addicts required nationwide last two years rate new addiction heroin registered first decline since 1964 particularly important trend estimated one addict infects six peers trend deaths also clearly way advisers report virtually complete statistics show fatalities declined approximately 6 percent 1972 compared 1971 spite accomplishments however still estimated individuals arrested street crimes continue narcotics abusers addicts suggests area enforcement still holding must increase tools available job work special action office drug abuse prevention aided smoothing large expansion federal effort area drug treatment prevention must move improve federal action area law enforcement drug abuse treatment specialists continuously emphasized discussions need strong effective law enforcement restrict availability drugs punish pusher one area convinced need immediate action jailing heroin pushers bail reform act 1966 federal judge precluded considering danger community setting bail suspects arrested selling heroin effect restriction many accused pushers immediately released bail thus given opportunity go create misery generate violence commit crimes waiting tried activities study 422 accused violators bureau narcotics dangerous drugs found 71 percent freed bail period ranging three months one year time arrest time trial nearly 40 percent total free period ranging year one year major cases involving pushers accused trafficking large quantities heroin found free three months year free year one year 16 percent remained free one year prior trial cases individuals criminal records convicted previous drug charge total 64 percent record prior felony arrests cost obtaining release cases minimal 19 percent total sample freed personal recognizance 23 percent required post bonds sentencing practices also found inadequate many cases study 955 narcotics drug violators arrested bureau narcotics dangerous drugs convicted courts total 27 percent received sentences imprisonment individuals placed probation situation intolerable therefore calling upon congress promptly enact new heroin trafficking act first part proposed legislation would increase sentences heroin morphine offenses first offense trafficking less four ounces mixture substance containing heroin morphine provides mandatory sentence less five years fifteen years first offense trafficking four ounces provides mandatory sentence less ten years life prior felony narcotic conviction convicted trafficking less four ounces proposed legislation provides mandatory prison term ten years life imprisonment second offenders convicted trafficking four ounces proposing mandatory sentence life imprisonment without parole four ounces heroin mixture may seem small amount use criterion major penalties amount actually worth dollars would supply 180 addicts day anyone selling four ounces considered small time operator convicted possessing large amounts heroin convicted trafficking proposing series lesser penalties sure judges actually apply tough sentences legislation would provide mandatory minimum sentences suspended probation granted second portion proposed legislation would deny release charged trafficking heroin morphine unless judicial officer finds release pose danger persons property others would also prohibit release anyone convicted one felonies awaiting sentencing results appeal harsh measures applied within rigid guidelines providing minimum sentencing discretion judges circumstances warrant provisions evidence shows effective job areas enforcement rehabilitation spite progress however find intolerably high level street crime committed addicts part reason believe lies court system takes drug pushers apprehended courts frequently little escape hatch responsible menace drugs sometimes seems fast bail water boat law enforcement rehabilitation runs right back holes judicial system intend plug holes money spend enforcement provide rehabilitation services offer going solve drug problem america finally want emphasize continued opposition legalizing possession sale use marijuana question whether marijuana dangerous question dangerous matter still dispute responsible governmental approach prevent marijuana legalized intend said conclusion nation fought hard sacrificed greatly achieve lasting peace world peace world however must accompanied peace land ultimate value end threat national safety world citizens face constant threat personal safety streets american people people faith law time government justify faith insuring law works system criminal justice works domestic tranquility preserved believe gone long way toward erasing apprehensions last decade must go achieve peace home truly complement peace abroad coming months propose legislation aimed curbing manufacture sale cheap handguns commonly known saturday night specials propose reforms federal criminal system provide speedier rational criminal trial procedures continue press innovation improvement correctional systems federal government everything indeed prohibited everything great deal crime legislation submit congress give us tools need sound responsible legislation confident approval american people measures sort suggested reflected actions congress richard nixon white house march 14 1973
congress united state sixth message congress state union concern federal system criminal justice discusses progress make improve system additional step must take consolidate accomplishment effort achieve safe society period 1960 1968 serious crime united state increase 122 percent accord fbi uniform crime index rate increase accelerate year reach peak 17 percent 1968 1968 one major public opinion poll show american consider lawlessness top domestic problem face nation another poll show four five american believe law order broken country real fear crime violence become threat stability society decade 1960s characterize many quarter grow sense permissiveness america well intentioned poorly many people reluctant take step necessary control crime coincidence within year time america experience crime wave threaten become uncontrollable administration come office 1969 conviction integrity free institution demand strong firm crime control promise wave crime would wave future attack mount crime united state manpower federal enforcement prosecution agency increase new legislation propose pass congress put teeth federal enforcement effort organize crime drug traffic crime district columbia federal financial aid state local criminal justice system forerunner revenue share greatly expand administration budget congressional appropriation reach total billion three fiscal year 1970 1972 step mark clear departure philosophy come dominate federal crime fight effort bring america level lawlessness slowly begin bring america back effort long slow difficult spite difficulty make dramatic progress last four year department justice obtain conviction 2500 organize crime figure include number boss major city across country pressure underworld build constantly today capital united state longer bear stigma also nation crime capital result decisive reform criminal justice system serious crime rate cut half washington peak rate 200 serious crime per day reach one month 1969 figure cut half 93 per day late month record 1973 felony prosecution increase 2100 3800 time arrest trial felony fall ten month less two combined effort federal state local agency wave serious crime united state bring control late figure fbi uniform crime index show serious crime increase rate one percent year lowest record rate since 1960 majority city population actual reduction crime statistic index suggest program right track suggest take right measure prove way attack crime america way crime attack people without pity program base philosophy work intend maintain momentum develop take additional step improve law enforcement protect people united state law enforcement special revenue share crime america fall federal jurisdiction serve front line battle crime state local law enforcement authority state local police support turn many element criminal justice system include prosecute defend attorney judge probation correction officer element need assistance need dramatic reform especially prison system federal government full jurisdiction field criminal law enforcement broad constitutional responsibility insure domestic tranquility intend meet responsibility direction law enforcement assistance administration leaa greatly expand effort aid improvement state local criminal justice system last three year previous administration federal grant state local law enforcement authority amount see million first three year administration assistance total billion 67 time much consider money investment justice safety street investment yield encouraging dividend job complete must act improve federal role grant aid criminal justice improvement come adoption special revenue share law enforcement believe transition special revenue share law enforcement relatively easy one since inception leaa give block grant allow state local authority somewhat great discretion categorical grant system state locality still lack flexibility clear authority need spend federal monies meet law enforcement challenge propose legislation block grant technical assistance grant manpower development grant aid correctional institution would combine one 680 million special revenue share fund would distribute state local government formula basis money could use improve area state local criminal justice system repeatedly express conviction decision affect state local level make full possible extent state local level guide principle behind revenue share experience demonstrate validity approach urge fully apply field law enforcement criminal justice criminal code reform act federal criminal law united state date back 1790 base statute pertinent effective law enforcement passage new criminal law unfold new court decision interpret law development growth nation many concept still reflect criminal law become inadequate clumsy outmode 1966 congress establish national commission reform federal criminal law analyze evaluate criminal code commission final report january 7 1971 study refine department justice work congress area administration substantial disagreement commission recommendation agree fully almost universal recognition modification code merely desirable absolutely imperative accordingly soon submit congress criminal code reform act aim comprehensive revision exist federal criminal law act provide rational integrated code federal criminal law workable responsive demand modem nation act divide three part 1 general provision principles 2 definition federal offense 3 provision sentence part 1 code establishes general provision principle regard matter federal criminal jurisdiction culpability complicity legal defense contain number significant innovation foremost among effective test establish federal criminal jurisdiction circumstance give rise federal jurisdiction clearly delineate proposed new code extent jurisdiction clearly define emphatically oppose encroachment federal authority state sovereignty unnecessarily increase area federal government assert jurisdiction contrary jurisdiction relinquish area state demonstrate genuine need assistance protect citizen instance jurisdiction expand care take limit expansion area compel federal interest adequately dealt present law example instance would present law state federal crime travel interstate commerce bribe witness state court proceed crime travel interstate commerce threaten intimidate witness though intimidation might even take form murder witness federal interest case assist state safeguard integrity judicial process case extension federal jurisdiction clearly warrant provide proposal rationalization jurisdictional base permit great clarity draft uniformity interpretation consolidation numerous statute presently apply basically conduct example title 18 criminal code presently draw list 70 theft offense write different fashion cover take various kind property different jurisdictional situation propose new code reduce 5 general section almost 80 forgery counterfeiting related offense replace 3 section 50 statute involve perjury false statement reduce 7 section approximately 70 arson property destruction offense consolidate 4 offense similar change make code treatment culpability instead 79 undefined term combination term presently find title 18 code use four clearly define term another major innovation reflect part one codification general defenses available defendant change permit clarification area law presently confuse first time provide uniform federal standard defense significant feature chapter codification insanity defense present test determine court varies across country standard become vague instance lead unconscionable abuse defendant propose new formulation would provide insanity defense defendant know formulation considerable support psychiatric legal circle question consider germane murder case example would whether defendant knew pull trigger gun question existence mental disease defect whether defendant require treatment deserves imprisonment would reserve consideration time sentence part two code consolidates definition federal felony well certain related federal offense less serious character offense appropriate instance specific defense define simple concise term exist provision find obsolete unusable eliminate example operate pirate ship behalf foreign prince detain united state carrier pigeon loopholes exist law close example statute concern theft union fund new offense create necessary case leader organize crime indulge change merely sake change exist law prove satisfactory exist statutory language receive favorable interpretation court law operative language retain area pornography thorough revision reassert federal interest protect citizen reform set forth part one two code would little practical consequence without realistic approach problem arise phase deal federal offense example penalty structure prescribe present criminal code riddle inconsistency inadequacy title 18 alone provide 18 different term imprisonment 14 different fine often discernible relationship possible term imprisonment possible levy fine part three new code classify offenses 8 category purpose assess levy imprisonment fine brings present structure line current judgment seriousness various offense best opinion penologist efficacy specific penalty instance stringent sanction provide example sentence arson increase 5 15 year case penalty reduce example impersonate foreign official carry three year sentence oppose 10 year term originally prescribe reduce possibility unwarranted disparity sentence code establishes criteria imposition sentence time provide parole supervision prison sentence even harden criminal serve full prison term receive supervision follow release certain crime reflect degree hostility society decent regard common welfare require defendant convict crime remove free society reason propose new code provide mandatory minimum prison term traffic hard narcotic provide mandatory minimum prison term person use dangerous weapon execution crime provide mandatory minimum prison sentence convict leader organize crime magnitude propose revision federal criminal code require careful detailed consideration congress doubt however two provision code feel require immediate enactment thus direct provision relate death penalty heroin trafficking also transmit separate bill order congress may act rapidly two measure death penalty sharp reduction application death penalty component permissive attitude toward crime last decade contend death penalty panacea cure crime crime product variety different circumstance sometimes social sometimes psychological committed human being point commission product individual motivation incentive commit crime strong incentive commit logic suggest crime reduce part entirely justify feel prospective criminal suffer deed present circumstance help allow deed take place federal crime rarely crimes passion airplane do blind rage carefully plan use incendiary device bomb crime passion kidnap must think advance present plan crime include deliberation possibility put death deed believe make plan consider fact death result crime may die condition confident death penalty valuable deterrent make death penalty available provide federal enforcement authority additional leverage dissuade individual may commit federal crime take life others course commit crime hard experience teach u due regard right include right life must return great concern protect might otherwise innocent victim violent crime protect committed crime society fail recognize reasonable order priority must inevitably find time mercy criminal america head direction last decade believe must risk return accordingly propose death penalty treason sabotage espionage specifically enumerate crime federal jurisdiction death result department justice examine constitutionality death penalty light supreme court recent decision furman georgia department opinion furman hold unconstitutional imposition death penalty insofar apply arbitrarily capriciously believe best way accommodate reservation court authorize automatic imposition death penalty warrant proposal draft department justice hear would require trial purpose determine existence nonexistence certain rational standard delineate aggravating factor mitigate factor among mitigating factor would preclude imposition death sentence youth defendant mental capacity fact crime commit duress aggravating factor include creation grave risk danger national security life another person kill another person commission one circumscribed list serious offense treason kidnap aircraft piracy hear would hold judge preside trial either jury circumstance require jury specially impaneled imposition death penalty judge would mandatory jury return special verdict find existence one aggravating factor absence mitigate factor death sentence prohibit jury find existence one mitigating factor current statute contain death penalty would amend eliminate requirement jury recommendation thus limit imposition death penalty case legislative guideline imposition clearly require eliminate arbitrary capricious application death penalty supreme court condemn furman case drug abuse single law enforcement problem occupy time effort money past four year drug abuse drug addiction regard drug public enemy number one destroy precious resource young people breed lawlessness violence death administration assume office 1969 82 million budget federal government law enforcement prevention rehabilitation field drug abuse today figure increase 785 million 1974 nearly 10 time much narcotic production disrupt trafficker distributor put business addict abuser treat started road rehabilitation since last june supply heroin east coast substantially reduce scarcity heroin big eastern city drive price average fix encouraging addict seek medical treatment time heroin content fix drop percent meanwhile cabinet committee international narcotic control action plan underway help 59 foreign country develop carry national control program effort link bureau custom bureau narcotic dangerous drug produce hearten result worldwide narcotic seizure almost triple 1972 1971 seizure ally abroad high january 1972 french seize heroin shrimp boat head country argentine brazilian venezuelan agent seize 285 pound heroin three raid 1972 twenty arrest cripple exist american connection ringleader extradite paraguay begin serve sentence federal prison thailand special narcotic organization recently seize total almost eleven ton opium along burmese border well morphine heroin recently iran score large opium seizure record 12 ton take smuggler along afghanistan border turkey result courageous decision government prime minister erim 1971 prohibit cultivation opium within border result gratify light fact heroin wholly foreign import unite state grow opium produce heroin yet large addict population world clearly end problem faster continue foreign assistance domestic accomplishment keep pace international effort produce equally encouraging result domestic drug seizure include seizure marijuana hashish almost double 1972 1971 arrest rise conviction double january 1972 new agency office drug abuse law enforcement dale create within department justice task force compose investigator attorney special prosecute attorney assign forty city heroin problem dale arrest pusher rate 550 month obtain 750 conviction direction internal revenue service irs establish special unit make intensive tax investigation suspect domestic trafficker date irs collect 18 million currency property assess tax penalty 100 million obtain 25 conviction effort particularly effective reach high level trafficker financier never actually touch heroin profit misery problem drug abuse america law enforcement problem alone administration federal government pursue balanced comprehensive approach end problem increase law enforcement effort couple expanded treatment program special action office drug abuse prevention create aid prevent drug abuse begin rehabilitate fall victim year administration federal dollar spend treatment rehabilitation prevention research field drug abuse budget law enforcement drug field special action office drug abuse prevention currently develop special program treatment alternative street crime tasc break vicious cycle addiction crime arrest bail crime tasc program arrestees scientifically identify may assign judge treatment program condition release bail possible alternative prosecution federally fund treatment program increase sixteen january 1969 current level 400 last fiscal year special action office create facility treat drug addiction federal government provide previous fifty year today federally fund treatment available addict year also sufficient fund available expand facility treat addict require nationwide last two year rate new addiction heroin register first decline since 1964 particularly important trend estimate one addict infect six peer trend death also clearly way adviser report virtually complete statistic show fatality decline approximately 6 percent 1972 compare 1971 spite accomplishment however still estimate individual arrest street crime continue narcotic abuser addict suggest area enforcement still hold must increase tool available job work special action office drug abuse prevention aid smooth large expansion federal effort area drug treatment prevention must move improve federal action area law enforcement drug abuse treatment specialist continuously emphasize discussion need strong effective law enforcement restrict availability drug punish pusher one area convince need immediate action jail heroin pusher bail reform act 1966 federal judge preclude consider danger community set bail suspect arrest sell heroin effect restriction many accuse pusher immediately release bail thus give opportunity go create misery generate violence commit crime wait tried activity study 422 accused violator bureau narcotic dangerous drug find 71 percent free bail period range three month one year time arrest time trial nearly 40 percent total free period range year one year major case involve pusher accuse traffic large quantity heroin find free three month year free year one year 16 percent remain free one year prior trial case individual criminal record convict previous drug charge total 64 percent record prior felony arrest cost obtain release case minimal 19 percent total sample free personal recognizance 23 percent require post bond sentence practice also find inadequate many case study 955 narcotic drug violator arrest bureau narcotic dangerous drug convict court total 27 percent receive sentence imprisonment individual place probation situation intolerable therefore call upon congress promptly enact new heroin trafficking act first part propose legislation would increase sentence heroin morphine offense first offense traffic less four ounce mixture substance contain heroin morphine provide mandatory sentence less five year fifteen year first offense traffic four ounce provide mandatory sentence less ten year life prior felony narcotic conviction convict traffic less four ounce propose legislation provide mandatory prison term ten year life imprisonment second offender convict traffic four ounce propose mandatory sentence life imprisonment without parole four ounce heroin mixture may seem small amount use criterion major penalty amount actually worth dollar would supply 180 addict day anyone sell four ounce consider small time operator convict possess large amount heroin convict traffic propose series less penalty sure judge actually apply tough sentence legislation would provide mandatory minimum sentence suspend probation grant second portion propose legislation would deny release charge traffic heroin morphine unless judicial officer find release pose danger person property others would also prohibit release anyone convict one felony await sentence result appeal harsh measure apply within rigid guideline provide minimum sentencing discretion judge circumstance warrant provision evidence show effective job area enforcement rehabilitation spite progress however find intolerably high level street crime commit addict part reason believe lie court system take drug pusher apprehend court frequently little escape hatch responsible menace drug sometimes seem fast bail water boat law enforcement rehabilitation run right back hole judicial system intend plug hole money spend enforcement provide rehabilitation service offer go solve drug problem america finally want emphasize continued opposition legalize possession sale use marijuana question whether marijuana dangerous question dangerous matter still dispute responsible governmental approach prevent marijuana legalize intend say conclusion nation fought hard sacrifice greatly achieve last peace world peace world however must accompany peace land ultimate value end threat national safety world citizens face constant threat personal safety street american people people faith law time government justify faith insure law work system criminal justice work domestic tranquility preserve believe go long way toward erase apprehension last decade must go achieve peace home truly complement peace abroad come month propose legislation aim curb manufacture sale cheap handguns commonly know saturday night special propose reform federal criminal system provide speedy rational criminal trial procedure continue press innovation improvement correctional system federal government everything indeed prohibit everything great deal crime legislation submit congress give u tool need sound responsible legislation confident approval american people measure sort suggest reflected action congress richard nixon white house march 14 1973