[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 44 (Wednesday, April 20, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: April 20, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                             THE CRIME BILL

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, in the absence of any other Senator in 
the Chamber seeking recognition on the pending amendment, I have sought 
recognition to speak relatively briefly on the pending crime 
legislation which is now in the House, the crime bill having been 
passed by the Senate, a bill which will soon be in a House-Senate 
conference committee.
  I have sought recognition to express my distress, noting yesterday's 
action in the House to remove provisions to reform the procedures on 
Federal habeas corpus, the Latin term meaning to produce the body, 
which is the way that defendants convicted in State courts challenge 
their death sentences in Federal courts after they have been upheld in 
the State courts.
  I am concerned that neither the Senate nor the House crime bill will 
be addressing this very important issue because currently, the way the 
Federal appeals process works, under habeas corpus there are lengthy 
delays, up to 17 years, in carrying out death sentences, which has 
eliminated the effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent.
  Based on my experience as district attorney of the city of 
Philadelphia for two terms, 8 years, I am convinced that the death 
penalty is a deterrent. I say that because of so many cases which I 
have seen where professional burglars would not carry weapons for fear 
they will kill someone in the course of a burglary and face a first 
degree felony murder charge, or young hoodlums who would not carry guns 
in the course of robberies because they were fearful that they would 
kill somebody and face the potential first-degree murder charge for 
felony murder.
  The death penalty has really been the flagship. It has been, as the 
extreme penalty, the guidepost of the seriousness of the criminal 
justice system.
  Now, in making this presentation, Mr. President, I am aware that 
there are many people in the United States who are opposed to the death 
penalty, although the current polls show that more than 70 percent of 
Americans do favor it. I believe that the death penalty has to be 
imposed very, very carefully and that we have to be sure that there is 
no overtone of racial injustice; and we have to be sure that the tough, 
tight guidelines of the Supreme Court of the United States, under which 
the aggravating circumstances of the crime are measured against the 
mitigating circumstances, are complied with, where the Supreme Court in 
the course of the past quarter of a century has laid down very 
stringent rules for the imposition of the death penalty that are sound.
  When I was district attorney of Philadelphia and had more than 500 
homicides a year, I would not allow an assistant to ask for the death 
penalty without my personal approval. Currently, however, we have some 
2,800 people on death row, and the death penalty is carried out on such 
a small number of people, 38 last year, it is not a realistic deterrent 
to violent crime. We know that to be an effective deterrent, punishment 
must be swift and must be certain. And not only is the death penalty 
not currently an effective deterrent, but as the most visible mark of 
our criminal justice system it really makes the criminal courts a 
laughingstock, telling defendants that society is really not at all 
serious about law enforcement and punishment for crime.
  I offered an amendment to reform habeas corpus procedures, which was 
taken up separately as the Senate considered its crime bill, but that 
measure was tabled. It is my hope, Mr. President, that we will revisit 
this subject soon, because I think there are ways to be fair to 
defendants, to guarantee them adequate counsel, but not to have these 
cases languish for up to 17 years, where it is unfair to everyone 
involved. It is unfair to the victims' families, who wait and wait and 
wait, when the incident of a murder of a loved one is not brought to a 
close.
  It is also unfair to the defendants. An international court of 
justice, the European Court on Human Rights, has decreed that the long 
delays in carrying out death sentences in this country are unfair to 
defendants themselves, that the a lapse of some 8 or 9 years or more 
constitutes cruel and inhumane punishment of criminal defendants. That 
arose in a case where the State of Virginia sought extradition from the 
United Kingdom, and the European Court on Human Rights said it would 
not allow the extradition to Virginia unless Virginia authorities made 
the commitment not to impose the death penalty.
  So there are strong indications of unfairness to all those involved 
in the current process, and certainly unfairness to society when the 
death penalty is not imposed as the laws of 37 States say that it 
should be imposed.
  I want to make a brief comment, Mr. President, on the pendency of the 
crime bill with respect to mandatory minimum sentences. I believe that 
mandatory sentences are appropriate in some circumstances. But I 
believe that our current legislative proposals are overdoing it. There 
is a great reliance on the glib phrase ``three strikes and you are 
out,'' which I suggest is overly simplistic.
  When I was district attorney of Philadelphia, I sought to have the 
Pennsylvania habitual offender statute imposed to give life sentences 
for criminals who had three or more serious offenses. I found as a 
practical fact of life in criminal courts that when these cases came 
up, the judges were unwilling to impose the life sentence because they 
felt that the defendant as an individual had not been dealt with 
fairly. The hallmark of American justice--and I think it is sound--is 
that the administration of the criminal laws are individualistic. That 
is why I proposed in the budget resolution--I will be brief, because I 
see my colleague, Senator Leahy, on the floor, the very distinguished 
former prosecuting attorney from Burlington. I think Senator Leahy and 
I could rewrite the crime code. We might have something that many 
people could agree with.
  But I want to make this point, and I shall it make it briefly with 
respect to the issue of ``three strikes and you are out''.
  I succeeded in offering an amendment on the budget resolution to 
transfer $100 billion from government consultants to programs for 
literacy training and job training for convicts in prison because I 
think it is no surprise that when a functional illiterate leaves jail 
without a trade or skill, that that person goes back to a life of 
crime.
  I think we have to teach inmates how to read and write and offer them 
a basic trade skill. If the person then goes back and commits a second 
offense, and has another chance at his particular rehabilitation, and 
goes back and commits a third offense, then I think it is fair for 
society to ask for a life sentence.
  The public does not want to hear about rehabilitation for 
individuals, although I think there is a point to that. But I think the 
public is willing to have realistic rehabilitation to take individuals 
out of the crime cycle so that person will not commit repeated 
offenses, recognizing that some 70 percent of violent crimes are 
committed by career criminals who commit two or three robberies or 
burglaries a day.
  I think the public would be willing to support literacy and job 
training for inmates so that the stage is set if a person comes back as 
a career criminal, having committed three or more major offenses, that 
that individual then would be subject to and would receive a life 
sentence to take that person out of society.
  In concluding, Mr. President, I do not know how many people are 
watching on C-SPAN 2, but I would like to say that we Members of the 
Senate read our mail. So do Members of the House of Representatives. I 
think there is not sufficient public awareness of the point that I made 
about the carrying out of the death penalty. When the public hears so 
much about the crime bill, there is a lack of understanding that in the 
Senate, the provision to curb Federal appeals in capital cases and to 
cut down on the delays associated with them was excluded. And just 
yesterday, in the House of Representatives, that provision was again 
excluded.
  So I would ask people who are watching on C-SPAN today, who agree 
with the proposition that the death penalty ought to be carried out 
because it is a deterrent, and people who disagree with the long delays 
of carrying out the death penalty of up to some 17 years, and the 
attendant unfairness to the victims' families--and also, as the 
European Court on Human Rights found, to the defendants--that they will 
take the time to write to their Representatives and Senators, and try 
to put some public pressure, public expression of sentiment, behind 
this very, very important issue.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dorgan). The Senator from Vermont [Mr. 
Leahy].

                          ____________________