[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 90 (Wednesday, July 13, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: July 13, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
STATEMENT OF NORMAN A. CARLSON, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF 
                               MINNESOTA

 Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, in the midst of all our efforts on 
crime, someone gave me a copy of the testimony of Norman A. Carlson, 
former Director of the Bureau of Prisons and now a professor of 
sociology at the University of Minnesota.
  From his years of experience, he gives us some common sense.
  All of us who work with him know that he was highly regarded by 
everyone in Congress and in the administration.
  He points out, among other things, that when he retired in 1987, 
there were 43,500 inmates and 47 Federal institutions. As of 1993, when 
he testified, there were more than 76,000 offenders in 73 Federal 
prisons.
  Most important, he says:

       I believe that most individuals who seriously examine the 
     Federal criminal justice system would conclude that minimum-
     mandatory sentences have produced results which have not 
     served the public interest and are costing the taxpayers a 
     tremendous amount of money.

  He also points out in his statement that 26 percent of all Federal 
prisoners are non-United States citizens.
  I urge my colleagues, who are seriously concerned about our crime 
problem and the use of our penal facilities to read the Norm Carlson 
statement.
  At this point, I ask that his full statement of May 12, 1993, be 
entered into the Record.
  The statement follows:

                  Statement of Prof. Norman A. Carlson

       Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, it's a pleasure for 
     me to appear before you once again. During my tenure as 
     Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, I had an 
     opportunity to testify before this committee on a regular 
     basis and discuss a number of legislative and oversight 
     issues. I want to again express appreciation for the support, 
     assistance and encouragement you provided during those years.
       While I've been retired for nearly six years, I continue to 
     be an interested observer of the Federal criminal justice 
     system. My interest relates in part to the fact that I teach 
     in the area of criminal justice at the University of 
     Minnesota. In addition, I have strong attachments to the men 
     and women who are employed by in the Department of Justice--
     both in the Bureau of Prisons as well as the other divisions 
     and agencies. They are, in my opinion, an exceptionally 
     talented and dedicated group of public servants--a group that 
     I am proud to have been associated with during my 30 year 
     career.
       Since retiring, my only official contact with the federal 
     system occurred during 1989 and 1990 when I Chaired an 
     Advisory Group established by the United States Sentencing 
     Commission to explore the possibility of expanding 
     intermediate punishments for federal offenders. In connection 
     with that assignment, I had an opportunity to become familiar 
     with the effect Sentencing Guidelines and Minimum-Mandatory 
     sentences are having on the system. In addition to reviewing 
     available data concerning those initiatives, I learned of 
     their human impact and the tremendous frustration that is 
     experienced by prosecutors, Federal Judges, U.S. Probation 
     Officers and the staff of the Bureau of Prisons because of 
     the absence of discretion in sentencing.
       I don't have to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that the population 
     of Federal prisons has dramatically increased during these 
     past six years. When I retired in July 1987, there were 
     43,500 inmates confined in 47 federal institutions. Today, 
     there are over 76,000 offenders incarcerated in 73 
     facilities. Despite the fact 50,000 additional beds have been 
     or will be added in the future at a cost of over $3.2 
     Billion, federal prisons are more overcrowded today than when 
     I left. While the increase is unprecedented, the future is 
     even more alarming. Unless there are fundamental changes in 
     the criminal justice system, there will be over 115,000 
     federal prisoners by 1999 according to current projections.
       From personal experience, I can tell you that severe 
     overcrowding exacerbates the tensions and frustrations that 
     are found in any place of confinement. Beyond limiting the 
     amount of living space available for inmates, overcrowding 
     taxes the support areas such as food service and medical 
     care. More importantly, it creates idleness because existing 
     work and educational programs, which are already limited, 
     cannot accommodate the additional population pressure.
       The population explosion during the past six years is 
     directly attributable to two factors; One, minimum-mandatory 
     sentences contained in the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 and 
     two, sentencing guidelines established by the Sentencing 
     Reform Act. These two acts have resulted in a significant 
     reduction in the use of probation--even for first offenders--
     and a dramatic increase in the length of time many inmates--
     particularly drug offenders--will spend in prison.
       There has also been a significant change in the composition 
     of the federal prison population during the past several 
     decades. When I became Director in 1970, Armed Bank Robbery 
     and Drug Laws were the largest offense categories, each 
     constituting approximately 16 percent of the total 
     population. Today, narcotic violators are, by an over-
     whelming margin, the largest category constituting over 60 
     percent of the population. In terms of background, over 50 
     percent of the drug violators now in federal prison are 
     serving their first sentence. Data from the U.S. Sentencing 
     Commission indicates that 60 percent of all the drug 
     violators fall into the lowest of the six criminal history 
     categories used by the Commission in determining sentence 
     length. These facts would appear to suggest that at least 
     some of these offenders may not constitute a significant 
     threat to the public.
       No one disputes the fact that prisons and jails are 
     important and necessary components in our nation's criminal 
     justice system. They are, without question, needed to confine 
     violent and dangerous offenders as well as those who 
     repeatedly violate our laws. Having said that, however, we 
     must also look at the economic costs of building and 
     operating prisons. No matter how safe, humane and well 
     managed they are, prisons will always be a scarce--and very 
     expensive--resource in the system. As is the case with any 
     scarce resource, we need to insure that prisons are utilized 
     in a manner which maximizes their contribution to public 
     safety. Simply locking up more and more offenders for longer 
     and longer periods of time is, in my opinion, not a rational 
     response. Instead of simply continuing to build prisons, we 
     should, first of all, insure that space is available for 
     violent and dangerous inmates who require incarceration and 
     find other means of punishing less serious offenders who can 
     be dealt with in more cost-effective ways from the standpoint 
     of the taxpayer.
       I believe that most individuals who seriously examine the 
     Federal criminal justice system would conclude that minimum-
     mandatory sentences have produced results which have not 
     served the public interest and are costing the taxpayers a 
     tremendous amount of money. While recognizing that the 
     certainty of locking offenders up for long periods of time 
     may appear to have surface validity, minimum-mandatory 
     sentences are, in my opinion, based on several false 
     assumptions. First, all offenders are not alike--some have 
     long histories of anti-social and predatory behavior, others 
     are non-threatening individuals with little or no prior 
     criminal record. To impose similar minimum-mandatory 
     sentences on disparate individuals is both unwise and unjust. 
     Secondly, all offenses are not the same. Even though the 
     specific acts may violate a common statute, some crimes 
     present a much more serious threat to the public and deserve 
     harsher punishment. Finally, I am aware of no empirical 
     evidence which suggests that the threat of lengthy minimum-
     mandatory sentences has a demonstrable deterrent effect on 
     potential violators in the community.
       Further compounding the problem is the fact that the 
     minimum-mandatory sentences serve as a major force driving up 
     the guidelines developed by the U.S. Sentencing Commission. 
     In an attempt to conform with Congressional action, the 
     Commission established the minimum-mandatory as the lowest 
     guideline sentence. In effect, this has resulted in a 
     ``ratcheting'' up of all guideline sentences where 
     mandatories are included in the statute.
       For these reasons, I would urge the committee to re-
     consider minimum-mandatory sentences, particularly for drug 
     law violators. In my opinion, they are contributing to the 
     present crisis in the Federal criminal justice system. 
     Studies have demonstrated that the possibility of such 
     sentences frequently results in circumvention by prosecutors 
     and occasionally by juries. All too often, they result in the 
     imposition of prison terms that virtually everyone agrees are 
     unduly harsh given the facts of the crime and the background 
     of the offender.
       One additional issue that I would suggest the committee 
     consider relates to the fact that 26 percent of all federal 
     prisoners are non-U.S. citizens. The vast majority of these 
     offenders have been committed for drug law violations. While 
     there unquestionably are major traffickers included in this 
     group who should be confined for many years, a substantial 
     percentage are low level ``mules'' who were recruited by 
     others to smuggle drugs. Even though a period of confinement 
     may be necessary I question keeping them in federal prison 
     for 5, 10, or even 20 years at a cost to the U.S. taxpayers 
     of over $20,000 per year. In addition to the cost factor, one 
     must also keep in mind that their continued incarceration 
     means that over a quarter of all federal prison space is not 
     available for offenders who may constitute a far greater 
     threat to the public safety. In my opinion, it makes little 
     sense to use scarce and expensive U.S. prison capacity to 
     incarcerate relatively low level, non-violent foreign 
     offenders for long periods of time. A number of state prison 
     systems, particularly California, New York, Florida and Texas 
     are experiencing similar problems with non-U.S. citizens 
     taking up substantial amounts of prison capacity. In this 
     connection, I was pleased to note that several members of 
     this committee have introduced H.R. 1459 entitled ``The 
     Criminal Aliens Deportation Act of 1993''. I believe the 
     Congress should address this issue, particularly the impact 
     non U.S. citizens have on prison and jail capacity.
       This concludes my formal statement, Mr. Chairman. I'd be 
     pleased to respond to any questions you and your colleagues 
     may have.

                          ____________________