[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 115 (Tuesday, August 16, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 16, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                 A LETTER IN SUPPORT OF THE CRIME BILL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
February 11, 1994, and June 10, 1994, the gentleman from South Carolina 
[Mr. Derrick] is recognized during morning business for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I received a faxed letter from 
Carlos and Sharon Luria of Salem, SC, a small town in my district. I 
would like to read it to you.

       Sharon and I would like to congratulate you on supporting 
     the President's crime bill even though, as you were 
     subsequently quoted as saying, there is little downside in 
     saying ``no'' to him. You put the broader interests of the 
     Nation ahead of narrow political concerns, and we admire you 
     for it. I would also like you to know that I am a hunter who 
     once supported the NRA but quit that organization in disgust 
     over its obdurate stand on assault weapons.
       While so many seem to deride the social programs that are 
     incorporated into the crime bill, we support these measures 
     strongly. Building more prisons and putting more police 
     officers on the street are necessary to stem the bleeding, 
     but they don't keep the wounds from happening in the first 
     place.
       We whole-heartedly support early intervention programs that 
     work with kids when they first begin to evidence antisocial 
     behavior. Sharon works with abused children in a local 
     program called Helping Hands and sees the difference it makes 
     at first hand.

  It is good to hear from people like Sharon and Carlos, who understand 
the importance of hands-on community involvement and socially 
responsible action to prevent crime. I often hear from people opposing 
social programs that would fight crime. They do not see the use of such 
programs, or misunderstand their purpose.
  Mr. Speaker, we need more prisons, more police, and stricter 
sentencing, but vengeance alone may be the least effective and most 
irresponsible method of stanching a crime epidemic. If we sanction the 
most excoriating punishments without addressing the cases of crime, we 
do no better than the most capricious despot.
  In effect we will have abandoned any ideal of social redemption, the 
idea that men and women might improve themselves or their communities 
or that such things are even possible. We will have settled for writing 
off those who break our laws or might break them as redeemable human 
trash we can only rid ourselves of.
  I cannot think of a more cynical approach. We would presuppose the 
worst human behavior, in which case we could only expect to get it. If 
we hope to stop crime in a socially responsible way that actually 
improves the daily lives of our communities, we must fight it with a 
judicious balance of punishment and prevention. The crime bill would 
have done that. We can do it still.

                          ____________________