[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 56 (Monday, April 29, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4318-S4321]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. DORGAN (for himself and Mr. Craig):

  S. 1712. A bill to provide incentives to encourage stronger truth in 
sentencing of violent offenders, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.


               The Stop Allowing Felons Early Release Act

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I am here today to join with the Senator 
from Idaho, Senator Craig, in introducing a piece of legislation that 
we call the SAFER Act, the Stop Allowing Felons Early Release Act. I am 
very pleased to work with Senator Craig from Idaho on this piece of 
legislation. I would like to describe briefly for my colleagues what we 
intend to do.
  Mr. President, many Americans will remember the story that they have 
read and reread in recent weeks about a child molester in Texas who was 
convicted after confessing he had sexually abused a 6-year-old boy. 
This man, who describes himself as a demon, claims he has molested 240 
other children and he says to prison authorities that he will continue 
to do so when he is on the street.
  Despite his repeated statements that he will continue to assault 
children, this prisoner was released recently

[[Page S4319]]

after serving 6 years of an 8-year sentence under a mandatory good-time 
release program. Under Texas law, authorities had no discretion to 
refuse to grant good-time credits to reduce this particular person's 
prison sentence. In fact, he is 1 of 1,000 child molesters who will be 
released from prison early this year.
  Some of my colleagues will remember the story of Jonathan Hall, a 
young boy who was murdered this winter. Jonathan was a 13-year-old boy 
from Fairfax County, VA, who was stabbed 58 times and thrown into a 
pond and, apparently, left for dead. When the police discovered him, 
they found dirt and grass between his fingers. He did not die 
immediately after having been stabbed 58 times, and he tried to crawl 
out of this pond. He did not make it, and he died.
  The person who allegedly killed Jonathan Hall has a long criminal 
record. In 1970, he murdered a cab driver. He was put in prison and 
then released on a work-release program. He kidnaped a woman while on 
work release and received an additional sentence. He then was convicted 
of murdering another prisoner. Two murders and a kidnaping, and he was 
set free on early release to live on the street where a 13-year-old boy 
named Jonathan Hall was living. Jonathan is dead because a man twice 
convicted of murder and kidnaping was let out of prison early.
  Bettina Pruckmayr, whom I have spoken about before, was a 26-year-old 
attorney who was beginning her career in Washington, DC. She was 
abducted in a carjacking, driven to an ATM machine, and fatally stabbed 
over 30 times by a man who had been convicted previously of rape, armed 
robbery, and murder. He was on the streets of the District of Columbia 
legally because he was let out of prison early.
  It does not take Sherlock Holmes to know who is going to commit the 
next violent crime. It is all-too-often someone who has committed a 
previous violent crime and who has been put in prison and let out 
early. My colleague from Idaho and I believe that those who commit 
violent crimes in our country ought to understand one thing: If you 
commit a violent crime, you are going to finish your entire sentence in 
a place of incarceration. No more good time, no more early release, no 
more parole. If you commit a violent crime, this country is determined 
not to turn murderers, child molesters, rapists and armed robbers back 
on the streets of our country.
  Despite all of the talk about getting tough on crime, we still have 
an epidemic of violent crime in our country. I would like to use a 
couple of charts to demonstrate this fact.
  There is one violent crime every 17 seconds in our country; one 
murder every 23 minutes; one forcible rape every 5 minutes; one robbery 
every 51 seconds; one aggravated assault every 28 seconds. That is what 
the time clock shows for 1994.
  One in three offenders is rearrested for a violent crime within 3 
years of being let out of prison. The Justice Department estimates that 
almost all violent criminals in State prisons are now released early 
before their term is up, before their sentences are completed.
  I have a list of what the States do. Some States say that, if you 
serve a day, you get a day and a half off. That is why we have a 
circumstance in our country today where the average time served for 
murder is just slightly less than 6 years. I am not talking about the 
sentence; the sentence is longer than that. But we say we cannot afford 
to keep people locked up, so we put them back on the streets, where 
they commit more murder, when, in fact, they should not have been in a 
position to commit another murder. They should still have been in 
prison.
  In 1991, the Bureau of Justice Statistics did a study of State 
prisons, and they found that 156,000 people were in jail for offenses 
they had committed while they were on early release from prison for a 
prior conviction.
  Let me say that again because it is important: 156,000 people were in 
prison for offenses they had committed while they were on parole from a 
previous conviction.
  They should never have been in a position to commit these new 
offenses, and a good number of which were murders. But we decided as a 
country to let them out early because we somehow cannot afford to keep 
them locked up. That does not add up. We have half the people in prison 
who are nonviolent. We can incarcerate them much less expensively than 
we now do.
  The Senator from Ohio, Senator Glenn, talks about Quonset huts. He 
said he lived in one for 6 to 8 years while in the Marine Corps. We can 
use abandoned military facilities to incarcerate, much less 
expensively, nonviolent offenders and open up tens of thousands of 
prison cells for violent prisoners. We can put violent prisoners in 
those cells and say to them, ``You are going to stay in those cells 
until the end of your term. You are not going to be out raping and 
murdering other Americans.''
  This piece of legislation affects those States that are going to 
access money from the Federal Government to build new prisons. We say 
to those States that affirmatively decide as a matter of policy, 
``We're going to keep violent criminals locked up for their entire 
term,'' we want you to be advantaged when it comes to grants. All 
States will be eligible for this program, but we are saying that we 
want more money to be available to those States that say, ``It is our 
policy that violent criminals will spend their entire time in prison.''
  The real cost of early release of violent offenders is this: There 
are 4,820 people in prison who committed murders while they were out on 
early release.
  In other words, we knew who they were. We knew what they did. But we 
let them out early. When we say ``we,'' I am talking about the State 
and local justice systems that let them out early because they said, 
``We can't afford to keep you in.'' As a result, 4,820 people were 
murdered, and they should not have lost their lies. Bettina Pruckmayr 
is one, 13-year-old Jonathan Hall is one. We can read all their names. 
Every one of these cases is a tragedy because we knew who the 
perpetrators were. We let them out of prison early. There were 3,899 
rapes, 6,238 assaults. That is the real cost of early release.
  What is happening to murderers in this country? The average person 
sentenced for murder in the criminal justice system in this country 
now, in the State and local court systems, is 34 percent of the 
sentence and then early release--34 percent of a sentence for murder, 
and then early release. For kidnaping, offenders have served 40 percent 
of their time. For robbery, they have served 39 percent of their time. 
For assault, 37 percent of their time.
  My point is, we can do better than that. We can say to people, 
clearly and deliberately, that if you commit a violent crime, 
understand this: Society is not going to put you back on the street to 
murder Jonathan Hall, to murder Bettina Pruckmayr or another person, 
another innocent person who relies on Governments to prosecute those 
who commit violent crimes, put them in jail, and keep them in jail.
  The Federal system is somewhat different, I am pleased to say. I have 
been involved in some of that with respect to the crime bill. The 
Federal Government abolished parole for Federal prisoners in 1984. The 
1994 crime bill included a provision that I authored that eliminated 
automatic good time credits for violent offenders.
  But, as you know, 95 percent of the crimes are committed under the 
State and local jurisdictions. The State and local jurisdictions are 
involved in almost all of what I have been talking about. In order to 
do what the American people would expect us to do, we must encourage 
State and local governments to decide that when they find violent 
offenders who are committing murders and rapes, and violent assaults, 
and they sentence them to prison, they must be kept in prison.
  We were told that the reason that you have to have good time --and 
some States give a day, some States nearly 2 days of good time for 
every day a prisoner serves; so you serve a year and get 2 years off of 
your sentence--the reason they say you must have good time off for good 
behavior is to be able to manage violent prisoners.
  A Justice Department official told us at a meeting some while ago, he 
said, ``Well, these young gang-related offenders in prison are so 
violent that they can't be controlled without incentives.'' The 
incentive is, ``Look, either you behave and we will give you good time, 
or you misbehave and we'll take

[[Page S4320]]

good time away, and, therefore, you must stay here longer.'' They say 
these people are so violent they cannot be controlled without the 
incentive of giving them a reduced sentence.
  I guess the question is this: If prisoners are so violent that prison 
guards and strict prison rules cannot control them--and that is what 
the Justice Department says--if that is the case, why on Earth would 
you construct a system that says to those people, ``Behave here, and 
we'll turn you back to the streets somewhere?'' Why on Earth would we 
think that advances the criminal justice system in this country?
  Senator Craig and I are not saying that we ought to run the criminal 
justice system. It is not what this legislation is about. We are 
saying, as a Federal Government, we have made some money available for 
new prison construction and, as a matter of policy, we should use this 
money as an incentive so those States who will get the most will be 
those States who decide to construct a policy in which those who commit 
violent crimes will stay in prison for their entire sentence.
  That is our hope. Our hope is that we will advance that kind of 
public policy. Our hope is that we will save lives. So we will 
introduce this piece of legislation today in the memory of so many 
people who have been the victims of violent crimes that should never 
ever have occurred.

  We will introduce this bill in the memory of Bettina Pruckmayr, this 
young woman who should not have been murdered, because the person who 
allegedly murdered her was a person we knew was violent, and in the 
memory of Jonathan Hall, a 13-year-old who happened to live on the 
street of person who had committed two previous murders and a kidnaping 
and who was released early from prison.
  I hope, Mr. President, that one day soon we will be able to decide 
that the sentence for murder is the time served for murder. I hope we 
will no longer tell criminals, ``You get good time off for good 
behavior. You get early parole if you behave. By the way, we will let 
you out early.'' I hope that is not the message we will continue to 
send to those who commit violent crimes in our country.
  Again, I am delighted to join my colleague from Idaho, Senator Craig, 
in advancing what I think is a very important policy initiative in 
asking State and local governments to consider this as a method of 
achieving the access to Federal funds, and with the maximum capability 
they can, to build additional prisons and keep violent criminals in 
jail.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me say how blessed I am to be a 
cosponsor of the Stop Allowing Felons Early Release Act, known as the 
SAFER Act. Let me, in a very sincere way, congratulate my colleague 
from North Dakota for what is a very sensible approach to crimefighting 
and for his outspoken leadership on this issue.
  This bill that he has just outlined for us all this morning would 
help stop one of the most significant causes of crime in America. It is 
amazing to me, but it is true by fact and statistic, that the way our 
criminal justice system is operated today, Mr. President, results in 
increased crime. We know that a relatively small percentage of our 
population is responsible for a relatively large percentage of violent 
crimes.
  Study after study has shown that a vast number of violent crimes are 
State crimes committed by repeat offenders--repeat offenders.
  Although there are many causes of violent crime and many factors 
contributing to our crime rate, it appears that the most immediate and 
significant is the career criminal. Since that is the cause, we clearly 
have an opportunity to save lives and prevent crime-related losses by 
getting the hard-core criminals off the streets and out of our 
communities.
  Even though crime-fighting is primarily a State and local 
responsibility, as my colleague has referenced, Congress has had 
endless debates over the best way to protect our citizenry from these 
dangerous predators. We have explored how crime can be prevented or 
deterred and how it should be punished. We have looked at better tools 
to help law enforcement stop criminals. We have provided significant 
resources for State and local governments to attack crime at its roots.
  Many of those efforts have produced success at some level, but what 
we are finding, however, is all this good work can be undermined by 
programs of early release and parole that send violent felons back out 
into our communities to prey again and again on our citizenry.
  Senator Dorgan has spoken here in the Senate on the horrifying 
consequences, citing example after example of these policies. The 
impact reaches far beyond the victims of repeat criminals, their 
families and communities. Justice itself is imperiled when punishment 
is uncertain and unpredictable. We can argue about the value of 
imprisonment in terms of rehabilitating criminals.
  Some even argue about the value of imprisonment in terms of deterring 
crime. But there can be no serious argument that any rehabilitation or 
deterrent value is reduced in prison--if prisoners are subject to the 
revolving door and, as a result of that, become the repeat offenders.
  More important, there can be no serious argument that early release 
programs destroy the most effective outcome of imprisonment: 
incapacitating the violent criminal by separating him or her from 
society and the opportunity to commit additional crimes. All too often 
early release and parole programs are being driven by financial 
considerations at the State and the local level rather than solid 
evidence of rehabilitation.
  I understand those concerns in my own State of Idaho. Our inmate 
population is estimated to be increasing at about 27 inmates per 
month. We will need to double prison space in the next 6 years in my 
State. It is not necessarily bad for Government to innovate or find 
cost-conscious alternatives in this area.

  Again, my colleague from North Dakota cited some of those for the 
nonviolent-type criminal or the nonviolent offender. We can find 
alternative methods of incarceration for them in facilities that are 
oftentimes already built, that can simply be modified for a new 
purpose. Clearly, these programs cross the line when they send hard-
core violent offenders back to the streets before serving their full 
sentences.
  Congress has established programs at the Federal level that help 
State and local governments with financial and human resource needs in 
fighting crime. Among other initiatives, we have provided financial 
incentive grants to States, to enact truth-in-sentencing laws to ensure 
that the time actually served by convicted felons reflects the 
sentences they were given. It just does not make sense to me, and I 
know it does not make any sense to the taxpayer if we support policies 
and provide taxpayers dollars that actually increase crime.
  The SAFER bill provides an important incentive for States to get rid 
of the early release program for violent offenders we know will only 
push the crime rate higher, and the statistics prove it. As long as 
those programs are on the books, States will only have access to 75 
percent of the funds available to them under the truth-in-sentencing 
programs.
  Again, my colleague from North Dakota has outlined how this bill 
would affect those States. It is important to let those States know 
that these kinds of policies are no longer acceptable when the Federal 
tax dollars are involved. Access to full grant amounts would be 
available to States that eliminate those programs, only dealing with it 
in the way that we have outlined. If approved by a Governor after a 
public hearing in which the victims and other members of the public 
have an opportunity to be heard, then you might look at some 
consequences for an early release program. There are ways to deal with 
it in the legislation as set forth. These States would also have access 
to a portion of the remaining undistributed grant funds.
  The SAFER bill is a measured response, strategy, to reducing one of 
the most significant causes of crime in our society today. I hope my 
colleagues would join with me and the Senator from North Dakota in what 
we believe is a very important piece of legislation.
  Mr. President, it is not complicated. It is straightforward. It is 
just a heck of a lot of common sense when you look at the facts and you 
look at the statistics--hardened criminals are oftentimes repeat 
offenders. They ought

[[Page S4321]]

to stay and do the time. That is what our legislation would require.
  Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. CRAIG. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the Senator from Idaho has made a 
compelling statement on this issue. I wanted to make a couple of other 
observations.
  Some have said to me, what about rehabilitation? Should not someone 
be able to be rehabilitated while in prison? I say that is fine. I am 
for rehabilitation. But I do not want a circumstance to continue to 
exist where we know that about 6 percent to 8 percent of the criminals 
in America commit two-thirds of all the violent criminal acts, and they 
go through that revolving door to commit new crimes.
  We should rehabilitate them, but we should not be in a circumstance 
in this country where the amount of time served for murder is 5.9 
years. What on Earth are we thinking of? We should decide that those 
people who are career criminals and who kill the people I have 
described today will go to prison and spend their time in prison until 
their sentence is complete. That is what this bill is about.
  I know people say, ``You are talking tough.'' The fact is, if we do 
not get tough with that 8 percent of the criminal element who commit 
most of the violent crimes in this country, the American people are not 
safe. We make victims of the American people by turning murderers out 
of prison years and years before their sentences are complete. It is 
time for us to decide that does not make sense.

  We are simply shifting the costs. We shift the costs from those who 
would be required to pay for a prison cell to those victims and their 
families who now suffer the consequences of murder, rape, assault, and 
more.
  This is not a regional issue. This is an issue that is national. A 
woman named Donna Martz, bless her soul, used to bring a tour bus every 
year to the State capitol. They came to the front steps and we would 
take a picture. On a quiet Sunday morning, coming out of a hotel in 
Bismarck, ND, a man and a woman from Pennsylvania on the run from the 
law, having left jail in Pennsylvania, abducted poor Donna Martz and 
put her in a trunk. They eventually killed her some days later out in 
the desert of Nevada.
  Violent crime does not respect State boundaries. Victims of violent 
crime--the violence that is committed by people who have been in prison 
who we know are violent and who are let out early--are strewn across 
this country. That is why I am delighted the Senator from Idaho has 
joined in this legislation. I hope we can make some progress in 
advancing this in this Congress. I yield the floor.
  Mr. CRAIG. My colleague from North Dakota is right. We are not 
talking tough. We are not even beginning to talk tough on behalf of the 
victims. The families that have been destroyed, torn apart by acts of 
violence of the type that this legislation will be directed toward.
  I think the American public expect us to talk tough. If Federal tax 
dollars are going to be used under the assumption that the communities 
of our Nation will be safer when those dollars are appropriately spent, 
then it is our responsibility as Senators that those dollars get well 
spent.
  What we are saying to the States in this instance, if you have a 
revolving door in your criminal justice system where known hardened 
criminal repeat offenders are back on the streets, then you are not 
going to get as much of the Federal dollar as is now available. You 
have to examine the way you handle these criminals and keep them in and 
let them do their time. Only under special circumstances where it is 
clearly evident that rehabilitation has worked and this person can 
return to society and live a safe and law-abiding life, can they or 
should they be returned.
  I hope that all Senators would take a look at this legislation as we 
introduce it today. We would certainly hope that all would become 
cosponsors of it. We think it is responsible and tough when it comes to 
dealing with the criminal element of our society.
  It just does not make sense to use U.S. taxpayer dollars to support 
policies that might actually increase crime. The SAFER bill provides an 
important incentive for States to get rid of the early release programs 
for violent offenders we know will only push the crime rate higher. As 
long as those programs are on the books, States would only have access 
to 75 percent of the funds available to them under the Truth in 
Sentencing Grant Program. Access to full grant amounts would be 
available to States that eliminate those programs and only allow early 
release if approved by the Governor after a public hearing in which the 
victims and other members of the public have an opportunity to be 
heard. These States would also have access to a portion of the 
remaining undistributed grant funds.
  The SAFER bill is a measured, responsible strategy for reducing one 
of the most significant causes of crime in our society today. I hope 
all of our colleagues will join in supporting this bill.
                                 ______