[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 129 (Wednesday, September 18, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1634-E1635]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                 CRIME

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. LEE H. HAMILTON

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                     Wednesday, September 18, 1996

  Mr. HAMILTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert my 
Washington Report for Wednesday, September 18, 1996, into the 
Congressional Record.

                             Fighting Crime

       The fear of crime is a part of life for far too many 
     Americans. Hoosiers tell me that insecurity from crime gnaws 
     away at our spirit, restricts our freedom, and forces us to 
     rearrange our lives. All of us are victims of crime. We pay 
     the cost of crime in higher insurance rates, higher prices, 
     higher taxes, and a poorer quality of life. Despite recent 
     reductions in the crime rate, fear of crime continues to 
     register as a top concern of Hoosiers in every poll. They 
     worry that laws are not strictly enforced, that sentences are 
     too light, that judges are too lenient, and that dangerous 
     criminals are let free to roam the streets.
       The most recent statistics indicate that the nation's crime 
     rate has fallen by about 4% in recent years. This is an 
     improvement,

[[Page E1635]]

     but Hoosiers are right to be skeptical and demand more 
     progress. First, even a 10% or 20% reduction in crime would 
     leave us far less safe than we were twenty or thirty years 
     ago. Persons who remember what it was like to leave a home 
     unlocked or the keys in the ignition will not and should not 
     be satisfied with only a modest reduction in the crime rate. 
     Second, while crime has declined significantly in cities, it 
     continues to rise in small communities and rural areas. I 
     have pushed for more attention to the unique crime problems 
     in these communities, which are too often ignored by the 
     media and policymakers. Crime has long been primarily a state 
     and local matter, but there are things the federal government 
     can do to help.


                                 police

       One reason given for the reduction in urban crime rates is 
     the increased focus cities have placed on community policing. 
     More communities in southern Indiana are adapting this 
     technique to fit our needs, and I am hopeful we can achieve a 
     similar reduction in crime. For example, many officers meet 
     regularly with local business and neighborhood organizations, 
     patrol public places on foot and on bicycle, and run drug 
     education programs in our local schools.
       Our law enforcement officers are often overwhelmed, 
     however, by increases in violent crime. In 1960, there were 
     about 3 police officers for every violent crime in America. 
     By 1993, that number was reversed: 3 violent crimes per 
     police officer. More officers are clearly needed. I am 
     pleased that the federal COPS program has provided funding 
     for more than 70 new officers in southern Indiana, all paid 
     for by reductions in the federal workforce. These officers 
     are an important addition to the work of all Ninth District 
     law enforcement, and we must continue our efforts to provide 
     more police.


                              prosecutors

       Even the best police work will fall short without tough 
     follow-up by prosecutors. My sense is that too little 
     attention has been paid to the problems facing prosecutors. 
     Anyone who watched the O.J. Simpson trial knows how difficult 
     it is to prove a criminal case. Congress should help give 
     prosecutors more tools and more resources, similar to the way 
     it has assisted local police departments. At the county 
     level, prosecutors and judges are so burdened with growing 
     caseloads, it is difficult to prosecute minor offenses. the 
     U.S. Attorney's office has too few resources to meet the 
     demands placed on it, which means that less serious offenses 
     get reduced sentences or plea bargains. Criminals who commit 
     minor offenses are more likely to commit major offenses 
     later. It is short-sighted to let them get off the hook.


                                prisons

       With my support, Congress has passed a number of measures 
     in recent years to increase funding for state and federal 
     prisons. These were also paid for by reducing the federal 
     workplace. I supported measures to encourage states to enact 
     ``truth-in-sentencing'' laws that require prisoners to serve 
     at least 85% of their sentences. At the federal level, tough 
     provisions like the ``three strikes and you're out'' 
     provision in 1994 anti-crime legislation mean that repeat 
     violent felons will be kept off the streets.
       For example, last year a New Albany man was sentenced to 
     almost 30 years in prison for repeated felonies with a 
     firearm. Although he had been arrested more than 30 times on 
     charges of rape, sexual battery, trespassing, and other 
     offenses, the state legislature provided only a three-year 
     maximum sentence for his 1994 armed robbery. Because of the 
     tough new federal sentences, however, this repeat criminal 
     received a sentence ten times harsher than under state law.
       As crime rates and sentences increase, prisons are becoming 
     more crowded. Indiana prisons are 14% overcrowded today, and 
     county jails face a similar situation. Without enough jail 
     cells, courts are forced to reduce sentences or release 
     prisoners early. In addition to building more prisons, one 
     solution is to reduce recidivism, the rate ex-convicts return 
     to crime. The primary purpose of prison must be to prevent 
     them from committing crimes again. Many correctional 
     facilities have begun to require more work from inmates, as 
     well as drug treatment and literacy training. Congress has 
     provided funds to create youth boot camps, which impose 
     discipline and order on younger inmates. These are the 
     inmates who are most likely to be corrupted by older, more 
     seasoned criminals in traditional prisons, and the ones who 
     will benefit most from tough training.


                               PREVENTION

       We must also address the root causes of crime by providing 
     strong alternatives to broken families, as well as 
     opportunities for young people to pursue normal, law abiding 
     lives. It is important to focus on our young people before 
     they turn to criminal activity. I am particularly concerned 
     that more of our young people are turning to illegal drugs. 
     We must act now to ensure that this group is not lost to the 
     cycle of drugs and violent crime. There are a number of 
     outstanding community groups in southern Indiana, often 
     working with churches, that run youth centers, drug 
     treatment, job training, and counseling. These groups deserve 
     our strong support. Parents, schools, churches, community 
     groups, and public officials must do everything in their 
     power to ensure that our children become productive, law-
     abiding citizens.
       There is no single answer to fighting crime. It is a 
     complex problem, with no easy solutions. Police, prosecution, 
     prisons, and prevention are all critical components of an 
     effective anti-crime strategy. Congress' role must be to 
     facilitate the work of state and local governments to protect 
     all our citizens from crime.

                          ____________________