by some perspectives would appear to be sort of a regiment of release which possibly could be changed under the system, as suggested.

Reverend FERRELL. That is open to discussion. That would be true in any case.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Right, sir. Thank you very much. Mr. Risher?

Mr. RISHER. Reverend Ferrell, it seems to me that there is a common point of agreement between you and Mr. Gill; and that is that neither one of you is willing to assume that judges are the ultimate repository of the greatest of all wisdom in respect to appropriate sentences. There, of course, are differences; and it is the differences that you have alluded to that I am most interested in.

POSTSENTENCING REDUCTION

One of the statements you made, if I understood you correctly, in responding to Mrs. Dixon's comments about the postsentencing reduction application is that the section bothers you in part because it only contemplates a report by the Department of Corrections or the Bureau of Prisons. Then, you went on to say that the perspective or the concerns of those two entities are quite different than those of the Board of Parole. Could you amplify what you meant?

Reverend FERRELL. Let me give you an example. The Parole Board was asked by the Department of Corrections some time ago to petition the court for the reduction in minimum sentence of an inmate who had been very valuable to the Department in terms of the fact that he had provided some information which had resulted in the conviction of some departmental employees of some very serious aberrations as far as departmental policy and law were concerned. We examined this case very carefully. The offense for which the man had been convicted was a pretty heinous offense. In addition, the man had had other kinds of difficulties within the institution of a disciplinary nature, in addition to which he had not participated, so far as we could see, in any meaningful activity leading toward release. We, therefore, declined to present the petition to the court suggesting that-within the prison. system itself, it seemed to us that there should be some means of rewarding that person, but to petition for reduction in minimum sentence, as least as far as we were concerned, was not the way to accomplish it.

Now, I recognize that in the recent revisions relating to the U.S. Parole Commission, that authority is given to the Bureau of Prisons. They are unsure what to do with it.

Mr. RISHER. If I understand you correctly, what in essence you are saying is that it is not infrequent when the prison authorities use the application for reduction of sentence as a meaningful tool.

Reverend FERRELL. Yes.

Mr. RISHER. You gave one instance. Another instance might be they simply want to reduce prison population for various reasons.

Reverend FERRELL. No, not really, because you don't reduce prison population by petitioning the court to reduce the sentence of one inmate. That is not significant.

Mr. RISHER. Let me take you to the second thought that is floating around in my head right now. The argument that the chairman and

99-869-78-20

you just engaged in, in part, is that the Parole Board releases too many individuals too early, if I understand the argument. Your response, if I recall the history, is that the Parole Board does not release anyone prior to the time that person has served his minimum sentence. Under the proposal of this Commission, of course, there would be only a straight sentence, if you will. Are you prepared to take the argument, which has been used against the Parole Board, that is that it releases too many individuals almost concurrently with the arrival of the minimum sentence date, and say that those facts, therefore, argue against the proposal of the Commission where it is the judge alone who decides the sentence which shall be served and it is a definite sentence?

Reverend FERRELL. I think I could very well wind up there, Mr. Risher.

Mr. MAZZOLI. I am sorry. The time has expired. Ms. Fortune, would you care to yield the time to Mr. Risher?

MS. FORTUNE. I yield.

Reverend FERRELL. I was going to say just one other thing, Mr. Rishner and members of the Commission. I am not at all certain that this legislation would not result in a significant increase in the number of those now incarcerated. Now, very frankly, this is only an impression. I have no figures to substantiate this at all. But, when one considers the gaping costs between incarceration on the one hand and supervision in the community on the other, and when one considers the financial problems which the District of Columbia faces today, which are of concern to all of its citizens, I think this should be an added matter which should concern the Commission, which I am sure it has.

Mr. RISHNER. I have no further questions. Thank you.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Ms. Fortune?

MS. FORTUNE. I have no questions.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Mr. Harrison?

MAXIMUM MANDATORY SENTENCES

Mr. HARRISON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Reverend Ferrell, if you were Judge Ferrell under the present system and for whatever reasons that you would consider valid you wanted to impose a maximum upon a defendant and you wanted him to serve that term, how would you do it?

Reverend FERRELL. Wanted to impose a maximum term and wanted him to serve that term? The present state of the law would not allow that. Now, if I wanted to be sure that this person served 5 years in prison

Mr. HARRISON. That is not the question. I think you have answered my question. You could not do it.

Reverend FERRELL. That is right.

Mr. HARRISON. If the maximum, for example, is 15 years, and the criteria which we assume hypothetically are valid, and you wanted him to serve 15 years, under the present system there is no way you could do it.

Reverend FERRELL. Nor is there any way, as I read the proposal, the judge could require the man to serve 15 years under this proposal.

Mr. HARRISON. You don't think that is possible under 2006 (c)?

Reverend FERRELL. As I recall, there was some requirement that the man be released at least 10 percent of the time prior to the expiration of his sentence.

Mr. HARRISON. I stand corrected there. It was 90 percent. Let me ask you a second question. Do you think if Congress were to enact .section 2010, or something similar to it, it would be workable? Reverend FERRELL. Would you tell me what it

Mr. HARRISON. Section 2010 is the section which has both the Board of Parole and the Department of Probation in the act. One enforces one part, and the other

Reverend FERRELL. If Congress imposed it, it would have to be workable. We would have to find a mechanism for making it work. I don't know. I just don't know.

Mr. HARRISON. Let me rephrase the question to see if I can induce you to answer it. Namely, do you favor a provision in section 2010 ? Reverend FERRELL. I don't see that that is significantly different from our present situation, excepting that it would provide for the interchange of staff and that sort of thing. I don't particularly think favorably of that because then it becomes a pushing-you know, who has the greatest weight. We need staff and you need staff; and you have the pull, you take the staff. That creates problems in my mind. I will not say that it could not work. I will say that I have reservations about it.

Mr. HARRISON. Under the tentative statutory scheme, what would be the advantages and disadvantages of abolishing the Parole Board and keeping the Department of Probation in section 2010?

Reverened FERRELL. What would be the advantages and disadvantages? I could see no advantages and I would say this if I were not a member of the Parole Board. I could see no advantages to abolishing the Parole Board. The disadvantages would be legion; and, as I understand it, I only have 5 minutes, so I would even hesitate to launch into it.

Mr. HARRISON. Can you give us one disadvantage?

Reverend FERRELL. I spoke about robbing individuals who are incarcerated of any possibility of hope; that is one.

Mr. HARRISON. Under the new statutory scheme, as proposed here; I am not talking about the present scheme.

Reverend FERRELL. The same thing. I don't find hope here. I don't find hope. I don't find any inspiration for a person to do anything for himself in this present scheme. It may be there, and it may be that I am not sufficiently familiar with it; but it certainly does not come immediately to mind.

Mr. HARRISON. I won't pursue the point. Thank you.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Reverend Ferrell, if you later do assemble your thoughts on this regard, I am sure the Commission would be very happy to receive them.

Reverend FERRELL. I would be happy to submit a supplemental

statement.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Mr. Silbert?

Mr. SILBERT. Other than to express my appreciation to Reverend Ferrell, whom I always find informative, I have no questions.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Thank you very much. Mr. Guidoboni?

YOUTH CORRECTIONS ACT

Mr. GUIDOBONI. Just a brief question, Reverend. Do you have any thoughts at all about the necessity for a Youth Corrections Act-type of provision?

Reverend FERRELL. Yes. I am not sure I included that in my formal statement. I had planned to speak about that.

Mr. MAZZOLI. You can certainly supplement your statement, sir; that will be also made a part of the record.

Reverend FERRELL. Yes. I would like to see some provision for a Youth Corrections Act-type of sentence available.

Mr. GUIDOBONI. Has it been your experience in administering that act—and, of course, the Board of Parole has great discretion there, the judge setting only the maximum term-have you found that to be viable in terms of rehabilitation, as opposed to when we are dealing with adult offenders? That is to say, if I can sum it up, that while we may go one way with our adults, in terms of a discreet sentence, would you think a valid exception would be a Youth Corrections

Reverend FERRELL. Yes; I do. I strongly suggest, however, that the number of offenses for which the Youth Corrections Act would be available would be greatly reduced. For example, I just don't believe the Youth Corrections Act ought to be available for murder one. I don't believe the Youth Corrections Act ought to be available for burglary while armed. I don't believe it ought to be available for armed robbery, for these major kinds of offenses.

Mr. GUIDOBONI. But, with a reduction in the type of offenses to which it applied, you think it would be available to

Reverend FERRELL. Yes.

Mr. GUIDOBONI. For instance, UUV or petty theft?
Reverend FERRELL. Yes.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Thank you very much. Mr. Whalen?

FACTORS JUDGES SHOULD CONSIDER

Mr. WHALEN. Reverend, if I could turn you to another subject that you are not directly involved in, but your expertise could help us, in the section 2006, dealing with the factors that the judge should consider as tending toward imprisonment

Reverend FERRELL. I approve of them.

Mr. WHALEN. You approve of them. Have you anything that we should add? For example, the testimony we have already heard has been critical with reference to the recidivist rules; that we provide that if somebody convicted is convicted of a similar crime within 7 years of the earlier offense, that is against him. If he is convicted of another crime within 4 years-if he is convicted within 4 years after having been released from imprisonment, do you think that is about right? Reverend FERRELL. I don't disapprove of that.

Mr. Mazzoli. Thank you very much. Mr. Boynton?

TERMINATING SENTENCES

Mr. BOYNTON. Reverend Ferrell, I am intrigued by vour statement on page six where you refer to possibly empowering the court or the Parole Board with the authority to terminate a sentence upon demon

strated rehabilitation effort. Would the guidelines be higher than you presently refer to, as far as parole?

Reverend FERRELL. This speaks about the person who is under supervision. Let's say that the sentence originally imposes 20 years. The person, between the time of incarceration and the time that he has been under supervision-let's say that 15 years have passed. The person during that period of time has developed himself into an exemplary citizen in the community. Every evidence is that his mind is no longer involved in criminal activity. He has established himself. He has a family, this, that and the other thing. To me, it is uneconomical, if from no other point of view, to continue that man under supervision for the full 20 years. Somewhere along the line there ought to be the authority for somebody to say,

All right, you have satisfied the original intentions of this sentence. You have done it earlier than the 20 years. We now discharge you from further responsibility under it.

Mr. BOYNTON. Based upon your previous comments, why should you consider the court, as opposed to the Parole Board, for such a determination?

Rev. FERRELL. Compromise. Take what you can get.

Mr. BOYNTON. Very well said. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MAZZOLI. I think you ladies and gentlemen now realize why we always enjoy having Reverend Ferrell with us. It is a very interesting repartee that we develop, as Mr. Silbert knows. Reverend, thank you very much. Any supplementary statements will be made a part of the record. We appreciate your time.

The Chair would now call Prof. William Greenhalgh, chairperson of the American Bar Association Criminal Justice Committee on Criminal Code Revision. You have been with us and you know the unfortunate time constraints, so your full statment will be made a part of the record.

STATEMENT OF PROFESSOR WILLIAM GREENHALGH, CHAIRPERSON, COMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL CODE REVISION, CRIMINAL JUSTICE SECTION, AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION

Professor GREENHALGH. Mr. Chairman, in view of the many, many hours that the American Bar Association has put into the analysis of this document, that is the proposed D.C. Sentencing Code Revision, and the fact that I have only 5 minutes to adress those many pages, I would just like to mention three things which I think are very important and, hopefully, stir up some questions as a result of that.

FACTORS FOR SENTENCING JUDGES

We are quite concerned-and this is on page two of the bottom of my statement; and then I would direct the Commissioners as well as yourself to page one of appendix D on our chart-that one of the things that we see in the Criminal Justice Section on the Criminal Code Revision Committee is the failure, not only of this group, in all good faith, but also that other House across the way, where they have abjectly refused to legislate or even make proposals on S. 1437, wide