The average age of individuals committed to our custody under the Youth Corrections Act is 23.6 years. We would be required to place aggressive Youth Act offenders who are over 30 years of age together with younger offenders who lack criminal sophistication, and whose only similarity is that they were sentenced under the Youth Corrections Act, based on the strict separation theory which some Courts have said the Y.C.A. dictates.

We believe that the protection of the offender is enhanced under a reasonable classification and designation system which permits separation of the general inmate population from more aggressive offenders, without regard to the particular sentencing procedure under which they were committed.

3. The Youth Corrections Act contemplates treatment and rehabilitation of all offenders.

At the time the Youth Corrections Act was passed, 29 years ago, the Congress as well as professionals in the field of Corrections viewed criminality as a disease which could be diagnosed, and for which curative treatment could be prescribed. Experience with rehabilitation programs in the intervening years, however, has suggested that criminality is not subject to this medical model. Offenders are rehabilitated, but it is a matter of their personal will and motivation, and not because of required attendance in some class or workshop. In response to the work of Dean Norval Morris, Andrew von Hirsch, and others, the Bureau of Prisons has adopted the concept of voluntary programming to insure that rehabilitation programs are available to all those who want them. The Youth Corrections Act has been held, in a recent court opinion, to require compulsory rehabilitation programs. It has also been noted in court decisions that rehabilitative treatment is the "quid pro quo" on which the longer indeterminate sentences for committed youth are justified. We believe this a faulty foundation on which to base a special sentence structure.

4. Education and vocational programs are available to offenders who wish to participate, without special sentencing provisions.

When Congress enacted the Youth Corrections Act, in 1950, the idea that youthful offenders, who appeared likely to be rehabilitated, should be concentrated in institutions where programs were available was an innovative and sound plan. In the intervening years, however, Congress has moved to make programs such as basic and advanced education, vocational training, counselling, job placement, and other "treatment" activities available in all of the institutions that are part of the Bureau of Prisons. The intent of Congress, that programs be available to youthful offenders, can now be accomplished without regard to the institution to which an individual is committed.

5.

The ability to set aside a conviction for an offender who has demonstrated substantial evidence of his rehabilitation should be extended to all without regard to chronological age.

The Youth Corrections Act permits the setting aside of the conviction of offenders when ordered by the Court, or by the U.S. Parole Commission. This is arguably the only benefit, peculiar to the Y.C.A. committed offender, on which that Act's longer sentencing provisions can be based. For the rehabilitated offender, the certificate can have a substantial advantage in seeking future job opportunities, as well as admission to educational, licensing, and other programs. This is available only to that group sentenced under the provisions of Y.C.A. (18 U.S.c. 5010(b) and (c)) and not to other offenders. We would support efforts to make some provision to relieve the rehabilitated former offender of the disabilities of his conviction in appropriate cases, without regard to age or other arbitrary criteria.

This is in response to your request for a memorandum concerning
items to be considered as a part of Federal Criminal Code re-
visions which have a direct impact upon operation of the
Federal Prison System.

Because disparity and the perception of disparity have an ad-
verse impact upon institutions, we have a concern about the
general sentencing scheme to be adopted. We have previously
testified in support of the Department's position, that a
system of sentencing guidelines be established for use at
the trial court level, and as the basis for appellate review.

There are several specific items, however, which directly re-
late to sentencing, and which have a significant impact upon
operation of the Bureau of Prisons, which we would wish to
call to your attention:

The existence of multiple sentencing procedures for artificial
categories of offenders leads to disparities and difficulties
in institutional operations. The Youth Corrections Act should
be repealed because:

The average age of Youth Corrections Act cases is 23.6
years, and includes many over 30 years of age. We
agree with the need to separate young offenders, such
as those 16 to 18 years of age.

The average committed offender spends more time in-
stitutionalized under the indeterminate type of
sentencing procedure provided under the Youth Corrections
Act.

- Chronological age is not a good basis for separation
of offenders, and better means are available to protect
the individual with little criminal experience from
predatory and aggressive inmates.

Buy U.S. Savings Bonds Regularly on the Payroll Savings Plan

OPTIONAL FORM NO 10 (REV. 7-76)

GSA FPMR (41 CFR) 101-11.6 3010-112

We also feel that the Narcotic Addict. Rehabilitation Act should be repealed because the majority of offenders with histories of drug abuse do not qualify under its provisions. As a result, the Bureau of Prisons has established drug treatment units for non-NARA drug abusers.

The Youth Corrections Act, as well as the narcotic legislation, represented the most progressive correctional thinking at the time they were enacted. However, the field has advanced since then, and statutes should be reviewed in light of this, and changed where necessary.

For those who have advocated retention of the Youth Corrections Act, it is apparent that a primary concern is the setting aside of convictions for offenders who have demonstrated that they have rehabilitated themselves. We believe that some provision should be made to retain the ability to set aside, and it should be available to offenders without regard to age.

As you are aware, good time has a substantial impact on the amount of time which imprisoned offenders may actually serve. Large blocks of good time are unnecessary, and do not serve the interests of the correctional system. We support a good time system that would permit the awarding of good time in annual increments which do not exceed 10 percent.

In addition to sentencing, there are several other areas of proposed code revision legislation with which we are concerned. In the area of law enforcement authority, it would be helpful in our administration of institutions to be able to require autopsies in the case of violent death of inmates, or where the cause of death is not readily apparent. It is also necessary to clarify the authority to seize contraband from inmates, particularly when large amounts of money are involved in drug transactions in institutions.

We have also testified previously as to the need for Federal Prison Industries to be limited as to the markets to which goods manufactured in institutions can be sold. We believe that changing the law to permit Federal Prison Industries to sell to the private sector would create more problems than it would solve.

There are a number of matters which are more technical in nature, and which have been covered previously. In the interest of efficient use of time, we would ask for the opportunity to provide more specific input on these matters when the general outline of committee action on sentencing becomes more apparent.