I

i^uj^d States C#^fri©h'<

l

Committee,
_btu‘M. boJUe^m^ £rid u9cxld Ve&tJL.
rOonu^\u^i'H| ovkl ox i mo

££* 512(0

DVL

Community
and Crime
A STATEMENT OF
THE COMMITTEE ON
SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
AND WORLD PEACE

2 STATES 2

FEBRUARY 15, 1978 / UNITED STATES CATHOLIC CONFERENCE |«





A Community
Response

to Crime

I. INTRODUCTION

1. The people of the United States are clearly and legitimately con-

cerned about crime. This concern is reflected in public opinion polls, in

widespread fear that exists in many communities, and in the vast sums

of money spent on crime prevention and detection devices.

2. The level of crime is alarmingly high in the United States. In 1976,

for example, more than 18,000 people were murdered in cities, sub-

urbs and rural areas; 56,000 women were reported to have been the

victims of forcible or attempted rape; there were 400,000 robberies

and 3 million burglaries; shoplifting, purse snatching and bicycle thefts

cost Americans $1.2 billion.
1 There has also been a resurgence of gang

violence in some of our major cities. Furthermore, in the recent past,

some high-ranking persons in government have resigned from office in

the face of evidence of their apparent misconduct as officials; numer-

ous industries and corporations have been charged with violating health

standards and neglecting the safety of their workers; and over a thou-

sand Americans were convicted of federal tax offenses.2 Crime statis-

tics, however, indicate only the recorded and nationally reported crimes

and therefore only part of the problem. More important than the num-

bers is the fact that these figures represent human beings inflicting harm

on other human beings.

3. There are various forms of criminal behavior. While murder, rape

and armed robbery are the most obvious, any exclusive focus on vio-

lent crime neglects a significant proportion of criminal behavior. “White

collar crime,” abuse of power by public officials, discrimination and

consumer fraud, among others, seriously harm our society by contribut-

ing to the destruction of trust among people and the breakdown of

community. These crimes, although less violent, also undermine the

common good and victimize people.

4. Fear of crime has been the focus of a great deal of political rhetoric.

Partisan political rivalry has not provided the most suitable context for

Daactoiffed

i



analysis and positive action. It has at times led to proposals inconsist-

ent with our religious and legal traditions. Our national response to the

problem of crime ought to reflect certain basic values and principles—

commitment to justice, respect for life and human dignity, concern for

safety and community, recognition of personal moral responsibility and

the rule of law.

5. The cost of crime is overwhelming. It includes the loss of life, per-

sonal injury and billions of dollars in property and financial losses from

fraud, theft and embezzlement. Crime creates fear and distrust of in-

dividuals and institutions. Many people believe our institutions of law

can no longer protect them from injury, theft or the abuses of power.

Others believe they will not be treated fairly and justly by these institu-

tions. This fear and distrust tears deeply into the social fabric of our

nation.

6. We are shocked by the level of crime in our nation and the human
suffering it leaves in its wake. Our concern is intensified by the fact that

the impact of crime and the criminal justice system falls disproportion-

ately on the weakest in our society— the poor, the minorities and the

elderly. How can we remain silent about a problem which affects so
many?

7. Crime is obviously a moral issue in itself, but it also has long range

effects on society. In this document, our basic concern is with what

crime is doing to American families, neighborhoods and communities.

The human cost of crime undermines the trust and mutual respect that

are the foundation of any successful society. The factors that contrib-

ute to crime are intensified where family and community life are weak-

ened and personal responsibility lessened. These factors include: eco-

nomic and social deprivation, toleration of injustice and discrimination,

false values of materialism and greed, lack of respect for one another,

loss of personal responsibility for one’s actions and moral choices, fail-

ure to love one’s neighbor, and toleration and condoning of organized

and white collar crime by some officials and citizens. Until these basic

concerns are addressed, the nation will not make significant progress

against crime, despite future improvements in technology and in-

creased financial expenditures. Any effective response to crime ought

to focus on improving our community life, on strengthening our families

and neighborhoods, on rooting out economic deprivation and social in-

justice and on teaching basic values of personal responsibility, human

dignity and decency.

8. This means that the criminal justice system and its correctional in-

stitutions cannot be expected to shoulder alone the burden of crime.

The efforts of law enforcement agencies, courts and correctional facili-

ties are doomed to failure if they do not engage the interest and partici-

pation of the entire community in overcoming crime. Real progress in

the struggle against crime can only be brought about by concerted com-

munity action that unites the efforts of citizens, ecumenical and Church

groups, civic organizations, business, labor and professionals in a

2



comprehensive effort to improve our common quality of life.

II. PRINCIPLES

9. The complexity of crime and criminal justice issues requires a keen

sensitivity to the many competing interests and values which influence

public policy and individual action on crime. The differing concerns of

crime victims, offenders, criminal justice officials and taxpayers need

to be balanced in a search for a just response. Too often, basic princi-

ples seem to conflict with each other. For example, concern for com-

munity safety sometimes conflicts with the legal tradition of respect

for the civil liberties of offenders. In light of these tensions, it is neces-

sary to state briefly the principles and values which underlie our analy-

sis of the problem of crime and our proposals for action.

10. As Americans, we are blessed with rich resources which can be

brought to bear on this problem— the tradition of freedom of religion,

our American constitutional framework and strong legal traditions. As

believers, we find strength in the Judeo-Christian heritage and in the

teachings and example of Jesus Christ.

A. Christian Tradition

1 1 . Jesus, who was crucified and died between two thieves, preached a

gospel of forgiveness and brought compassion and mercy to those

whom society rejected. 3 Fie manifested the love that the Father offers to
all and taught us to regard with charity even those who injure us.4 His

Church has constantly affirmed the basic rights of the human person:

the right to life; the right to human dignity; and the right to those things

necessary for life, including personal safety and freedom from fear.

These rights are regarded as necessary for a free and responsible fi-

delity to God’s commands and to our obligations as members of society.

While affirming these rights, the Church has also recognized the cor-

responding duties, especially the responsibility to assure that the rights

of all our fellow human beings are protected. Christian teaching recog-

nizes human sinfulness and affirms the realities of moral choice, per-

sonal responsibility and obedience to rightful authority, at the same

time that it proclaims the message of God’s infinite love and saving

grace.
5

B. American Tradition

12. The equality of all persons before the law, due process, trial by

jury and the right to protection against unlawful search and seizure are

basic principles of the American constitutional tradition. Their pur-

pose is to assure that no person will be deprived of life, property or

freedom without just legal proceedings.

13. The American legal system seeks to insure equal justice and the

protection of the rights of offenders, victims and society as a whole.

Too often, we have fallen short of the promise of our legal tradition. In

3



many instances, a double standard has afforded the affluent and influ-

ential better and more lenient treatment than the poor and the power-

less. Such failures, however, by no means invalidate these principles.

14. Criminal law is the responsibility of civil society and is aimed at

securing justice, harmony and correction. Criminal laws are moral ex-

pressions of the community, but they are not morality itself nor the

source of morality. Behavior that is legal is not necessarily moral. For

example, the practice of abortion is clearly immoral, but according to

recent Supreme Court decisions, it is legal in the United States. Yet,

there are instances of behavior which are presently regulated by crimi-

nal law, which could be dealt with more effectively by other means. For

example, rather than relying solely upon criminal law and law enforce-

ment officials, the active participation of community leaders, Church

groups and the schools is needed to develop policies and programs for

the research and treatment of drug and alcohol abuse. Greater com-

munity involvement can lead to the more humane and effective treat-

ment of these problems. In the case of drugs, such a community

approach can promote the development of measures to impede and

eventually to eliminate organized crime’s increasing corruption of law

enforcement, the recruitment of youthful pushers, as well as to reduce

the incidence of defiance of and confrontation with the criminal justice

system by numerous persons.

15. The relationship between morality and criminal law is complex.

The scope of moral responsibility often exceeds that of the law. As be-

lievers, we should not simply be satisfied with obeying the letter of the

law. We are called to follow the Gospel message, which demands more

than the civil law, but which offers us Christ’s promise of help and

saving grace.
6

III. CAUSES OF CRIME

16. No one can determine with precision and certainty the causes of

criminal behavior. Several factors do, however, significantly contribute

to an environment which fosters crime. Efforts to address these prob-

lems should be part of any attempt to reduce crime, although we recog-

nize that even their eradication would not totally eliminate the problem

of crime in our nation.

A. False Values

17. Our society is increasingly marked by false values which are in-

consistent with Christian life and which contribute to crime. We refer

here to materialism, excessive individualism, acceptance of violence

and loss of respect for human life. We fear that an ethic of consumption

and greed is a dominant force in our society. The desire for unlimited

consumption of material goods, for excessive profit and for pleasure

above all else, contributes to many forms of illegal and immoral be-

havior. Intense personal and corporate competition also contributes to

crime by fostering an uncontrolled quest for power and personal

4



achievement which often leads to abuse of power and neglect of more

important values, such as those pertaining to family life and ethical

conduct. The absence of respect for life and acceptance of excessive

violence have led to a devaluation of human life and to apathy in the

face of the suffering of others. False values foster the violation of the

spirit of the law by many citizens which, in turn, may contribute to the

violation of the letter of the law— crime— by others.

B. Social Injustice

18. Another major factor contributing to crime is the serious lack of

social justice in our society. In the past few years, unemployment and

social and economic deprivation in our nation have risen sharply and

remained at very high levels. Decent housing, health care and educa-

tion are unavailable to millions of Americans. Hunger continues to af-

fect families in slums and rural shacks. The distribution of economic

opportunities and rewards is still grossly inequitable. Our society, de-

spite great dreams and some progress, is still characterized by serious

injustice.

19. Most often it is the weak and unfortunate, the poor, the aged, the

young, minorities and women who are forced to bear injustice. They

are frequently the victims of crime and of the failures of the criminal

justice system. Families mired in poverty, without adequate income,

housing, education or health care, too often witness their children con-

victed and incarcerated as juvenile offenders. In many of our inner

cites where unemployment approaches 50 percent, crime has become

the major industry, filling the vacuum left by departing businesses and

jobs. The studies of the Federal Bureau of Prisons indicate a high posi-

tive correlation between the rate of prison commitments and unem-

ployment.
7 Although not solely problems of the poor, drug addiction

and alcoholism fester in deprived areas and contribute to an unending

cycle of crime and fear. Without major efforts to combat injustice, our

struggle against crime will lack effectiveness and credibility.

C. Family and Neighborhood Breakdown

20. Another factor which often contributes to increased crime is the

decline of basic social institutions, particularly the family and neigh-

borhood. This is critical, because they are the environments in which

we learn how to relate to others. Furthermore, studies indicate that

numerous crimes occur within families and among friends.

21. The indicators of increasing family stress are well known: rising

divorce rates, increased irresponsible parenting, high incidence of do-

mestic violence— child and spouse abuse. These problems are found

in families of all racial, economic, cultural and social groups. In addi-

tion, family life is threatened by social and economic forces— depriva-

tion, unemployment, lack of housing or health care, the influence of

false values— as well as the debilitating effects of alcoholism and drug

abuse. Inadequate family life, whether in the lower, middle or upper

5



class, clearly contributes to crime. The breakdown of family relation-

ships is probably the most commonly stated explanation for criminal

behavior. We have to work more diligently to strengthen the stability of

the American family and restore it to a role ofimportance in our society,

for it is in the family that we learn to respect one another and to harmo-

nize our personal needs with those of others.
8

22. Where the quality of neighborhood life declines, some of the most

effective defenses against crime disappear. The sense of mutual con-

cern and the community support, which are often effective curbs to the

isolation and alienation that contribute to crime and fear, disintegrate.

Positive relationships between community and police are broken down.

Changes in the quantity and quality of city services and private invest-

ment, as well as the decline of community involvement, also help to

erode community defenses against crime. It is important to reestablish

neighborhood values and institutions since they, along with strong

family life, are the most promising bulwarks against crime. Cooperation

between neighborhoods should also be encouraged in order to respond

to problems which reach beyond neighborhood boundaries.

D. Lack of Moral Leadership

23. Still another factor contributing to crime is the lack of moral

leadership within our society’s major institutions. Too often those in

authority have not demonstrated an attitude of respect for law. Al-

though most people seek decency and morality in their relationships

and lives, individuals may become caught in institutional pressures

that diminish their ability to provide moral leadership. This breakdown

in moral leadership pervades the community.

24. Within government, in the recent past, we have seen too much

evidence of corruption and abuse of power. Unfortunately, some pub-

lic servants have put their own thirst for power and money above their

responsibility to the people and the common good. In some cases,

political leaders have sought to manipulate legitimate concerns about

crime for political advantage by feeding the fears of citizens in order to

urge proposals inconsistent with our constitutional and legal traditions.

25. We have seen within the business community unfortunate ex-

amples of the pursuit of profit overwhelming concerns about the safety

of workers, service to customers and the environmental impact of cor-

porate actions. At times, some business leaders have become involved

in illegal activity in their search for greater economic return. Monopo-

listic practices, price manipulation, failure to observe labor-management

and environmental regulations, illegal campaign contributions and a

variety of other abuses have left the impression in some quarters that

many in business are not willing to abide by the law or provide exam-

ples of corporate responsibility.

26. Lack of moral leadership is not limited to business and govern-

ment officials. Abuses are evident in labor, medicine, education and the

social service professions, among others. Labor leaders have been

6



found guilty of corrupt practices. Recent reports indicate that the

Medicaid and Medicare programs, which were developed to assist the

needy and the aged, have been misused by some members of the medi-

cal profession. Some educational institutions have failed to meet their

leadership responsibilities by failing to address discriminatory policies

and practices; by favoring institutional needs above educational con-

cerns; and by not providing the ethical training and example which are

needed to preserve a just and moral society.

27. In addition, the entertainment and news media have contributed to

this lack of moral leadership. By emphasizing and appearing to con-

done materialism, violence, greed and indecency and by glorifying the

activities of the law-breaker, the media may have contributed to crim-

minal behavior. Many programs and movies being produced today exalt

the “supercop” and public officials who break laws which have been

designed to protect individual rights. This glorification of illegal be-

havior by law enforcement and political officials undermines the values

of honesty and respect for law, which are essential underpinnings of the

good society. Others in the entertainment media have supported and

condoned indecency, pornography and the exploitation of sex. These

activities exploit the children and adults who participate in the produc-

tion of these materials, as well as the problems of those who purchase

or view them. The news media often sensationalize crimes, especially

crimes of violence. This may lead to community demoralization as well

as to the creation of an adverse image of a minority group or young

people in general.

28. Finally, religious leaders also have to share the burden stemming

from the lack of effective moral leadership. We have not spoken out as

strongly and effectively as we should. We have not acted effectively
enough to overcome the causes of crime and the circumstances which

contribute to criminal behavior. In our own teaching and educational

institutions, perhaps we have not stressed sufficiently personal respon-

sibility, moral formation and social concern. Activities have been per-

mitted which not only violated the spirit of the law, but which were il-

legal. If we are to provide effective moral leadership, it will be neces-

sary to ensure that all Church activities demonstrate strict conformity

to the law.

29. Many of those in government, business, labor, education, the

media, religious life and other institutions have sought to provide

moral leadership. The failure of others to do so and the acceptance of

this failure by many in our society may have undermined the efforts of

those who have tried. If we are to address crime effectively, it will be

necessary to challenge those in positions of moral leadership to act.

The leadership, participation and support of those in public life, busi-

ness, education, labor, the media, the religious community, among

others, need to be coordinated in programs of education and action to

prevent and reduce crime and in efforts to eliminate the root causes of

crime.

7



IV. APPROACHES FOR ACTION

30. There are two basic approaches to overcoming crime: one focuses

on the individual while the other aims at society and the community.

3 1 . First, we wish to affirm the personal moral responsibility of each

individual. Without discounting the many powerful forces at work in

our society, we believe that the individual makes basic choices about

personal action and sometimes the result of these choices is the viola-

tion of criminal as well as moral law. Thus, crimes are frequently sins

as well as illegal acts. We therefore urge that extensive research, edu-

cation and other efforts be undertaken to understand and to foster the

proper moral formation of each person, the development of Christian

values and the acceptance ofpersonal responsibility by every individual.

Families and religious institutions have a primary responsibility in this

area. The strengthening of family and religious life, in light of their in-

fluence on personal moral development, is a critical element of a reli-

gious, communal and effective response to crime.

32. Second, we recognize that these choices are also influenced by

community and social factors. Individuals’ perceptions of themselves,

their future and the fairness of society obviously affect the likelihood of

their becoming involved in crime. Religious organizations cannot re-

strict themselves solely to concern for the individual and his or her

individual conscience. Actions for a more just and equitable society are

clearly elements of the Church’s ministry and are a part of any Chris-

tian response to the problem of crime.

33. An excessive emphasis on either personal responsibility or the

social causes of crime is fundamentally inadequate. An integrated and

comprehensive response to crime is necessary, if we are to deal with

it in an effective way, which is consistent with our own ministry and

teaching.

V. CRIMINAL JUSTICE ISSUES

34. Criminal justice issues are complicated and difficult to resolve,

because they involve many legitimate but divergent and competing in-

terests. Since most crimes involve a threat to person and property, in-

teractions among these interests are often highly charged. In the midst

of this diversity, it is imperative that our analysis of the issues reflect

Christian values, the American constitutional and legal traditions, and

a concern for social justice and human rights.

A. Prisons/Jails Vs. Community Alternatives

35. Identifying the just and charitable response to the criminal offender

is a troubling challenge for any morally sensitive person. The community

defines what behavior is legally criminal. It determines what response

best communicates to the offender and to the community the condem-

nation of criminal behavior, and also sets forth the conditions for rein-

tegration of those who have broken the law. Christians, as members of

8



the civil society, participate in the determination of the community’s

response to criminal behavior. As Christians, however, we have a par-

ticular responsibility to see that the message communicated to the of-

fender and to the community reflects Christian principles, including:

the right to life and human dignity; responsibility to protect the rights

of all persons; mercy and compassion for those less fortunate; forgive-

ness of those who offend or harm us; and the openness of a loving and

healing community. 9

36. Our present prison system clearly does not reflect Christian values.

Numerous studies document the fact that prisons are dehumanizing

and depersonalizing. Prison life denies individual decision-making and

responsibility; it provides the opportunity for an education in crime

rather than for rehabilitation.
10 Rather than developing the skills of of-

fenders for future employment, the purpose of prison job assignments

is to provide for institutional needs. These job experiences are acknowl-

edged by those in the correctional system as being useless. Research

has also shown that crime is caused not only by personal inadequacies,

but also by the complex interaction of social and economic forces. Yet

prison life cannot address these problems. A prison system does not
and cannot provide long-term employment opportunities, increase

family stability, encourage responsibility or improve the ties between

the offender and the community, because it is separated from the com-

munity in which the offender ultimately has to learn to function. Prisons

communicate a message of hopelessness and of community anger de-

void of concern.

37. As a Christian community, we should seek to express to the of-

fender disapproval of his or her criminal behavior together with a

strong willingness to accept that individual’s reintegration into society

as a contributing member. To do this, we should seek alternatives to

our present approach to incarceration. It should be remembered that

prisons, as we know them, are a relatively recent historical creation.

Prior to the beginning of the 19th century, responses to crime other

than confinement were utilized. Some were more brutal than incarcera-

tion, others less. Many alternatives 11 have now been developed and

tried both here and abroad. These include having an offender perform a

community service or provide restitution to the victim of his or her

crime; conciliation of citizens’ disputes through a community media-

tion program rather than the courts; drug and alcohol abuse programs

to which defendants are diverted before trial; employment programs

run through corporations; and many others. It should be borne in

mind, however, that these programs are alternatives to incarceration

and not post-release efforts or new ways to bring more people into the

criminal justice system. To address the problem of the criminal offen-

der effectively and thereby secure the safety of every citizen, it will be

necessary to use the creativity and talents of all our people.

38. Admittedly, a small proportion of those now in our prisons have

committed acts of violence or other serious crimes and either cannot or

9



should not be placed in unstructured settings. We need not, however,
confine even these people in our present prisons. Small community-

based facilities appear to provide the potentiality for a more humane

and suitable environment. Our creativity is needed to develop positive

and truly rehabilitative programs for these offenders. Caution, however,

must be exercised to ensure that these facilities do not become small

prisons.

39. Incarceration of accused individuals in jails prior to trial is another

serious problem.
12 Too often, the difference between those who await

their trial in jail rather than out on bail is the ability to pay, rather than

the probability of court appearance or seriousness of the offense. A
number of community groups have developed programs through which

an accused person is released into the custody of a program participant.

Other groups have established programs through which the information

on the employment, residence and level of income of the accused is

confirmed and provided to the court by a project volunteer. A reason-
able bail should be set according to the following considerations: prob-

ability of court appearance, seriousness of charge and income of the

accused. There are some individuals accused of crimes who appear to

present a serious threat to the community and should not be released

on bail. If, however, greater court resources were provided, the length

of their pre-trial detention could be shortened by speeding up the adju-

dication process.

40. The effective rehabilitation and reintegration of criminal offenders

requires active community participation. Having communicated our

disapproval ofcriminal behavior, it behooves us to be willing to greet the

ex-offender in the spirit of reconciliation and forgiveness of our Lord.
13

B. Sentencing

41. In addition to its prison system, America’s failure to reduce crime

has often been attributed to the disparity in sentences as a consequence

of the policy of indeterminate sentencing. Under this system, the judge

imposes a sentence as a minimum and maximum time to be served.

(For example: one to 10 years.) An individual, once incarcerated,

must serve a proportion of the minimum sentence before being eligible

for release. Up to the maximum sentence, the release of the offender

on parole or to other programs is usually at the discretion of correc-

tional authorities. The disparity and inequity created by these sentenc-

ing procedures often create feelings of anger, frustration and a sense

of mistreatment in the offender.

42. Several studies have been made which document these problems

and which propose alternatives for change.
14

In our statement, The

Reform of Correctional Institutions in the 1970s [reprinted in this

booklet], we recognized the rehabilitative inadequacies of the penal

system and the problems associated with indeterminate sentencing. We

also articulated our belief that the correctional system should perform

several functions, including the rehabilitation of the offender, restitu-

10



tion for the victim and the protection of society. 15 The present system

of prisons and sentencing practices clearly does not achieve these goals

nor does it, in practice, reflect Christian values.

43. We therefore believe that the sentencing procedures should be
restructured to enhance the possibility of achieving these goals and to

reflect more closely the values and teachings of the Christian tradition.

The type and length of sentence should be based upon the following

principles:

• Use of imprisonment as a measure of last resort;

• Utilization ofcommunity alternatives for most criminal offenses;

• Consideration of the seriousness of the offense;

• Reduction of arbitrary disparity in sentences by placing primary

consideration on the seriousness of the offense and previous

convictions for similar offenses;

• Consideration of aggravating or mitigating circumstances in in-

dividual cases;

• Promotion of respect for and understanding of the law;

• Concern for adequate specific deterrence with safeguards against

general deterrence being abused and utilized as ajustification for

punishment; and

• Reconciliation of the victim and the offender.

These changes should contribute to the development of fairer and more

effective sentencing practices.

C. Capital Punishment

44. The use of the death penalty involves deep moral and religious

questions as well as political and legal issues. In 1974, out of a com-

mitment to the value and dignity of human life, the Catholic bishops of

the United States declared their opposition to capital punishment.
16

We continue to support this position, in the belief that a return to the

use of the death penalty can only lead to the further erosion of respect

for life in our society.

45. Violent crime in our society is a serious matter which should not be

ignored. We do not challenge society’s right to punish the serious and
violent offender, nor do we wish to debate the merits of the arguments

concerning this right. Past history, however, shows that the death pen-

alty in its application has been discriminatory with respect to the dis-

advantaged, the indigent and the socially impoverished. Furthermore,

recent data from corrections resources 17 definitely question the effec-

tiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent to crime.

46. We are deeply troubled by the legislative efforts being undertaken
under the guise of humanitarian concern to permit execution by lethal

11



injection. Such a practice merely seeks to conceal the reality of cruel

and unusual punishment. We find this practice unacceptable.

47. The critical question for the Christian is how we can best foster

respect for life, preserve the dignity of the human person and manifest

the redemptive message of Christ. We do not believe that more deaths
is the response to the question. We therefore have to seek methods of
dealing with violent crime which are more consistent with the Gospel’s

vision of respect for life and Christ’s message of God’s healing love. In

the sight of God, correction of the offender has to take preference over

punishment, for the Lord came to save and not to condemn.

D. Youth Crime

48. Perhaps one of the most disturbing aspects of the crime problem is

the youthful age of many serious offenders. In 1976, 76 percent of all

persons arrested for robbery, 84 percent of those arrested for burglary,

and 57 percent of those arrested for forcible rape were under 25 years

of age. Twenty-four percent of those arrested for murder were between

the ages of 20 and 22.
18

49. Most juveniles designated as offenders have not committed violent

crimes. In almost all states, children who run away from home, who

are truant or who are declared incorrigible by their parents can be sent

to juvenile institutions. Such offenses are generally referred to as status

offenses. They are crimes solely because of a child’s status as a child;

they are not crimes if committed by an adult. In 1975, 75 percent of the

females and 25 percent of the males in facilities for juvenile offenders

were there because of status offenses.
19 The status offender is often in-

carcerated longer than a child who has committed a crime, because in

many cases there is no home to which the runaway or incorrigible child

can be returned.

50. Most youthful offenders are the victims of broken families, unre-

sponsive school systems, turbulent neighborhoods or limited job op-

portunities. Many have become insensitive and cynical after having

been neglected, abused, battered and even raped by members of their

families.
20 Some with average or above average intelligence have learn-

ing disabilities, such as dyslexia, which, untreated, have resulted

in academic failure, in frustration and ultimately in truancy and/or

delinquency.

5 1 . We stated in our document on correctional reform that extraordi-

nary efforts should be made to rehabilitate the juvenile offender.
21

These efforts should begin before the juvenile is sent to the youth fa-

cility. The Christian community has to address itself to the needs of all

youth. Children have to be taught self-respect and respect for others;

however, only by our actions can we hope to demonstrate to them ef-

fectively the meaning of these values. Juvenile offenders should be

.

kept and treated within the community. We support efforts to decrimi-

nalize status offenses in all states. Community programs and altema-



tives, such as foster care, special education, family counseling, recrea-

tion programs and other noninstitutional supportive services, should be

available to youth and their families without resorting to the juvenile

justice system and without stigmatizing those who participate in these

programs.

52. Our primary goal for youth care should be to keep our children out

of the juvenile justice system by providing them with the needed atten-

tion and services. While we do not condone acts of violence by young

people, we recognize that institutionalizing them in the juvenile system

is usually a brutalizing rather than a rehabilitative experience and

serves to further embitter them as well as oftentimes to teach them how

to be more clever criminals rather than better citizens.

E. Nonviolent Crimes

53. Since nonviolent crimes are so often viewed with laxity, we feel

compelled to stress their seriousness and costliness to society. One

category of nonviolent crime is referred to as “white collar crime.”

This term generally means crimes committed by persons in the course

of their employment. It may be an act of an individual, for example,

forgery or embezzlement; or it may be a crime committed in a corpora-

tion’s name, for example, commercial bribery, antitrust crimes such as

price-fixing, product safety and health crimes, and financial crimes. It

may be committed by or perpetrated against corporations, firms, non-

profit organizations, clients, customers, governmental units, et al. It

has been estimated that “white collar crimes” such as embezzlement;

bank, stock and consumer fraud; pilferage; computer crimes; check and

credit card fraud (but excluding antitrust violations) cost $40 billion

each year. This is 200 times the amount stolen by the country’s bank

robbers in 1974.
22

In 1973, $135.6 million was lost in bank frauds and

embezzlement, while $22 million was lost in robberies.23 Although the

economic costs are staggering, we are most concerned about the human

costs; therefore, we reiterate our opposition to “white collar crime,”

as stated in our 1973 document on correctional reform.

54. Failure to comply with attainable and practical air or water pollu-

tion standards, mine safety regulations or safety standards for nuclear

reactors can cause death and destruction. Violations of these regula-

tions can create conditions that shorten the lives of workers, people

living near the industry and consumers.

55. At times, the regulations themselves are developed under ques-

tionable circumstances. The human costs of not implementing strin-

gent standards are weighed against the anticipated profit losses from

observing them. The resulting regulations often reflect a greater con-

cern for industrial profit than for human life. For example, government

agencies may issue licensing criteria which have been opposed by their

own experts, but are supported by the manufacturers or the producers

of the particular product.
24

13





FEDERAL

BUREAU

OF

PRISONS

56. Our national political institutions— political parties, state, local

and federal governments— are sometimes instruments for criminal
activity. Our recent national scandals are particularly shocking because

they took place at the highest levels of government. They were not,

however, unique. Scandals also pervaded our state and local govern-

ments.
25 Crimes by public officials violate the public trust and encour-

age the belief that some people are above the law. In many instances,

political corruption has been related to the need of politicians to raise

large sums of money for election campaigns. Reform of campaign fi-

nance laws is a necessary element of any attempt to address the problem

of political crimes effectively.

57. The response of the criminal justice system to the white collar

offender also undermines respect for law in our society. A study of the
New York Southern District Court during the period from July 1 , 1971,
to June 30, 1972, indicated that the likelihood of imprisonment for

those convicted of embezzlement was 23.2 percent; for bribery, 25 per-

cent; and for bank robbery, 82.3 percent. The average length of the

sentences was 18 months for embezzlement, 11 months for bribery,

and 69.6 months for bank robbery.26

58. Many citizens who are usually law-abiding commit acts for which

they could be prosecuted, if they were caught. Today, many regard the

taking of questionable income tax deductions or driving while intoxi-

cated as normal. This type of activity and the individualistic philosophy

which it reflects were condemned by the Second Vatican Council. 27

59. “White collar crime” imperils our lives and the social fabric of our

society. Yet, our law enforcement agencies devote only a small portion

of their resources to these crimes. In fiscal year 1974, less than 15 per-

cent of the Department of Justice’s legal activities, manpower and

budget were allocated for tax, antitrust and consumer fraud activities.28

Only a few officials maintain useful data on these crimes.29 More im-

portant, however, is the fact that many of these crimes are viewed with

indifference by the community.

60. An effective response to “white collar crime” ought to begin with

the community. No longer should we tolerate “white collar crime” as
normal. We should also examine our own lives to determine how we
contribute to this problem by our actions, attitudes or indifference.

While the “white collar” offender should be treated with compassion

and we should seek the individual’s reconciliation with the community,

we ought to respond vigorously to these crimes and seek their elimina-

tion from our society.

F. Handgun Control

61. In 1976, crime statistics indicated that 64 percent of all murders

were committed with a firearm and 49 percent were committed with

handguns. Twenty-four percent of all aggravated assaults and 43 per-

cent of all robberies were committed with firearms. Eighty-five percent

15



of the police officers killed were killed with firearms.30 Other studies

have shown that most homicides are committed against friends and

relatives, not strangers. Since such a significant number of violent

offenses are committed with handguns and within families, we believe

that handguns need to be effectively controlled and eventually elimi-

nated from our society. We acknowledge that controlling the posses-
sion of handguns will not eliminate gun violence, but we believe it is

an indispensable element of any serious or rational approach to the

problem.
31

G. Law Enforcement and Legal Professionals

62. The swift apprehension, judgment and correction of offenders are

necessary to uphold the law and to secure justice. This requires a law

enforcement and criminal justice system which has strong community

support and is provided with the resources and personnel necessary to

perform its functions justly and effectively. We recognize that most law
enforcement and court personnel work hard to enforce and uphold the

law. This task is often difficult and dangerous. Cooperation between

those professionally involved in the criminal justice system and citizens

and community groups is quintessential to any effort to control crime

effectively.

63. The preservation of law and justice does, however, place a par-

ticular burden on those who enforce the law. As they are often per-

ceived as symbols of the law and the criminal justice system, they have

a special responsibility to demonstrate respect for law, the community

and the rights of others. Too often in recent years, there have been inci-

dents of police brutality, of illegal wiretaps on American citizens, of il-

legal searches and even of burglaries being committed by law enforce-

ment officials. At times, widely-publicized trials have presented a

circus-like image of the judicial process. Many citizens have become

aware of the fact that most offenders do not receive a jury trial, but

rather that their case is decided through an informal process called plea

bargaining. In its most prevalent form, plea bargaining involves an ar-

rangement between the prosecutor and the defendant or the defense

lawyer whereby the accused pleads guilty to a less serious charge than

could be proven at trial. “Less serious” usually means a charge carry-

ing a lower maximum sentence; thus, this confines the judge’s sentenc-

ing power.32 This approach to arriving at a criminal conviction de-

means the criminal justice process.33

64. A sufficient quantity of quality legal services for indigent clients is
critical to a just criminal justice system. Studies indicate that in spite of

the constitutional guarantee of counsel, many poor defendants are not

properly represented
34

Quality legal counsel is a right and not a privi-

lege dependent upon one’s financial resources. It is the responsibility of

the legal profession, the appropriate levels of government and lay citi-

zens to ensure that this right is protected for all citizens.

16



65. We recognize that most law enforcement and court officers do not
engage in illegal activities. Too often, they suffer loss of essential sup-

port from the community because of the misdeeds of others. Those who

do engage in illegal acts should be disciplined if respect for law and law

enforcement is to be maintained and if those who seek to justly enforce

the law are to receive the respect due to them. Many of the problems of

administering criminal justice, however, often lie deeper than individual

errors. For example, plea bargaining, some instances of corruption

within police departments and the illegal use of wiretaps have come to

be viewed as acceptable procedures by many criminal justice profes-

sionals. Some of these activities have become common practice as a

consequence of the limited resources of the criminal justice system.

Others have endured because of poor management or political pres-

sures. Better administrative management and greater community sup-

port are needed to reorganize the criminal justice system in order that it

may achieve the best aspirations of all our people.

H. Grand Jury

66. The grand jury system has come under attack for its use as a

mechanism to abuse the rights of many Americans.35 A grand jury is
generally selected at random from a voter registration list and sits either

for a period of time or for a specific case. Its purpose is to examine in

private session evidence against those accused of serious crimes and, on

the basis ofjust cause, to decide whether or not to indict the individual

for the crime. During a grandjury hearing, practices are permitted which

can lead to abuse, including: the government’s ability to call any wit-

ness without explanation and without advance notice; the barring of the

witness’ attorney from the court room; the practice that, once a witness

begins to answer questions, the Fifth Amendment right to silence has

been waived; the ability to place a witness in jail for contempt for the

length of the grand jury because of refusal to testify; and the govern-

ment’s ability to forcibly impose immunity upon a witness and thereby

require the person to choose between jail or testifying. These powers

have in many instances been used by government prosecutors against

government critics, political opponents and even leaders of churches.

67. Out of a concern for the life and liberty of our people and for social

justice in our society, we believe the time has come to reform the grand

jury system. Reforms should reflect a concern for the human dignity of

each person; the constitutional rights which would be afforded during a

regular trial; and the recognition that the purpose of the grand jury

process is to ensure justice and to protect against capricious accusation,

but not to secure a conviction.

I. Community Crime Prevention

68. Recent discussions about crime have often focused on community

action to prevent crime,36 as well as on sophisticated weapons and the

training of criminal justice professionals. In spite of the “community”

77



rhetoric, however, most of the responsibility for efforts to reduce and

prevent crime has continued to be relinquished to professionals using

modem techniques.

69. While we recognize that criminal justice professionals should be

trained and that new technologies facilitate the detection of crime, they

alone cannot effectively respond to the causes which contribute to

crime in our society. Any effective response to crime has to be sought

in the community. This approach requires the participation and talents

of all members of the community— professionals, nonprofessionals,

young, old and middle-aged. Without this mobilization of all citizens, we

shall remain at the mercy of crime.

J. Research

70. It is evident that the cause of crime and the development of an

effective response to this problem are complex. Further study is needed

of both the root causes of crime and of various alternative approaches

to crime. In recent years, federal and state agencies have funded re-

search, but too many of these efforts have been directed toward the

development of hardware and equipment. Furthermore, the limitations

of self-evaluative research— in this case, agencies studying their own

programs— are well-documented.

71. What is needed is research, which may be govemmentally funded,

but which focuses on the objective study of the causes of crime and ap-

propriate responses. Catholic educational institutions have a particular

capability to promote such research as they possess the expertise and

background in both the relevant academic disciplines and in the moral

and social teachings of the Church. As a consequence of this unique

position, they have a responsibility to both the Church and to the so-

ciety to apply their resources to the study of crime and criminal justice.

K. Special Concerns: the Crime Victim/the Elderly/the Media

72. The victims of crime are often forgotten by the community and by

the criminaljustice system. This experience can engender hatred, which

often harms the individual more than the crime did. As Christians, we

should demonstrate a deep compassion for the victims of crime and be

practically concerned that they receive the compensation and restitu-

tion due them.

73. The elderly are often the victims of violent and nonviolent offenses.

Many of these crimes can be prevented by providing community efforts

as simple as better lighting at a bus stop or informing people about

techniques used to defraud the elderly of their savings. The elderly can

assist in crime prevention efforts by working as volunteers in law en-

forcement agencies, with ex-offenders in transition or by becoming in-

volved in programs for juveniles. Recently, we have also found exam-

ples of programs through which young people, even gang members,

have worked to assist and protect senior citizens from crime. These

18



efforts provide meaningful employment for the young, needed help to

the elderly and create a means to develop love and understanding be-

tween the two generations. By seeking to utilize the skills of both the

young and the old, the community not only receives assistance in its

anti-crime efforts, but also reaffirms the human dignity of those who are

all too often cast aside.

74. While strongly supporting the constitutional rights of free speech

and press, we believe that those in the media should exercise, as many

are doing already, greater moral responsibility in the development of

entertainment and news programs and materials. We also believe that
efforts should be made within the family and through schools and par-

ishes to help children develop a critical sense with which to approach

media presentations and to provide alternatives to the quick thrills and

simplistic problem-solving approaches depicted by the media.

VI. THE ROLE OF THE CHURCH

75. As a Christian community, we have a responsibility to utilize our

resources to respond to the problem of crime in America. Our actions

should reflect our Christian values, as well as our constitutional and

legal traditions. We should seek to revitalize our basic social institu-

tions, which are our strongest weapons against the destruction caused

by crime. Action should be taken at the local level through parishes

and dioceses and at the national, public policy-making level.

A. The Responsibility of the Local Church

76. The most important setting for Church activities to reduce and pre-

vent crime is the local church. It can join with other local groups to as-

sess and respond to the problem of crime in a community. Many par-

ishes and dioceses are already involved in a variety of anti-crime

activities. We extend our support to this work and encourage other
parishes and dioceses as well as religious orders to undertake or co-

operate with others in efforts such as:

( 1 ) More actively seeking to foster Christian values through edu-

cation, liturgy and the media, in order to prevent as well as to re-

spond to crime. The Church, as a community of Christians, needs

to reflect a positive image of uncompromising respect for the law

and the human rights of all persons, as well as a strong desire for

the rehabilitation and reintegration of the individual offender into

the community.

(2) Providing forums for the discussion of the nature and types of

crime and criminal justice issues.

(3) Sponsoring discussions and developing materials on Christian

approaches to reduce and prevent all types of crime.

(4) Organizing exchanges between criminal justice professionals

and citizens and ex-offenders about the problems, services and

needs of the community.

19



(5) Organizing discussions among business professionals and be-

tween professionals and citizens to discuss and seek effective ways

of responding to all types of “white collar crime.”

(6) Encouraging Catholic lawyers, psychologists, psychiatrists

and other professionals to offer their expertise to the indigent and

the disadvantaged.

(7) Providing educational, employment and recreational oppor-

tunities for youth to assure that they are presented with a clear

alternative to the false values of violence and materialism often

idealized in our society.

(8) Initiating or supporting community efforts to improve housing

conditions, city services, safety and the general quality of life in the

area.

(9) Sponsoring crisis intervention and family counseling projects,

especially to respond to the problems of battered wives, abused

spouses and battered children.

(10) Establishing a system of “block patrols” and citizen watches

in high crime areas. Developing strong, supportive neighborhood

groups.

(11) Providing assistance and protection to the elderly, particu-

larly in high crime areas, and encouraging their participation in

crime prevention efforts.

(12) Supporting or sponsoring efforts to assist the accused, such as

pre-trial release projects and legal services programs.

(13) Sponsoring programs to monitor court proceedings in order to

assure that the rights of all citizens who come before the court are

protected.

( 14) Establishing, supporting, as well as educating people about the

importance of: community correctional alternatives, such as, half-

way houses, group homes and drug and alcohol abuse centers;

community service sentencing alternatives; community mediation

centers; and other models.

(15) Supporting foster care, group home and nonresidential com-

munity programs for youthful offenders and encouraging their

participation in community crime prevention efforts.

(16) Supporting efforts to assist and work in cooperation with

offenders and their families, for example, in third party custody re-

lease programs, projects to facilitate visiting by the offenders’ fam-

ilies, furlough programs and educational and job training programs.

(17) Aiding parolees to find suitable work and encouraging em-

ployers to hire these individuals.

( 1 8) Creating programs to respond to the physical and emotional



needs of the victims of crime.

(19) Sponsoring special Dismas Sunday liturgies.

(20) Providing subsidies to correctional chaplains through the

diocese or religious order, where needed, in order to permit those

in prison ministry to exercise more fully and freely their mission as

ministers of Christ.

(21) Implementing adequate guidance programs for those choos-

ing to minister to residents of correctional facilities. Whenever

possible, these should be ecumenical in spirit.

(22) Supporting and encouraging the development of research on

the causes of crime and alternative responses, particularly through

Catholic universities, colleges and research organizations.

77. Many of these efforts can and should be undertaken in cooperation

with other religious and community groups, as well as governmental

agencies. They should be developed in conjunction with efforts to se-

cure greater social justice in other areas, such as health, housing, wel-

fare, economics and discrimination. Although the needs and therefore

the response of each community will differ, it is evident that the Church

has a responsibility to act to reduce crime and that this involvement

ought to reflect values and principles which are consistent with the

Gospel and the American constitutional traditions.

B. Public Policy

78. Crime and criminal justice have traditionally been the concern of

state and local authorities in the United States. Only a few specific

offenses, such as bank robbery and crimes involving interstate activi-

ties, have fallen under the jurisdiction of federal authorities. Since the

1960s, the federal government has expanded its role in the criminal jus-

tice field. It now exerts a much greater influence over state and local

criminal justice policies as a consequence of several U. S. Supreme

Court decisions and the policies and programs of the Law Enforcement

Assistance Administration of the U. S. Department of Justice. In light

of the complex network of government controls in criminal justice, a

comprehensive response to crime will require governmental action at

the national and state levels, as well as the local level.

79. In accordance with the principles expressed earlier in this docu-

ment, we encourage the United States Catholic Conference and the

dioceses of this country to support governmental action and public

policy initiatives in several areas:

(1) An effective response to the socioeconomic causes ofcrime. Action

has to be taken to end socioeconomic deprivation through full employ-

ment and a guarantee of a decent income for all Americans. We also

urge that measures be adopted to secure the right to a decent home,

quality education and adequate medical care.37 We need to mobilize

21



our national and community resources to respond to the inadequate

social conditions which contribute to certain types of crime.

(2) Response to “white collar crime” “White collar crime” is a com-

plex problem which will have to be addressed on a variety of levels. In

order to approach this problem effectively, we believe that it will be

necessary to develop measures to respond both to the different types of

white collar offenses and to provide for relief for the victims of these

crimes. Much of the public policy effort will involve technical issues on

which we cannot comment. We do believe, however, that public policy

initiatives to address white collar crimes are needed and that they

should reflect the seriousness of these offenses with respect to indi-

viduals and society. Strict codes of ethics and conduct should be

adopted and enforced by institutions, organizations, professions and

associations. Educational initiatives are needed to assist the potential

victims of these crimes— members of the business community, profes-

sionals and citizens— to recognize these crimes and thereby help to

prevent them.

(3) Handgun control. We support the development of a coherent na-

tional handgun control policy that includes: a several day cooling-off

period between the sale and possession; a ban on “Saturday Night Spe-

cials”; the registration of handguns; the licensing of handgun owners;

and more effective controls regulating the manufacture, sale and im-

portation of handguns. We recognize, however, that these individual

steps will not completely eliminate the abuse of handguns. We believe

that only prohibition of the importation, manufacture, sale, possession

and use of handguns (with reasonable exceptions made for the police,

military, security guards and pistol clubs where guns would be kept on

the premises under secure conditions) will provide a comprehensive

response to handgun violence.
38

(4) Juvenile justice. Our primary goal should be to keep our youth out

of the juvenile justice system and to provide the resources to meet their

needs within the community. Status offenses should be decriminalized

in all states and, at the same time, the needed services and community

assistance to these youth should be provided outside the confines of the

juvenile justice system. We support the development of job training

programs, meaningful employment opportunities, recreational facilities

and other community alternatives to assist our youth to develop self-

respect and respect for others.

(5) Federal criminaljustice assistance. Federal criminal justice monies

should be primarily utilized for state and local community development

and for crime prevention efforts rather than for sophisticated equipment.

(6) Community-based alternatives. For most offenders, we support the

utilization of federal, state and local correctional funds for community-

based alternatives, including requiring the offender to perform a service

for the community, providing restitution to the victim, utilizing other

forms of nonresidential alternatives and placement in community-

22



based facilities in limited cases. Primary concern should be placed on

developing creative alternatives to incarceration. We recognize, how-
ever, that there are a few individuals who cannot function in the com-

munity. They should be cared for in small and secure facilities which

respect their dignity and protect the community. While prisons are

operative, efforts should be made to assure humane conditions for the

incarcerated. Funds should be directed toward community-based alter-

natives and rehabilitative programs. At the pre-trial stage, community

alternatives, such as third party release programs and projects to iden-

tify and verify the residence and employment of the accused, should be

developed to permit the more frequent release of offenders on bail

while protecting the security of the community. These practices should

not be used to discriminate against the poor, the weak and minorities.

(7) Local , state and federal sentencing policies. Our primary goal in

reforming sentencing policies should be to assure the following: the

limited use of imprisonment, the utilization of community alternatives

for most criminal offenders and the elimination of arbitrary disparity in

sentences in order that those committing essentially the same crime re-

ceive equivalent sentences. Committees comprised of citizens and ex-

perts should be created to review sentencing procedures and policies

periodically, as well as to establish the types of mitigating and aggravat-

ing circumstances that may be considered in individual cases.

(8) Capital punishment. We continue to oppose efforts to reinstitute
the death penalty.

(9) Electronic surveillance. In general, we oppose the use of wiretaps

and other electronic surveillance mechanisms for the purpose of gather-

ing economic and political information from conversations customarily

considered private. We believe that there is a need for further study of
the ethical dimensions of surveillance for the purpose of national se-

curity. We support the creation of legislative regulations which would
limit the use of these devices to cases of extreme national danger and

permit the Congress to review the use of wiretaps by the executive

branch.

(10) Victim compensation. We support the creation of systems of vic-
tim compensation at the federal, state and local levels. We believe that
the community has to share in the responsibility of providing restitution

to the victims of crime. Such a program should provide compensation

for personal injuries which were the result of a crime; compensation for

surviving dependents of an individual whose death was a consequence

of a crime; compensation for a percentage of the property lost as a

consequence of a crime. Where possible, the offender should be a par-

ticipant in the process of restitution.39

(11) Grandjury reform. We support the reform of the grand jury sys-
tem so as to assure the constitutional rights of grand jury witnesses.

80. The need for action in these areas exists at the state and local levels

as well. We encourage individuals, parishes, dioceses, those in re-

25



ligious orders and other organizations to support such efforts in their

communities.

VII. CONCLUSION

8 1 . The magnitude and complexity of the American crime problem are

so formidable that they create a feeling of hopelessness and a tempta-

tion to accept crime as a fact of life because solutions are difficult.

Rather than allowing ourselves to succumb to these feelings, what is

needed is a united and widespread effort to address this problem.

82. At this time, our concern is not to console those who are discour-

aged by the dimensions ofthe crime problem but to challenge our people,

and all Americans, to confront crime and the attitudes, conditions and

false values that foster it, in spite of the immensity of the task. We seek

the talents, initiatives, responses and support of all God’s people.

83. As believers, we have strong traditions from which to develop a

response to crime. As Americans, we can find real support in our con-

stitutional heritage and our fundamental social institutions— the

family, the community and the neighborhood.

84. In efforts to reduce and prevent crime, believers have to strive to

exemplify the attitude of Christ our Lord, who loved His enemies, who

forgave those who persecuted and executed Him, and who taught that

love and forgiveness are the only forces that can overcome evil and

hatred.
40 Despite the difficulty of this task, we should endeavor to

create communities which incarnate this saving love. We also need to

balance the competing interests of those involved with the criminal

justice system, in accordance with the protections which are guaran-

teed in the American Constitution.

85. It is recognized that many of the solutions to the problem of crime,

such as the elimination of deprivation and unemployment and changes

in attitudes and values, will take time, patience, financial resources and

considerable self-sacrifice. Yet, we are hopeful that as a community in

the land of the free and home of the brave, we can respond effectively

to the problem of crime in our society.

86. This very difficult task of responding to the problem of the curtail-

ment and the elimination of crime in America needs a commitment full

of faith, hope and charity-one that embodies the teaching ofJesus who

is both Lord and Messiah.
41

24



Footnotes

1. Statistics were taken from: Crime in the United States 1976: Uniform Crime Reports

,

Federal Bureau of Investigation, U. S. Department of Justice (Washington, D. C.: Gov-

ernment Printing Office, 1976).

2. Annual Report of the Attorney General of the United States, U. S. Department of

Justice (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office,- 1975), p. 146.

3. Mk. 15:27; Lk. 23:34a; Lk. 4:18f.

4. Mt. 5:11-12,38-48

5. Col. 3:2, 5-10; Rom. 14:7-8; Rom. 13:1-7; Rom. 14:9.

6. Mt. 6:33.

7. “Interview With Norman A. Carlson,” Corrections Digest 5 (June 12, 1974): 464.

8. “The Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modem World,” The Documents of
Vatican II, ed. Walter M. Abbott, SJ. (New York: Guild Press, 1966; U.S.A.: America

Press and Association Press, 1966), p. 257.

9. Mt. 5:11-12; Lk. 15.

10. For example: Gresham Sykes, Society ofCaptives (New Jersey: Princeton Univer-

sity Press, 1958); Theoretical Studies in Social Organization ofthe Prisons, ed. Richard

Cloward (New York: Social Research Council, 1960); Tom Wicker,/! Time To Die

(New York: Quadrangle, 1975).

11. National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, Correc-

tions (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1973), pp. 232-236; Ira Schwartz,

“Prisons Run for Humans— Not Animals,” Chicago Tribune, August 23, 1976; Robert
B. Coates, Alden D. Miller and Lloyd E. Ohlin, Exploratory Analyses ofRecidivism and

Cohort Data on the Massachusetts Youth Correctional System (Cambridge, Massachu-

setts: Harvard Law School Center for Criminal Justice, 1975).

12. National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, Correc-

tions, p. 274.

13. Mt. 18:21-22.

14. Among them were: Andrew von Hirsch, Doing Justice (New York: Hill and Wang,

1976); Fair and Certain Punishment, Report of the Twentieth Century Fund Task Force

on Criminal Sentencing (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1976); David Fogel,

We Are the Living Proof (Cincinnati: W. H. Anderson, 1976).

15. The Reform of Correctional Institutions in the 1970s (Washington, D. C.: United

States Catholic Conference, November 1973).

16. Motion on Capital Punishment (Washington, D. C.: United States Catholic Confer-

ence, November 1974).

17. For example: T. Sellin, The Death Penalty (Report for the Model Penal Code

of the American Law Institute, 1959); Idem., “Capital Punishment,” Federal Probation

25 (September 1961); David C. Baldus and James W. L. Cole, “A Comparison of the

Work of Thorsten Sellin and Isaac Ehrlich on the Deterrent Effect of Capital Punish-

ment,” Yale Law Review 85 (December 1975): 170-186; William J. Bowers and Glenn

L. Pierce, “The Illusion of Deterrence in Isaac Ehrlich’s Work on Capital Punishment,”

Yale Law Review 85 (December 1975): 1 87-208; Peter Passed, “The Deterrent Effect of

the Death Penalty,” StanfordLaw Review 28 (November 1975): 61-80.

18. Crime in the United States, 1976: Uniform Crime Reports.

19. Rosemary Sarri, Under Lock and Key: Juvenile Jails and Detention (Ann Arbor,

Michigan: National Assessment of Juvenile Corrections, University of Michigan, De-

cember 1974), p. 18.

20. For example: Gisela Konopka, The Adolescent Girl in Conflict (Englewood Cliffs,

New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1966); Kenneth Wooden, Weeping in the Playtime ofOthers
(New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1976).

21. The Reform ofCorrectional Institutions in the 1970s.



22. “White Collar Justice,” Law Week, April 13, 1976.

23. Hearings before the Senate Subcommittee on Criminal Laws and Procedures of the

Committee on the Judiciary on S. 1 and S. 1400, 94th Cong., 1st sess., (July 19, 1975).

24. Daniel F. Ford and Henry W. Kendall, “Nuclear Safety,” Environment, September

1972, pp. 1-6.

25. Hearings on S. 1 and S. 1400, p. 7893.

26. “White Collar Justice,” p. 1 1.

27. “The Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modem World,” p. 228.

28. Hearings on S. 1 and S. 1400, p. 7893.

29. Ibid.

30. Crime in the United States, 1976: Uniform Crime Reports.

31. Handgun Violence: A Threat to Life (Washington, D. C.: Committee on Social De-

velopment and World Peace, United States Catholic Conference, September 1975).

32. President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, Task

Force Report: Courts (Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1967),

pp. 10-11.

33. National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, Correc-

tions, pp. 168-169.

34. For example: David L. Bazelon, “The Realities of Gideon and Argersinger,”

Georgetown Law Journal 64 (March 1976): 811-838; National Advisory Commission

on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, Courts (Washington, D. C.: Government

Printing Office, 1973), pp. 250-252; Idem., A National Strategy to Reduce Crime

(Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1973), pp. 105-106; Guidelines for

Legal Defense Systems in the United States: The Report of the National Study Com-

mission on Defense Services (Washington, D. C.: National Legal Aid and Defender As-

sociation, 1976).

35. Grand Jury, No. 1-4(1976).

36. President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, The

Challenge of Crime in a Free Society (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office,

1967), p. 39.

37. The Right to a Decent Home (Washington, D. C.: United States Catholic Confer-

ence, November 1975); The Economy: Human Dimensions (Washington, D. C.: U. S.

Catholic Conference, November 1975).

38. Handgun Violence: A Threat to Life.

39. The Reform ofCorrectional Institutions in the 1970s, p. 6.

40. Lk. 23:34; Rom. 12:17,20-21.

41. Acts. 2:36.

26





A FORMAL STATEMENT OF THE
UNITED STATES CATHOLIC CONFERENCE ON

THE REFORM OF
CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS

IN THE 1970s
NOVEMBER 1973

I was ill and you comforted me, in prison and you came to visit me.

Then the just will ask him:
i(

Lord . . . when did we visit you when you

were ill or in prison?” The King will answer them: ‘T assure you, as

often as you did it for one of my least brothers, you did it for me.”

(Matt. 25:36ff)

Introduction

In the preparation of this statement, more than a score of persons were

consulted, both in their individual professional capacities and, in some

instances, as representatives of particular groups. Included in this con-

sultation were prison chaplains, minority group representatives, admin-

istrative and custodial personnel of correctional institutions and repre-

sentatives of an ex-otfender organization. Comments of the Federal

Bureau of Prisons were helpful, particularly in verifying certain factual

points and the feasibility of specific recommendations, without imply-

ing endorsement of this statement by the bureau. 1 To all who assisted

us we are indebted for their contribution.

Concern

In recent years Americans have experienced deepening concern over

the presence and nature of crime in our nation.2 We share this concern.
Fully adequate law enforcement and protection of law-abiding citizens

are clear but unmet needs. We oppose violence, whether in defiance of
law and order or under the cover of preserving law and order. We op-
pose both “crime in the streets” and “white collar crime.” Dedicated

people throughout the country are earnestly striving to identify and

deal with the roots of crime.
3 Some, very properly, are questioning

society’s reaction to victimless crimes. Others are addressing them-

selves to the issues of law enforcement and the procedures of our

criminal courts. Still others are concentrating their attention upon the

manner in which suspects and convicted criminals are dealt with and

provided for while incarcerated.

The numerous reports issued by representatives of this last group,

coupled with incidents of violence in correctional institutions across

the nation, have aroused many consciences. In a few instances, federal

district court orders have dealt positively with abuses in local institu-

tions of incarceration, because some of the constitutional rights of the

resident offenders were being violated. We believe it is timely and ur-



gent that we express ourselves on the moral problems involved in sen-

tencing and incarcerating violators of the law.

We wish it clearly understood that most administrators, guards and
other staff members of our correctional institutions are decent, dedi-

cated public servants and that those confined— aside from those await-

ing trial— are there because they have been found guilty of crimes or
contempt of court.

Crime and punishment are pre-eminently moral issues .4 Much of the

amorality in society today arises from contemporary man’s neglect or

refusal to place his affairs ultimately in God’s hands. In attempting to

take control away from God one begins the process of losing control

over himself. The immorality of crime results from disregard for the

love and worship owed to God; from lack of consideration and esteem

for one’s neighbor; and from failures in self-knowledge and in self-

discipline.

It behooves us to be aware that, despite well-publicized exceptions,

prisons are largely filled with the poor, the disadvantaged minorities

and the “losers” of our society. We need to examine whether we may
not have a “poor man’s” system of criminal justice. Often the petty

thief— the shoplifter or the pickpocket— goes to jail while the clever

embezzler, the glib swindler, the powerful racketeer, the polished

profiteer may only undergo the litigation of the civil courts. In the case

of the open “vices” prohibited by law, the “town drunk” is sentenced

by ajudge while the “country club alcoholic” is treated by a physician.

We insist that punishment, in order to fulfill its proper purpose, must fit
the nature of the crime; it must be considerate of the offender’s human

dignity; and, it must be tempered by mercy and constantly aimed at

reconciliation.

In our response to the urging of Jesus, recorded in St. Matthew’s Gos-

pel, to “visit” those in prisons, it is necessary that we not only visit

individuals confined in prison but “visit” the correctional system itself.

Our concern for correctional institutions does not exist in isolation

from other related issues. The injustices and inequities that plague our

society affect both the incidence of crime and the administration of cor-

rectional institutions. The problems in these institutions are also inti-

mately bound up with the inadequacies of our judicial system. These

include unreasonably delayed trials, particularly aggravating when the

accused is jailed; the lack both of quality and adequate quantity of

legal counsel for the needy; difficulties with bail bonds; and widespread

abuses of such useful expedients as plea bargaining.

What happens in the correctional institutions of this nation should not

be considered apart from what is happening in the courts, in the execu-

tive offices of powerful corporations where major economic decisions

affecting millions of people are often made, in the legislatures, in police

stations, in employment offices, in schools, in homes and on the streets.

Society’s most serious failings— in the ugly and despicable forms of

29



racism, disrespect for life, physical violence, political repression and

corruption, erosion of individual and civil liberties, setting profit for the

few over the necessities ofthe many, sexual perversion and materialistic

inducements— all add explosive fuel to the smoldering problems in the

field of correction.

Several broad issues of criminal justice are distinct from, but related to,

conditions in correctional institutions. One is the general slowness and

inadequacy offederal and state criminal judicial procedures. Delays and

overloads by themselves raise serious questions of equity, most often

adversely affecting the poor. The rights of the accused should be pro-

tected before and during trial. Before formal charges are made, adequate

evidence should be an absolute requirement. Additional analyses and

funding to reorganize the criminal justice system to accord with the best

aspirations of all our people should be given urgent priority.

Recompense for the innocent victims of crime is a sensitive and painful

problem. Society must share at least some of the responsibility for com-

pensating innocent victims of crime. When a way is found to pay offend-

ers a fair rate for the work they do in confinement, provisions should be

made for regular court-determined payments as at least partial recom-

pense to the victims, or the survivors of the victims of their crimes. This

also could become a more personalized aspect of programs such as now

exist in several states to compensate innocent victims of violent crimes.

Purpose of Correctional Institutions

Whether the penal system of the United States should not seek to deal

with all except dangerous offenders outside of penal institutions is a

question which merits much attention. This is a challenging concept

clamoring for a fair chance to prove itself— a chance which society

should give it forthwith. There is increasing and strongly convincing

evidence that a large center of incarceration should not be the major in-

strument for dealing with convicted offenders. Bigger, better, more

modem buildings are not the answer.

Smaller, community-based facilities are beginning to prove that they

are more appropriate and effective. Half-way houses, work contracts

and other alternatives need to be more fully explored. A sympathetic
consideration of such approaches should precede any extensive re-

modeling of existing buildings or construction of contemplated new

structures.

In the meantime, however, we must deal with the correctional system

as it is. When one examines the situation of confined, convicted crimi-

nals, one finds an urgent need to clarify precisely what society is seek-

ing to achieve through their incarceration. Is a correctional institution

an instrument of punishment whereby a criminal “does time” in expia-

tion for his misdeeds? Is it a place of custody where a dangerous citizen

is detained in order to protect and restore order in society? Is it a means

of retribution designed to deter the criminal himself and/or the populace

30



at large from engaging in unlawful behavior? Is a correctional institution

ultimately a place for rehabilitation in which a criminal is re-educated or

reconciled to a lawful way of life? We feel it is, or ought to be, a com-
posite of all ofthese, but that pre-eminently it is a place for rehabilitation.

Correctional institutions in fact do harm if they do not offer opportunity

for rehabilitation. We are unequivocally committed to the view that re-
habilitation should be their primary concern and will do all in our power

to make this a reality. There are, however, limitations in this concept.

The ideal of rehabilitation cannot, for example, justify investing mem-
bers of the criminal justice system with excessive discretion to extend a

prisoner’s term of incarceration. Because of the very common practice
of indeterminate sentencing and the frequently arbitrary decisions of

overburdened parole boards, a criminal’s confinement time can be un-

justly and inhumanly extended beyond any reasonable criterion of ret-

ribution for his offense. There is need for a mechanism by which parole

board decisions can be reviewed, with provision for judicial interven-

tion if necessary.

Those engaged in motivating confined individuals should bear in mind

that they are dealing with human beings, created in the image and like-

ness of God and endowed with free will. Rehabilitation cannot be im-
posed. The offender has to be convinced of its value and led freely to

desire it. Moreover, methods of rehabilitation whose appropriateness

can be called into question by reasonable persons should not be forced

upon any and all indiscriminately. Certain kinds of group therapy or

chemico-psychological treatments or experimentation should not be re-

quired of those unwilling or unable to make an intelligent and free deci-

sion to submit to them. Furthermore, when such unwillingness results

in prolonging the term of incarceration or other discretionary penalties,

basic freedoms of the incarcerated are affronted. “Hiring out” the sen-

tenced, as is occasionally done with illegal immigrants in particular, is a

wholly unacceptable practice. As the intention to rehabilitate does not
exempt from the obligations of retributive justice, so retribution does

not legitimatize assaults upon human dignity. Although we speak in the
defense of rights of prisoners, we are not unaware of their responsibili-
ties and obligations. They should obey reasonable regulations, serve the
just sentences imposed, respect the staff and other residents of the insti-

tuion and cooperate in the process of rehabilitation.

There is general agreement among qualified commentators that the cor-

rectional institutions of our land have, in most cases, failed in the matter

of rehabilitation. The numbers of those who are re-incarcerated tend to

prove this. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger recently argued the need to

reform penal institutions and to develop processes to determine whether

particular convicted persons should or should not be confined . 5 The

widespread failure to rehabilitate, the Chief Justice observed, is dem-

onstrated by the degree of recidivism. It is true, of course, that rehabili-

tation is not the only purpose of prisons and that their historic purpose

has been to incarcerate. However, even the effectiveness of prisons in

31



incarcerating is related to their effectiveness in rehabilitation. Cer-

tainly with regard to rehabilitation, they are, in general, not performing

acceptably. All blame, however, for recidivism cannot be attributed to

the institutions. Society’s unwillingness to accept released offenders

with compassion and understanding is a large factor in recidivism.

Operation of Correctional Institutions

Whatever the professed intentions of society may be, our correctional

institutions are fundamentally places of custody, strongholds for the

secure removal of certain citizens from our midst. Accordingly, the re-

habilitative staff (psychologists, sociologists, chaplains, teachers, in-

structors, etc.) is regularly subordinated to the custodial staff (wardens,

guards, etc.), not only on the organization chart of the institution’s ad-

ministration but also in regard to budget. In addition, correctional insti-

tutions are commonly located far from urban centers from which the

majority of convicted criminals come and to which they are likely to

return. Consequently, inmates have little opportunity gradually to learn

or re-leam conventional societal living through controlled educational

and social contacts or even through regular visits from relatives, friends

or sympathetic volunteers. Distance from urban centers also greatly

reduces the likelihood of recruiting a staff whose racial, ethnic and so-

cial backgrounds are similar to those of the inmates. Thus, alienation

and lack of understanding between staff and residents are almost inevi-

table; and rehabilitation remains largely an abstract ideal rather than a

concrete achievement.

Add to all of this in some cases such positive injustices as minimal op-

portunities for academic or vocational training, unsatisfying work ex-

perience with pay that is frequently demeaning, sexual assaults, inade-

quate diet, meager bathing and recreational facilities, insufficient

psychological and medical care, fear, loneliness and shame, plus the all-

too-common outrage of associating youthful first offenders with hard-

ened criminals, and the result can be the very reverse of an institution

of rehabilitation. It is instead an instrument of punishment or perhaps

just a means of deterring the criminally inclined from engaging in un-

lawful behavior; it may also be a setting which generates further crimes

in a spirit of vindictiveness.

Rights of Prisoners

The conditions which prevail in many of our correctional institutions

cannot be defended on the grounds of either punishment or deterrence.

Christian belief in the potential goodness of man and recognition of

every human being’s dignity as a child ofGod redeemed by Jesus Christ

causes us to recoil from any form of punishment which is degrading or

otherwise corrodes the human personality. Society has a right to protect

itself against lawbreakers and even to exact just and measured retribu-

tion, but the limits of what is reasonable and just are far exceeded in too

many penal institutions. Abuses cannot be justified on the basis of their

32



effectiveness as deterrents to crime. The disturbing statistics of recidi-

vism demonstrate that our correctional institutions have little deterrent

effect. It is necessary in any case to raise serious moral objection to

tormenting one man unjustly in order to instruct or caution another.

All these considerations bring us back to the primary purpose of houses

of correction in the United States as commonly articulated in law and

accepted by society. Correctional institutions should be institutions of

rehabilitation. They should help men and women rebuild their lives so

that, with few exceptions, they can return to society as considerate,

free and law-abiding citizens. They are places of custody, but they are

never to be only that. They are also instruments of retribution and in a

measure strategies for deterrence. These purposes, nevertheless, are to

be kept in balance with the need to safeguard the moral order in society

while at the same time assisting in the rehabilitation of offending human

beings who urgently need society’s understanding and care.

Such an analysis clearly derives from a religious conception of man

and commitment to the virtues of justice and charity. However, even

apart from religious and humanitarian motivation, society’s self-interest

will best be served by adopting such a view of correctional institutions

and working to make it a reality. Nothing whatever is gained by per-

mitting correctional institutions to function as mere fortresses within

which self-hatred and embitterment thrive. Confined offenders are not

our “enemies.” They are fellow human beings, most of whom will one

day move freely in our midst, either better or worse for their prison ex-

perience. If worse, either they have failed themselves or we have failed

both them and ourselves. If better, we have acted in righteousness be-

fore God and man; and we have also made an important, essentially

positive, contribution to safety and tranquillity in society. In addition,

we are ever mindful that each resident offender has individual needs.

We emphasize this even as we urge that the correctional institutions
develop a relationship— far closer than heretofore— to society in

general.

Recommendations

With all this in mind, we offer the following suggestions for reform in

the correctional institutions of the United States. Some of these pro-

posals are already being implemented in various places. We add our
own endorsement not as experts in penology but as concerned citizens

and men of faith. There is no intent to coddle criminals or to harass ad-

ministrators of correctional institutions. We speak with a view to moti-
vating all those with responsibilities in the field of correction so that

their efforts may render correctional facilities more efficacious instru-

ments for the rehabilitation of offenders and for deterrence of further

crime. In the prayerful hope of sustaining the best efforts of the often

heroic men and women who staff correctional institutions and whose

skill, patience, prudence, kindness and dedication are vital to the re-

habilitative process, we strongly recommend a higher scale of remuner-

33



ation with realistic provisions for safety and security in the perform-

ance of their duties. Our fundamental purpose remains throughout— to

insure protection for all the civil rights of confined offenders in an

atmosphere of human compassion conducive to reconciliation and

rehabilitation.

1 . Correctional institutions whose residents come mainly from urban

centers should usually be located near these centers. This will fa-

cilitate such desirable things as visitation by relatives, friends and

volunteers, recruitment of prison staffs from among members of

racial, ethnic and social groups similar to those to which the resi-

dents belong, and even the gradual reintegration of the residents

into free society.

2. Staffs should be recruited on the basis of ability, training and ex-

perience without reference to partisan politics.6 The most modern

sociological and psychological means should be used to screen and

select the staff. Salaries should be competitive with those paid per-

sons engaged in education and training activities in the private sec-

tor. The custodial and rehabilitative staffs should be integrated so

that rehabilitation is furthered rather than subordinated to other

purposes. Staff members should be encouraged to seek further

training through courses in universities and colleges and through

regular participation in “in-service” training programs. Advance-

ment and salary increases should be determined at least in part by

the extent of such continuing education.

3. In developing programs and facilities careful consideration to the

varying needs of men and women is important. Male residents

should be separated from female residents in different facilities;

juveniles from adults; first offenders from repeaters; sexual offend-

ers in specialized treatment centers. The emotionally disturbed

should be treated in institutions designed for this purpose. The

availability of educational training and any other appropriate pro-

grams for men and women together should be investigated. Extra-

ordinary efforts should be made to rehabilitate juvenile offenders.

Few, if any, offenders should be deprived of access to families and

friends.

4. Discrimination because of race, religion or national or ethnic back-

ground is never tolerable. Inspectors should be especially alert to

expressions of such discrimination in work assignments, the grant-

ing of privileges and the manner in which residents are addressed,

responded to, given orders and corrected by members of the staff.

5. Free exercise of religion should be guaranteed in every institution.

Religious services of various faiths and denominations should be

regularly available; chaplains should be welcomed on a continuing

or an occasion-by-occasion basis, as needed; and dietary laws

should be respected. Residents should be free to consult their

chaplains in private and at length. The chaplains should never be

34



constrained to testify before parole boards or to share privileged

information with members of the staff. Chaplains should not be re-

quired to serve on administrative boards which make decisions

about discipline, parole or probation.

6. All residents should be given the regulations of the institution in

writing. They should be advised of their rights and privileges, their

responsibilities and obligations, punishments to which they are

subject for infractions of regulations and established grievance pro-

cedures. When necessary, the regulations should be read to resi-

dents, in a language they understand. The regulations should be

available not only to inspectors but also to the general public.

7. Residents should never be authorized to punish one another. Mem-

bers of the staff should not inflict any punishments other than those

stipulated in the regulations for a particular infraction. Whipping,

shackling as a punishment and other penalties which are of their

nature cruel or degrading are to be excluded. If solitary confine-

ment is necessary as a last resort, the cell should be standard size,

well lighted and ventilated, and the resident should be properly

clothed. Adequate diet and facilities for bodily hygiene are to be

provided together with regular visitation by a medical officer.

8. All residents should be afforded protection against all assaults,

sexual or otherwise, even if this requires a transfer.

9. At least elementary and secondary education and vocational

training that is truly useful in free society should be provided all

residents who wish to take advantage of these opportunities. In

vocational and apprentice training the wholehearted cooperation of

industry and labor is indispensable and could very well become a

key factor in personal readjustment for the residents.

10. The work to which a resident is assigned should be — and appear to

be— worthwhile and compatible with the dignity of a human being.
Nothing is so devastating to human aspirations as a work assign-

ment which both parties know is really useless. National standards*

should be adopted and promulgated regarding compensation for

work. Enabling the residents to work at a fair wage may, among

other things, help keep their families off the welfare rolls, either

totally or partially. Much greater emphasis is needed on practical

job training and post-release employment opportunity. Govern-

ment agencies should make it their policy to purchase products

produced in correctional institutions whenever possible.

11. National standards should be adopted and promulgated regarding

residents’ diets, the lighting and ventilation of their living and work-

ing environments, their access to toilet and bathing facilities, the

* Reference here and elsewhere to “national standards” implies the hope that states

would voluntarily adhere to them. However, consideration should be given to making

adherence a pre-condition of any federal grants to the state’s criminal justice system.

35



extremes of temperature in which they are required to live and

work, the quality and cleanliness of their clothing and the medical

and psychiatric care available to them. Undue regimentation in
clothing and grooming should be eliminated.

12. A resident should be free to refuse treatments, aimed at social re-
habilitation, whose appropriateness can be called into question by

reasonable persons in and outside the institution. No penalties of
any kind should result from such refusal.

13. National standards should be adopted and promulgated regarding

the residents’ right to send and receive mail, censorship of mail

(allowing for necessary inspection), access to printed literature

within the institution and from without, and opportunities to listen

to the radio and watch television. In developing these standards, it

should be borne in mind that most resident offenders are preparing

to return to free society, where their survival will depend largely

upon the persons with whom they maintained contact during their
confinement and their knowledge and understanding of current

events and thinking.

14. Authorities should encourage visiting by residents’ relatives,

friends and acquaintances. The design and appointments of visiting

rooms should create an atmosphere of dignity, warmth and as

much privacy as possible. Where feasible, opportunity and facilities

for conjugal visits should be provided for married residents and

their spouses. Where possible, family celebrations, picnics and such

events as “father-son” and “mother-daughter” days should be ar-

ranged. Furloughs should be more liberal, when this is prudent in

order to strengthen family life. Furloughs can help offenders apply

for jobs, visit sick relatives, attend funerals and maintain social ties

useful toward rehabilitation. The experience can also be a helpful

forerunner to parole. In some states this has proven to be a suc-

cess.
7
Several states have developed the work-release system for

felony offenders; happily, even more have done so with regard to

residents of local county jails. Work-release programs should be

extended as far as feasible. Obviously the above opportunities

could be made available only to offenders who exhibit an interest in

rehabilitation.

15. A national committee of lawyers, state and federal legislators,
members of correctional staffs, offenders and ex-offenders and

other knowledgeable citizens should be assigned the task of estab-

lishing a national code of civil rights for the incarcerated and the

development of standardized grievance and due-process proce-

dures as well as a bill of rights clearly defining the extent of duties

and limits of obligations of the incarcerated. A similar committee
should be assigned to develop a plan of self-governance in such

areas as recreation, entertainment, and voluntary educational and

vocational training.

36



16. National standards should be adopted and promulgated regarding

the inspection of correctional institutions. Educational require-

ments for inspectors should be specified. All inspectors’ reports

should be required to follow a standardized form in order to facili-

tate comparison from year to year and between various areas of the

nation and various institutions. These reports should be available

to the general public.

17. No resident should be detained simply because employment is not
available. If employment is a condition for release and no private

employment is available, federal, state or local government should

make every effort to assist the resident. Career counseling, testing,

guidance and bonding— where applicable— should be offered all

who are preparing to be released.

18. A resident should be informed of the date beyond which further
detention demands another intervention of the court.

1 9. Parole is a vital function, both for the offender and for society. Con-

sideration should be given to shifting the “burden of proof’ by mak-

ing a parole automatic after a definitely determined period of con-

finement unless there is sound reason against it.

20. Congress should investigate the feasibility of extending the Social

Security Act (OASDI) coverage to residents of correctional

institutions.

21. After release, ex-offenders, upon their resumption of life in so-

ciety, should have their civil rights completely restored. Limiting

the activities of an ex-offender in public life could undo what took

years to build-up. Individual and community acceptance of ex-

offenders with love and understanding is absolutely necessary for

their complete integration into normal community living. Commu-

nity-based correctional efforts, therefore, should be high on the list

of priorities.

22. The use and dissemination of arrest records should be strictly con-

trolled. The revelation of arrest records, where there was no con-

viction, should be forbidden, as should the denial of employment

for reason ofan arrest without conviction. (There may, however, be

some exceptions to these principles in the case of persons who have

been committed for actions resulting from emotional disturbances,

or where an inquiry can be demonstrated to be justified in terms of

personal or community security. But care should be taken that the

exceptions do not degenerate into abuses.)

Parole and Pre-Trial

Closely allied with concerns about correctional reform are two other

issues: parole and conditions in jails for those awaiting trial. Both mat-

ters urgently need study and attention.

On every side, one hears of institutional caseworkers obliged to pre-

37



pare recommendations for parole boards on the basis of meager records

and little or no contact with the custodial or training staffs. Parole

officers are commonly overburdened with lengthy reports and unrea-

sonable numbers of persons to serve. Parole boards themselves often

include members who have only token preparation for their responsi-

bility and who frequently do not have the time even to grant a hearing

to those upon whose freedom they are to rule. The effect of all of this on

morale is devastating.

In our nation a man is presumed innocent until proved guilty. Yet after

arrest he may spend many months awaiting trial in jail under conditions

that can only be described as penal. Usually it is the poor who suffer

most under these circumstances. Deprived of freedom, forced to idle-

ness, associating with persons who in many instances are dangerous,

the accused may well wonder just how much value the legal presump-

tion of innocence really has. The result all too often is that he grows

angry, bitter and is started— or confirmed— in a life of crime. If the

prisons of our nation need reform, so also do the jails— a great many of

which are houses of terror.

Responsibility

We wish to bring all these matters to the attention of chief executives,
legislators and judges and of the staffs of correctional institutions, for

we believe that they have an obligation in law and in conscience to un-

dertake or continue a thoroughgoing reform of the American criminal

justice system. At the same time, we recognize our own duty to alert all

the Catholic faithful and to call these considerations to the attention of

all our fellow Christians and citizens of this nation to the need for such

reform and to the part they can take in urging, supporting and partici-

pating in it. Significant achievement in the reform of our correctional

system will benefit society more than it will benefit the reformed crimi-

nal. The replacement of just a small tile in a grand mosaic makes a

noticeable difference in its composite beauty.

Suggested Action Steps

Among other appropriate actions, and with whatever modifications are

appropriate and prudent, the following steps are indicated.

The United States Catholic Conference will undertake widespread dis-

tribution of this statement. In addition, under coordination of the Con-

ference’s Division for Urban Affairs, each staff office, department and

division of the USCC and the committee secretariats of the National
Conference of Catholic Bishops will be asked— as will the National

Catholic Community Service, the National Conference of Catholic

Charities, and the National Council of Catholic Laity— to develop pro-

grams furthering the purposes of this statement. The USCC will also
consider joint ventures with other organizations in the field of correc-

tional institution reform.

38



The state Catholic conferences should consider the many aspects of

this problem which will require state legislation, interventions with the

executive branches of the state governments and— as appropriate— the

filing of briefs amicus curiae in cases of special significance. State

Catholic conferences may also wish to develop more specific docu-

ments on reform, relating to conditions in their own states.

Dioceses will, we trust, continue or undertake a major role in fostering

the concern of the clergy, religious and laity for the human rights of

offenders. Diocesan newspapers and other programs of communication

can highlight the moral considerations involved in correctional reform

and urge action. As bishops we will make every effort to provide quali-

fied chaplains to serve the offenders.

Parishes have a singular opportunity to serve by helping to improve

local institutions within their boundaries. This will include support of

the chaplains or providing such periodic services where there are no

chaplains. In addition, parishes can maintain continuing contact with

correctional institutions by committees or groups of concerned parish-

ioners and can work to overcome neighborhood resistance to commu-

nity-based institutions.

Religious orders, because of their dedication and knowledge in various

disciplines, can bring special assistance to administrative and custodial

officials, as well as to the residents in our correctional system. They can

offer the People of God a greater understanding of the problems of our

correctional system and of all of the people concerned with it. In addi-

tion, religious communities can literally “visit” those “in prison.” Per-

haps some will make service to confined offenders their special aposto-

late as counselors and educators.

College and university groups, including those engaged in campus

ministry, can bring companionship and comfort to prisoners by visiting

and otherwise assisting them. Visits to prisons by local groups of the

National Council of Catholic Women have proven valuable. Various

groups can offer special services to the families of prisoners such as

providing transportation for visits to the prisoners.

Recognizing that accountability at every level is a major ingredient for

making our nation’s criminal justice system truly a system ofjustice, we

urge specific methods for evaluation and reasonable community ac-

countability of the work of criminal justice professionals. This applies

at every level of the system to both custodial and treatment personnel,

pre-sentence investigators, parole and probation officials and all other

workers involved.

Finally each of us should responsively recall that Christ our Lord was

a prisoner and according to His living gospel is still present in the per-

son of those who are prisoners today. His apostles knew the agonies of

dark dungeons. Many of His original disciples experienced the inhu-

man cruelty of primitive jails. To this day— in many lands— many of

39



His most dedicated followers find themselves in penal cells or isolated

under house arrest.

May our contemplation of these facts inspire us to provide a humble

human presence— touched with the sacred— for those accused and

those convicted. Let our standing by them or walking with them reunite

us as good neighbors and true friends worthy of sharing in the lasting

joys of the only absolute unity, God our heavenly Father.

Conclusion

We ask for the prayers and support of all God-fearing people and all
those of good will in a renewed effort to improve our criminal justice

system; to bring law, order and justice to society; and to strengthen

correctional institutions as places where human dignity will be pro-

tected and advanced by serious, innovative programs directed to re-

habilitation. We ask God’s blessing on such efforts and on all who take
part in them.

Footnotes

1. Larry F. Taylor, Executive Assistant, Federal Bureau of Prisons, to John E. Cos-

grove, 5 November 1973, Personal Files ofJohn E. Cosgrove, Division of Urban Alfairs,

U. S. Catholic Conference, Washington, D. C.

2. Harry Fleischmann, “Crime” (to be published in the Encyclopedia Yearbook 1973),

pp. 8-9.

3. Milton Rector, President, National Council on Crime and Delinquency, to John E.

Cosgrove, 26 December 1972, Personal Files of John E. Cosgrove.

4. Archbishop Philip M. Hannan to John E. Cosgrove, 24 January 1973, Personal Files

of John E. Cosgrove.

5. Warren E. Burger, Chief Justice of the United States, address to the National Con-

ference of Christians and Jews Annual Dinner, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 16 Novem-

ber 1972, p. 3.

6. Joseph R. Rowan, Executive Director of the John Howard Association, to John E.

Cosgrove, 20 December 1972, Personal Files of John E. Cosgrove.

7. Ibid.

40





1978

Publications Office

UNITED STATES CATHOLIC CONFERENCE

1312 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D. C. 20005