On June 4, 1971, President Richard M. Nixon, Arlen Specter, John N. Mitchell, and White House photographer met in the Oval Office of the White House from 12:22 pm to 1:15 pm. The Oval Office taping system captured this recording, which is known as Conversation 512-016 of the White House Tapes.
Transcript (AI-Generated)This transcript was generated automatically by AI and has not been reviewed for accuracy. Do not cite this transcript as authoritative. Consult the Finding Aid above for verified information.
Uh, I think you could try, you could do that too, Attorney General.
I said, well, Attorney General, do you have that, General?
Oh, I don't want to hear it.
Well, how have you been?
Doing well, I understand.
Because all the reports aren't here.
Well, that's pleasing to hear.
I think it's been going well.
We've had lots of problems and we've been pushing forward on them and I think having some successes.
I know it's a good victory for you because you talked about it in some years ago.
Do you really have that confidence in a 50% in some areas apparently?
Yes, Mr. President, we have made some things.
It's hard to pinpoint, to program, which we put into effect with the LEA funds, but I think that's the most likely explanation.
It hasn't proved that.
Well, it has worked.
I've seen these jobs.
You know what I mean?
And there's all different types, and everybody was different, but he knew that, you know, that program just works, you know, so like I said, like, it was one of them, they don't want to talk to you about drugs on this day, so he's done with it.
But, you know, it works, it comes in, you know, wherever he goes.
That experience, I'll be passed on.
I can't deal with it on drugs.
I can't deal with it the other day.
I don't know if that's the actual topic yet.
Wow.
And he said, well, he just didn't feel about nothing.
Well, we tried the law here.
I don't know if that's the right thing or not, whether it would work.
But I do know that all over this country, whatever you do on the dead federal hand, just insisting on the same kind of a program all over the country, you may have certain areas that's how the system works.
For some, that has been trying the worst.
and then it can be the information to go out.
And that's actually what we have.
We've got some stereotypes about LEA.
It's amazing how they're beat-dogging programs.
So that a lot more of the practical approach can be taken.
And it has been through the HEW operation, which had all the money and all the programs.
So this is the type of thing that will be
And, of course, most of that funding goes out to the state plan, which is to work with the localities.
And they, of course, will refuse and LA recommends programs to those who are grasping around.
The good fact is that we have a tremendous deal of the problem.
Nobody's got any of the answers to how to solve it.
None of them are talking about the
It really gets down to the guys out in the barricades.
Well, first they have to go out on trial, which they don't do.
They say, I stole all this money from these senators.
Well, we had a trial.
What we had done with the federal money that we got was open up two centers and have some different centers pull the boys together and talk down the problems.
We worked with warring gangs, first among the gang members and settled them from one, and then settled them from the other, and then got them involved in some
pool together, and some games together, and then conversations together.
And if they can talk out their problems and their hostilities, it cases, it cools it off.
We have an interesting corollary to that.
Oh, now you're talking about most of the 18 and under.
That's when they're 13, they start, they start.
Most of the boys aren't 14, 15 years old.
Some even younger, a few older.
The other side of it, while we work with all the paramedics and the instructors, we have been very, very pushy on the tough approach on revoking probation.
I went to court just earlier this week to revoke probation on 15 of the key troublemakers.
The police commissioner, the commissioner of welfare that I sat down about six weeks ago, but Rizzo, Rizzo's assistant, no, Commissioner Rizzo is out now.
Oh, he's running.
Oh, yeah, yeah.
But we sat down to plan ahead for the summer months where we know and experience what's going to happen, I'm sure.
And we had the police department identify about 100 of the juvenile troublemakers.
And we've been moving in groups, a big group of 15 last week, to revoke probation where we could show that they had misbehaved.
Now the proof of the pudding will be whether we get the courts to go along with this.
But we put them on notice.
that if they're going to misbehave or associate with the gangs when they're on probation, we're going to revoke their probation and put them in custody for the summer months.
Commissioner Rizzo and I did a similar thing back in August of 1969 when we had a big upsurge of
We took a slightly different approach on a conspiracy theory, which appears publicly to say that if anybody was tangentially connected, either successfully before the fact of planning or using their house as a meeting place,
Well, concealing that was after the fact, we joined in on the march that they were going to be held for murder, conspiracy to commit murder.
And we made mass arrests.
Well, yes, we did.
We made mass arrests, and we made most of the cases stand up, and I think it was a help.
One other thing you have up here, which is quite outstanding, is that
involved with the police athletically.
Yes.
That is a widespread activity.
So it's very good.
It's a good one, yes.
Well, I know of another thing I would have asked you about in the morning.
You were expressing some concern about the bicycle channel business up there.
I was going to suggest you talk to George Romney about that situation.
I mean, something in the way of a
Really, what it would be would be more symbolic.
It would seem that something in the way of some housing activities in one of those rough ghetto areas have the same to be conceived, or something like that, or in the same period might be way to get.
Actually, Philadelphia, my own view is, without getting into the
the city and I don't know why all the other people are raising hell.
Why are you having this intentional celebration?
Could be.
Could be.
And the point is that the lift from that is going to be very great.
It'll be great in ways, economically too, but apart from the economics.
It'll give a lift to the city and a lift to the people in hell to be part of something.
You're going to have to do a lot of missionary work in those ghettos, though, because they're die-hard opposed to other really raised panels.
That's why I said in the letter, the little bit of symbolism of a small area, if it were tied into the bicentennial, as a commitment to the future, you can say, okay, you can't reconstruct all of North Philadelphia.
If you do that, you are having a bicentennial.
Yes, sir.
That's the big problem.
But if you have a little area, and if you give that commitment to the future, then I think they say to themselves, okay, at least there's something being done here, and we'll go along with the other aspects of the national celebration, which is so important across the country.
Sure.
We don't want to, of course, you know, a lot of people do want to remember.
I mean, there are a lot of cities that are competing, or that are competing, and so forth, that are competing in this thing.
And Liddell here is the logical candidate for the start of the business.
But if it turns out to be one of the best in the competition, then we're going to have to make sure.
I think it would be a great chance for the city of Mississippi.
There's so much in it for it.
Once they go through, they will want it.
Absolutely.
It's a great chance for the city, and we have to work on it.
Particularly since there's been so much renewal and reconstruction.
You have a revitalization of the city.
Things you've done, you know, down there in the mall, that mall here, got all that stuff, you know.
That's where people have been for years will come to see it.
They'll walk through there and you'll have a period of at least...
a year to a backward year and a half, inflow of tourism and so forth that you've never had before.
Would we really use it?
Of course, you see, you don't have it now.
No way to fill it up.
But you know how things in Philadelphia, they don't have theaters.
You know, it's really a great place to go.
People do go to Williamsburg, you know, where it's all just reconstructed stuff just to see the history.
I really feel that if some of the city people got really ballsy on this thing, they could see the opportunity even on a plane to help the city, you know,
Not only lift it, lift it, lift the stairs.
Well, we're hopeful it will, and it's kind of putting a lot of pieces together.
You talk to Ron.
I shall, sir.
See what he can come up with.
All right.
I'll leave an answer to that.
We can find out where we're going.
We want to, what we would like to do is to pay some special attention to Philadelphia.
It's a good time to do it.
with the bicentennial coming up and with other things coming up, I mean, there's no reason for us to just leave Philadelphia, the wasteland, from a political standpoint, you know.
And it is now, except for you and...
How do you figure the mayoral team name?
When was that?
When was that?
November?
Yes, November, sir.
Yes, November the 2nd.
Are you, do you get involved in that?
Very much so.
You are?
Yes, I am.
I'm his campaign manager in name.
In fact, we meet every Monday morning at 8 o'clock until we solve our problems.
And that's perhaps most of the morning.
Lots of our work, to be honest.
Well, that's, of course, Philadelphia.
I don't have to elaborate the difficulties for the Republican candidate in that city.
It's just the issues that are going on there.
I think right now that the fact that you're on the stretch is behind Commissioner Rizzo, but not too far.
And I think this election will be decided on the campaign.
Commissioner Rizzo was silent during the primary, and it cost him.
I have had a long history of the project.
No, sir.
Mr. President, Commissioner Rizzo is a very popular man and he has been on TV.
Lots of public exposure and he's had very strong ideas now.
I worked with him very closely for five and a half years, and they outworked the relationship.
Sometimes it's tough to do.
We had some disagreements, but most of the time we were on the same wavelength.
And I haven't had a very high regard for him.
You'll have to run the campaign.
You should run the campaign.
It suits me in a way that you keep that regard, too.
I would hope you could, because it seems to me that he could win.
then I think you ought to, I mean, he should, there could be a mutual respect situation there.
I don't mean for that, you know, to fight for your candidate.
Well, I'm hopeful that we can do it.
Well, yes, but it can be done.
My idea of the campaign is that we do not make the mistake, which I think Green made, attacking Commissioner Rizzo.
As a police officer, I think he was .
But Green tried to do that, and it would not sell because it was not true.
And I think the approach is that Commissioner Rizzo did a fine job as police commissioner, but you have to have a broader gauge man to handle the problem .
And that's your .
His experience as a city councilman who's attended before,
chamber of commerce and he hasn't read the job, and there should not be a teething of nitpicking or character talk or police brutality talk or anything like that.
That's the answer.
That's what I meant.
I think that with you, you have such a reputation as a law enforcement yourself, and if you were to get in the way of where you as your candidate were,
against the law enforcement people that would be i don't think that would be helpful i think you've got exactly the right issue it seems to be a good job very much so right you see uh don't let your reputation i think of your own political future too you must not like your reputation as a strong law enforcement man but you uh you can't let that be don't let that become an issue
I think you just keep yourself very firm on that.
I think your idea of saying yes, Rizzo is a good law enforcement, and law enforcement is a decent occupation and all that, I think it's very important.
Because otherwise they could get you in a position of being against the police.
Governor Schaaf came into the campaign and accused Rizzo, I don't know,
It got a lot of play where we were probably not here.
He said that he was guilty of police brutality, an incident going back to July 12, 1965.
And I immediately said publicly that I had investigated the matter, which I had.
And I took another look at the films from the TV station.
And I said that Commissioner Rizzo was not guilty of police brutality.
That it was a bad charge.
And I said, but if it was, the state attorney general could arrest me because there was a six-year statute on the table.
But I said, of course not, because I was convinced that he was in the right.
And it was an unusual twist for me to come out and back him, but that was...
So that's right.
Exactly right.
What are the green and the blacks going to do over there?
Mr. Attorney General, I think that we have a chance to win a lot of the black votes for
in large numbers for the first time, depending on how we produce.
I think some will stay home.
And then there is a group which will pull the Democratic leader no matter what is happening, sure.
But I think we are calculating our campaign strategy right now on bringing out the black vote.
So we are hopeful of getting more than 50%.
Are you?
Yes, sir.
We got 40% as the president in 1969.
And that was by hearing the campaign very carefully, but realistically, to the black interest, as we could be represented honestly.
And I think Longstrap has a very good record in this respect.
It's a civil rights record.
Isn't that true?
It's serious.
Don't let law enforcement be the issue.
You're for it.
He's for it.
That's what it is.
That would be long-term.
Isn't that what we, I only ask these things as a matter of policy, stay out of all the cities that wouldn't help you anyway.
Seriously, I think it's very important not to get involved, because as we get to work with these cities,
over the country, about three-fourths of the four-fifths of the mayors of big cities are Democrats, and I need them for revenue sharing and a lot of other things.
Oh, I can appreciate that.
I see.
That's very, very wise.
Tate, as a matter of fact, has been very helpful on our mission.
He gave Willard Hill's help, and down here, just all the way, you know, I...
But it's a surprise and pleasure when I hadn't done it.
I hadn't done it with big city mayors.
Your program on revenue sharing, I think, is a rival button for the cities.
And I think that as it's unfolding and being developed, that it will be a very strong point for you.
I hope it helps you in the future.
I hope it helps us.
I don't know if people understand it enough.
You can relate it to their tax burden in the future, for example, if you bring it down.
They don't understand at all.
They go, well, we've got a lot of problems.
Are we going to get some money to solve them?
But that was one of the thoughts that...
that I would like to see us all develop more is what your program would do in specific lines.
Now, it's coming across the law enforcement assistance administration.
That's very tangible, and it's coming across an education.
It hasn't been drilled home enough, but I think when we become more specific in terms of what it means in dollars and cents, that there will be a great deal of urban support for that program for you.
Republican cause, which you've been on now, Revenue Sheriff for a long while.
But it's a very slow matter to get out of the city.
It needs to be more specific.
I get you.
They've got to know what's good for them in specific terms.
In other words, other than Revenue Sheriff, that's a concept.
But if they say, well, better schools, worse schools, that's something else again.
Yes, Mr. President.
A lot of
Clean up the garbage.
That's the result of the property tax.
Yeah, well, if you can get it out by the future, that's the home run.
Well, we hope to have that by next year, but that's got to be, that's one of the enormous concerns of the property tax.
Yes.
People get that bill twice a year.
Though they pay more in other types of taxes, the property tax is the one that's extra.
If it is related specifically to, for example, what it would do on education and what it would do to the education tax, then I think there would be massive support for the people and it would have a great effect on, for example, the Democratic congressman from Philadelphia and the whole picture.
And if you're in Philadelphia, like so many other places around the country, there's a special bill for education in Texas, special school districts there, which comes home to talk about education in Texas.
Well, the, uh, what is your other, uh, uh,
Well, the drug matter is one which I thought you were right on target in your statements earlier this week, and I had thought a bit about what we've been doing in line with the objectives which you set forth.
And I think that the drug problem is the key on the violent crime line.
We have found, while testing people coming into jail, that up to 70% on burglary, robbery, and homicide charges have drug contacts or have drugs in their system when we put them through the medical tests.
And I think that the drug rehabilitation line is the key for us to track on violent crime, which you have said.
We're going to have a...
very very uh program in this and uh in which i pull it all in pull them up the direction of the white house the whole thing we'll announce that when john and about two years two weeks and of course you can see why it didn't
It cuts across.
There's the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice.
There's the jurisdiction of the Customs, which is under treasuries.
There's the jurisdiction of the State Department regarding the shepherds across line from the Defense Department.
AGW, of course, has a great interest because of the rehabilitation and that sort of thing.
But what we're going to do is we're going to appoint a man at the White House level
But it's sole responsibility in this area.
And where are we even going?
It's going to be well-funded, $100 million.
And I've got some good news for you today.
We just checked in ourselves, people, in cooperation with the Spaniards.
Topped it again.
The largest heroin seizure ever made was made this morning.
Where did you hear that?
In Spain.
Good.
And it's about $40 million worth of heroin.
Every week we top the last one out.
That's great.
One other thing of great interest is that our BNDD officials working with the Mexicans found some cocaine coming into Mexico on its way to this country in a ship.
And the attorney general down there has libeled the ship
which is a pretty good law enforcement time.
We are going to go out on this.
I mean, everybody's been against drugs and all sorts of programs and all the well-intentioned people.
But as you know, there's a lot of argument in this field about what should be done and so forth.
Well, what we really have to do is draw certain lines.
We're going to draw lines.
We're going to be very hard on it.
With regard to the ethics and the rest of it, compassion, understanding, rehabilitation, it's open.
We know that.
With regard to the supplier, absolute ruthlessness and the talk that we can possibly apply.
With regard to the whole situation in terms of education,
Of course, an effort such as we've never had before because people just don't know.
Isn't this true?
There needs to be an enormous educational program where lines are drawn in a believable way for young people.
President, one line that you started on at some time ago was made on Philadelphia.
You had an exchange of correspondence with Bowie Coombe, the commissioner of baseball, who then categorized all of the owners
Bob Carpenter, he called me up, and we've got an education program in Philadelphia where we've taken Larry Bowen, Danny Doyle, and Bob Brown around to the schools starting a few months ago, which is an interesting dividend.
And I'm sure they will just overwhelm with these baseball players.
And credibility is so much better than having any of those kinds of signs, the signs that I'm offering.
We have some of the ball players, and it's celebrity type.
The ball players are particularly the ball players that happen to be sort of a hero figure to them.
And I go, if they get up there and say they need something, there's nothing.
Yes.
You know, one guy that really works a lot on this is Jeff Stransky in Boston.
He was in here some time ago.
And, you know, he's in Boston.
He's practically like a poet.
Yes.
And he just goes in and he talks about drugs all the time.
Mr. President, did you know that we've been working to get that bowl game in Phoenix with Jack Stewart out there?
We finally got a bowl game on the whole television.
It's going to be related to the truck program.
Football game.
What do you mean?
football bowl game.
Oh, I see.
They held in Phoenix.
Jack Stewart out there is working great.
You know, they have a program in Phoenix, the Dome staff, which has been so successful.
This is going to be the whole thing.
We get this program going.
I think you're going to be extremely pleased.
I think we're going to get it.
We don't know yet.
It's the top flag.
Young.
Tough.
Highly
We feel that's really where the problem is.
We're trying to slightly get an approach on
a one-hour to two-year sentence which we are starting to move toward under the State Correctional Department to try to give the possessor panic the motivation to work on his rehabilitation and actively cooperate the methadone residential treatment center with the very frank statement that the Sword of Damocles hangs over his head if he doesn't.
Certainly this is an area where there has to be
We have a great deal of flexibility, but as far as the penalty is concerned, the penalty is really very miscounted.
There are very strict penalties in a state like Texas, for example, to different approaches than others, but the real question is what works.
But when we've gotten the pushers, we've been getting some good sentences, 5 to 10, 10 to 20, etc.
But I think that even when we deal with the addict, we cannot confine him solely to a hospital because he has no motivation that he can walk out at any time.
The concept of one hour means that he's got the key to the freedom in his pocket.
all the way if he cooperates, but if he does not cooperate, then we can take him right back and put him in jail so that there is some motivation for him to really want to help out.
If you give a man a suspended sentence or if you put him on probation where you have to go through the violation chain,
He is unlikely to be really concerned about it because he's beaten the system.
But if he's under a two-year sentence, and it's a one-hour to two-year so that he can be taken up at any moment, we're optimistic that this will motivate those fellows.
This has gone a long way, hasn't it?
They have indicated their willingness to do it, and we are running through 50 men on a project this summer under the state correctional program.
Our big angle comes that they always say, well, we don't have resources, we don't have money, et cetera, but we're starting it with just 50 because I can find enough resources to take care of 50 men with what we have now.
And I believe that this will motivate these guys
I wasn't very interested in that, because that's basically the concept of our sentencing under the new federal act.
But we have yet to get the courts to fully understand what they held about that.
How is Shatner in his public acceptance?
I would say right now he's not doing well.
He started off very well, got through a big tax program and was a great political coup because of a lot of reasons.
But he overplayed his hand on the taxes.
He did not submit a budget.
When his budget came out,
There was great disappointment, great consternation that he had overtaxed for the items that he then said he wanted to spend more.
Our fiscal program enabled him to get taxed before he submitted his reasons.
And the editorialists have really been taking most of the polls as they should.
And he took a very substantial licking on this Rizzo green.
I got it.
You should have gone ahead and told me.
In our school, Mr. President, it was just incredible.
I think he got into it because I think the harbor's ambitions in 1972, which are out of line with reality, but that's the only time I can think of.
Well, sir, I can't think of any other reason.
If it weren't for that, it was a suicide play.
Pennsylvania could be a very interesting state in 72 because our Democratic friends may not be as united as they have been.
You know, when we were in, when we had the government shift up there in 68, it was not yet.
The Democrats were pretty well united.
This time, I guess, they're going to have a problem, aren't they, getting together?
A tremendous problem.
And the party in power in the state has the difficulty of pulling together.
And people, if that continues to go as he has for the first four months of his administration, he will be a big help to us in 72.
I said, well, it depends on what he does.
But he started off very badly.
Let me say that anything, as far as the political situation up there is concerned, I would appreciate it if you would talk to John about it.
And if you have any, you know, it's tiny.
We have, of course, any number of invitations to go here and there and every place and so on.
But I sort of leave the, and I will not do anything politically, of course, this year.
But I had to, in terms of our, how we can open the market.
I had quite a number of ideas.
I'd be glad to spend time on it.
As you know, we've got a lot of players up there.
Everybody's playing at each other.
And we have been working on trying to get a farm top that'll work across the state.
And of course, the key to it
Philadelphia, if you need a track setting.
So as this evolves, I want to sit down with you and get lots of your thinking, your ideas, not only the players, but the structure of it.
We really haven't had the information.
This is not setting any.
One of the problem leaders, who's our old president chairman up there.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
If you're not, in Philadelphia, you're out of your mind simply to work with basically the whole line of public and organization and down the tube.
And so, as I told John, we would have, of course, our major friend Bob Hill and so forth.
If you, we would very much like to work with you in that situation and also in the whole state of Philadelphia.
I mean,
Pennsylvania is kind of a state of principalities.
You've got the Woodelphian group, you've got the Central group, you've got the Pittsburgh group, you've got a number of things.
But the one area where, and that was the reason two times I had been a candidate in 60 and 68, we did bomb and that county completed 330, exactly the same vote times, 330,000 votes in the vote.
That net loses Pennsylvania.
Yes, sir.
You don't need to lose it for that amount.
Not by $330,000.
Would you agree?
I agree.
Particularly, you see, if you go to bring a share with the war behind us as we, and with the economy moving, these are things which, of course, are goals which we think we can achieve.
It seemed to me that this is an area where we might make steps.
And with our democratic friends in control, they blame for some of the problems.
We ought to be able to do a lot better there.
I think there's great... What I'm trying to say to you is that you read a lot of this, Janice, in the columns here to be written off to the Eastern states and so forth.
Nonsense.
We consider Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, very important states, right, John?
And much more...
perspective this time around than ever before because of the changing of the voting appointments.
What you have to do is listen to Nelson Rockefeller talk about his new constituency.
But you see what I mean is that now I deliver a vote for a reason.
I want to stay completely away from all the political considerations.
I say this to you and Scott and everybody else.
I'll talk about the issues and so forth.
So because I want, I think the best thing I can do is to
serve in this office, in other words, wear the presidential hat.
I'm going to wear it right up until the last moment in the fall of 1972.
But in the meantime, if I have John, who's quite familiar with all this, I would appreciate any advice or any way you could help.
I would appreciate it very much.
Mr. President, I'll be available at any time.
I'll be glad to take on any assignment that you would need.
I'll say the other thing is this, that
So I want to talk very candidly to John about those things.
Well, if you will.
Yes, sir.
Working out the ballot integrity in Philadelphia is all we need.
Okay.
I like that.
I think I can help you a little bit.
I don't know.
I would say it started, too, that after our meeting, you should know what Medicaid that we were discussing.
I think the problems are...
of the drug problem, things of that sort, that would be in your program with regard to juveniles and so forth, you'll know what to say.
But you'll actually be asked, and I cover all those matters.
They'll say it, they'll say it, we discuss politics, they say no, we do that, it's a matter that we do, but then I didn't get into that, I just stayed out of all political thoughts so that they won't think that I'm trying to get into Philadelphia politics.
But I thought we did discuss some very important matters, you know, the entities, the drug problem, the, you know, and also that he's a, you know, a biochemical plant.
And if those aren't good, you don't know, the handling of these is pretty good.
Oh, that's pretty good.
There's only one more idea here, so that's it.
We have undertaken in the last six months, after approval by Pennsylvania State Supreme Court, a program of pre-indictment probation on minor offenders, which is now encompassing some 575 cases.
The effort on my part is to weed out the lesser cases, to free, say, the college possessor of marijuana or the joyriding
And it's the first program of its kind I've done in the nation, and it's been very successful.
And I have found...
In other words, you don't have those guys become criminals.
And I have found that it's a matter of approach when, as a tough-type DA, I step out from time to time on a program of that sort.
It straightens me when I go in and ask for a sentence.
Yeah, I just want to leave you with that one thought, which I'm experimenting with, which might have some, uh, detailed job on it, which is, uh, very much, uh, uh, that is my attitude with regard to it.
I mean, in very simple terms, I oppose the idea of legalizing marijuana.
The moment you do that, you make it fashionable.
It's probably pretty damn fashionable already.
On the other hand, in terms of the
in terms of the penalties, here what we're talking about is a very different, it's a question of what works best.
If you take somebody, say, to the hospital, you order out and you send me, you pick something, marijuana, whatever they do with that, they smoke that, of course, they pick it up, and then so you send it to the jail, that may be just what makes him criminal, right?
If he goes in there with all these hardened criminals,
I can see the argues.
But I agree that marijuana should not be legalized.
The evidence is mounting on that.
But we arrest him and we process him so that he knows he's here for the law, yes.
And he comes before a judge who sits in front of the Senate.
What we do is we say, you will not get a criminal record.
You are on probation before your trial.
You are not being guilty, but we are presuming you were guilty.
You keep your nose clean for one year, and then we will dismiss you.
There are still a lot of people that don't want to break the law.
Now, in this case, though, this is a hand.
You arrest them.
You put them on probate before indictment.
It makes a hell of a lot of sense.
And it does a lot of things.
Number one, it helps unclog the judicial system.
And yeah, number two, it keeps them out of these institutions that you were talking about.
And the fact of the matter is you don't have enough institutions to put them in.
We found an interesting thing in New York City.
I guess, John, you do get these figures.
I'd ask, I guess, earlier in the program.
I was trying to find out some way to help.
Robin Nelson Rockefeller said that they needed money for their police.
We can't get them anymore in the OEAA.
But he said, so what we're looking at now is through the OEAA is to set up a special narcotics court.
They have a special court in the OEAA.
They set out 4,000, 4,000 arrests for narcotics on the
Less than 43.
Only 43 have been brought to trial.
So, and the reason is the band courts are too clogged up with other things.
Well, this is the way to get at the thing.
If these informal proceedings could work, we'd probably take a question and have them return in five, ten minutes, couldn't we?
Yes, sir.
Yes, sir.
That's what we're doing.
That's what we're doing.
That's what we're doing.
How extensive a report do you have prepared on it?
I have, I brought with me a tabulation through the end of last week showing the numbers that we have had with the program.
Do you have a usual probation report?
No, sir.
What we have is the police report and a green probation report and then questions for the judge in the session of the individual parents where we bring them in.
They're represented by counsel.
Good.
This is intriguing.
Well, I think John says about clogging the courts, you know, we can talk about passing laws and enforcement, but damn it.
You know, the real problem, we met with these guys yesterday.
And that's about it.
I'm sure we are.
Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Kansas are out.
But the interesting thing was
And John, at this point, the real problem is not the law enforcement, the arrests and all that sort of thing.
The problem is the damn courts are so caught, and also some lousy judges, as you know, and also some lousy opinions that are heard, you know.
This morning, there are guys, what we are trying to do, burglars, I think burglars speech, John, down there, burglars made it before, I guess, but what I want to accentuate down here in Williamsburg, about this whole of getting people, we just have to put more emphasis on the system of justice so that we can...
That is, the court system.
Make it move.
Make it move, because more police isn't going to join.
All right, now that we're talking about this briefly outside, well, you could agree that something.
But it is, yes, these chief people, they go out and arrest people, arrest them.
They all said they couldn't get any action in the courts.
What did they do?
You have the same problem.
Yes, sir, we do.
We do.
Now, my answer to it is that the backlogs must build up.
And he cannot plea-bar the boy cases or reduce charges.
I now have a backlog of 300 murder cases.
But you don't plea-bar how many cases?
No, sir, I will not do it.
I have been allowed to ask all of the hall of deputies to complain about that.
That was the thing we asked you to know.
These guys, you know, it was interesting for me to meet them.
I really never talked to a group of them.
None of them ever been to my house before, of course.
It was good to know the cop.
The head of Texas Police was there, the head of the Archdiocese was there.
And I could finally see what their problem was.
This is just the backing of the people.
They have the backing of the people.
The problem is they get their arrests and so forth, and then the system of justice breaks down there, and they throw up their hands.
But if I want you to, how do you deal with it?
I have laws that are built up.
My conclusion is that if I have a man chart and aggravated robbery, it is preferable to have it on the backlog and to try it whenever I can.
than to let him plead guilty to simple assault and walk out of the room.
And I'm building up such a background, necessarily, that I'm trying to put the pressure on 30 judges, which I'm allergic to.
I know New York is primarily a case of, I mean, New York is a lot of places, and I understand.
So, where they stay in these cases, and they just,
They reduced, and that was a tough ground before, this is what I reduced to sell our new court system here.
And this is now working.
Well, is it working in the district?
It's working in the district.
See, we got a lot of new judges and so forth here, and if it works here, we'll get it to work.
We had 6,000 juvenile cases in the backlog when we came in here with this new setup.
They're current.
Are they?
Yes.
Good.
Because we have the additional judges we have in court with the jurisdiction and they're working at it, not letting everything go to a federal district judge who sits around for three hours a day and doesn't do any work.
But there must be resources, and you cannot get the General Assembly to act or the Councils to act unless the people understand the problem.
And I am driving at home in Philadelphia.
The cases are coming to trial in a year and a half, but they are coming to trial.
And I need more judges and more personnel.
And when the men are on bail or when they're in jail for first-degree murder charges, that is what is happening because we're not getting the judges and facilities to try the case.
But I will not reduce them or bar them out.
Do you have meetings with these?
I guess it's a good question.
Do you meet with district attorneys?
Yes, we do address them, but do you get on and have a talk like this?
Yes, I have the national district attorneys in next week for another meeting with them.
I've got to talk to them.
I'm going to talk to them about this subject.
Well, my point is that I think it's sort of an exchange of views on some of these things would be damn good.
You know what I mean?
Get this stuff gestating around the country.
This sounds better than what they're doing in these other places.
When you do this, the police think that you're supporting them too, don't they?
They do.
They want you to do this, don't they?
The police?
Yes.
They'd like you to throw the case.
Oh, they must prefer it.
They understand the delay, but they cannot understand the discharge and the washing out of the charge.
It demoralizes them.
They go and make a case on an aggravated assault.
And then you take and throw it out as a simple assault.
But hey, we're not going to give out personal assaults on policemen.
And they said it's much of an even dose assault, you know, even though there's a lot of those departments out there.
And that's murder, you know what I mean?
You can't do it.
You can't allow an assault on a policeman.
So I'm going to throw the book out and put the case at the top of the list.
This is good.
This is good.
This is good.
The problem's good.
All of them are subject to a solution, and we're sure they're all working on it.
Because Berger should come and talk to a group like this sometimes.
Oh, yes.
I mean, it seems to me that Berger, rather than just, I know he talks to the U.S. attorneys and people like that, but does he sit down?
No, he talks to district attorneys.
Well, he talks to the bar and some special groups.
Yeah, I think most of them do.
Well, the thing about Berger is that you know him.
No, I don't.
But the thing about Berger is he's an enormously oppressive poet at the beginning.
He's politically very, very savvy.
I'd like to see some time, if you might mention this to him, John, because Berger, we just invited him to have this group.
I'd like to have him here from a group of top
shall we say, district attorneys at that level, you've got to hear what they have to say on some of these things.
Wouldn't that be useful?
And then he could let them know how he feels.
I think it would be very encouraging to him.
You see, we always talk about what we're trying to do about federal crime, federal crimes.
That's only 20% of the whole net package.
It's 80% or, I don't know what the numbers are, but I know it's about five to one.
I really think that a fellow like Berger could get a lot out of a meeting, you know, just sitting down and talking to groups like this.
I'm sure he's aware of a lot of this, but he's been in the federal courts all his life.
He now, Mr. President, as you know, has really personally structured a new organization within the state court system, which came out of the Williamsburg meeting.
He's well cognizant of this.
He likes to do a lot of it behind the scenes so he doesn't look like he's an activist.
But he's well cognizant of this work now.
And, of course, that decision that they came down with the other day, if you think the answer to the case of Hayden's Corpus and the rest of them, the federal courts, the state courts, have applied the federal constitution.
I think that's one of the great landmark decisions of all time as far as law enforcement is concerned.
You agree?
Yes, sir.
I don't understand the defense.
We're dragging to the federal courts a slight provocation by judges who don't understand what's going on, who have an inclination to reverse state judges without any good reason.
If it's in the state courts, we'll know where we are.
Mr. President, it's a very simple process.
Parliament will indict somebody.
They're the first thing to know as lawyers in the federal court.
And we're the greatest courts.
We're trying to try to get it in the federal court.
You're giving me a federal question, Scott.
Well, there isn't anything after the Warren Court got through that doesn't have a federal question.
It's very wrong.
So that's why the decision came down, is that you just stay in those state courts until after you've exhausted your remedies or there's a possibility to represent a Senate decision.
Yeah, I'm sure it wasn't.
I think it was 63, wasn't it?
I don't think it's wrong.
I think you're doing a fine job there.
We're glad to have a guy in the law enforcement area who has a good reputation with basically all the political groups, but also who has a strong reputation as a strong man.
I'd say that's what we need, you know.
It's a little bit easier to listen to the possible world.
You've got the communication with the young people and the blacks and all that sort of thing, as I understand it.
But on the other hand, you have the confidence of the police and the people who are for law enforcement.
Right.
I think that's a combination.
Because, well, take this fellow, let's face it.
The trouble with this fellow, Mercury, who is the new police commissioner, he's not right now.
The guy, many of the groups, you know, some of them are very certain he's great.
But my God, the police, they're in no condescendence, whatever.
We knew that because he was here first and went up there.
That wasn't the reason he wasn't competing against them.
That's a bunch of jazz.
Maybe it wasn't the reason.
John, did you get the invitation?
Well, unless he'd have been on, he wouldn't have been here.
Which, for the very simple reason, he is attacking Jerry Wilson and what he did.
He attacked Wilson, you see, right?
These are, uh, how many you got, though?
No, only a couple.
No, we're going to take a couple of them.
This is a, this is a tie glass.
Wow.
And your wife.
These are just a train glass, but, uh, one more.
You also get a...
Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.
You go out there.
Yes, sir.
That's all you get.
I just want you for one breath for my 13-year-old son.
Oh, sure.
I'm going to do it.
What's his first name?
David.
S-H-A-N-I-N. S-H-A-N-I-N. We discussed this this morning, and I don't know if you can see it, but with the losing of Thomas McBride,
S-A-J-A-N-I-N.
I'm the general secretary of the U.S. Army.
There are very few that I can do myself.
If that's how you really like it, I'm going to give you the pen.
That's the president.
I thought you got a man.
Will you forgive me for asking for him?
No.
It's the easiest thing you can do with a citizen.
Well, it's, uh, it's one of the people, their kids are, uh, kids or something.
It's really great.
We're, we're gonna make some, you know what, uh, I don't know if many people are concerned, and I'm concerned about the fact that, uh, the Republicans are leaving on young people in this administration, but I think you will agree that, uh, the real hang-up of the young people is, is war.
Once that's gone,
We're going to have a lot to talk about, so I think so.
I'd like to tell them to go to the two of them.
Okay, we're going to have a chance to talk to the city president.
Good luck.
Bye.