>> c-span, created by america's cable companies 35 years ago and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider.?#l wt >> c-span's newest book, "sundays at eight: a collection of interviews with some of the nation's top storytellers." >> half of the reason i did this book is martha because when she arrived in berlin with the family, she was in love with what she referred to as the nazi revolution. she was enthralled by the nazis which really struck me as a completely surprising thing given what we all know in hindsight. how could you actually be enthralled with the nazi revolution, but there receives. >> erik larson, one of 41 unique voices from 25 years of our book notes and "q&a" conversations. "sundays at eight" now available at your favorite bookseller. >> vice president biden recently said that stealing someone else's intellectual property is theft. he gave these comments at a conference examining how creativity and info vegas play a role in -- and innovation play a role in the economy. it was hosted by the motion picture association of america, abc news and microsoft. >> i now have the pleasure of introducing a wonderful friend. as many of you know, i served for many years with this fellow in the united states senate. his involvement with these questions goes back. i'm not going to have a long introduction here, you don't need that. but some people have come to the issue fairly recently, and we welcome that, the issue of innovation, creativity, intellectual property, copyright issues. but the vice president of the united states has been so committed to this issue going back in the years we served together when he was chairman of the judiciary committee, serving as you heard earlier from bob goodlatte as a co-chair dealing with the caucus between the house and the senate on these issues. he's been tireless since then on his efforts. when we saw the changes that occurred in our relationship on the quotas, for those of you who follow the issue, with china that went from 20 to 34, there are a lot of people who contributed to that. no one, absolutely no one made as much of a difference in the outcome of that negotiation than the vice president of the united states. and so today the fact that there, as i mentioned a moment ago, some 15 screens being built a day in china consuming greater and greater quantities of cop tent, the ability -- content, the ability now for co-productions without any quotas and, of course, the raising from 20 to 34 as well as box office receipts in no small measure is as a result of the vice president and his meetings with the leaders at the time. we have someone who really does get this, understands it and has dedicated a good part of his public life to it. we're deeply honored that he's here with us today. i point out to people that both of us left the senate roughly the same time. one of us got involved in enterprises where there are cost overruns, outrageous personal behavior and supersized egos. i, in turn, went to hollywood. [laughter] would you give a warm welcome to the vice president of the united states, my great friend, joe biden. [applause] >> hey, everybody, how are you? well, if there have been rumors all those years when chris and i served in the senate that although i was chairman, he controlled me, and we've just -- i've given few life to those rumors because i was physically a few minutes ago in a room for an hour and a half, a room called the oval office with chancellor merkel and the president talking about a number of things. we finally turned to trade, and i had to literally stand up and say, mr. president, i have to go over and talk about trade with chris dodd and his group. angela merkel looked at me like what in the hell is he talking about? [laughter] so there is no question that you've got the right guy with the right influence. look, i'm going to skip the introductions because i'm supposed to go back and have lunch, a working lunch with chancellor merkel, but it's -- i want you to know that it's not for lack of interest, and we wish i could stay longer after i speak. ladies and gentlemen, last summer i was, i was in, going from india to japan, and i stopped in singapore. to meet with what people refer to as the henry kissinger of the far east, a fellow a lot of you know of, one of the wisest heads that most foreign policy experts know. and almost every world leader has sought his opinion. and i pet him, he was -- i met him, he was kind enough to meet me in his home because he's written and spoken a great deal about the future of india, china, russia and the united states. and i sat with him. he's 90 some years old now, and i sat with him in his home. he's somewhat frail, but he still has an incredibly crisp and sharp mind. and in the middle of our discussion, i turned to him and i said to him, i said, mr. president, what's china doing now? and i meant it literally, meaning what's the thought process going on? i know president xi because i've spent more time with him than any other leader, i believe and i think he acknowledges, and i was trying to figure out where's china likely to go? and he looked at me, and he said china is in the united states looking for that buried black box. this is literally what he said, a quote. looking for the buried black box. and i looked at him and i said, i beg your pardon? and he speaks perfect english. and he looked at me and said they're looking for that box that contains the secret that allows america to be the only country in the world it is a constantly able to renew itself and remake itself. to continue to lead the world. and i said to him that, presumptuous of me, i said, mr. president, i think i know what's in that box, that black box. one is an overwhelming constant stream of immigration that not only has never ceased, but comes in waves. generating from other parts of the world the most adventuresome, the courageous people in the world. it takes a lot to puck up from what all -- to pick up from what all you know and say i'm going to leave, go to a place i don't know, go to a country that may not want me and have the courage to do it. and i said this is a second thing in that -- there's a second thing in that black box. stamped in the dna of every american -- naturalized or native born -- is a from the beginning, from the time they're kids they're taught to not give much reverence to orthodoxy. as a matter of fact, they're encouraged to challenge orthodoxy. even as bad as some of our school systems all although we w have an 80% graduation rate, i might add, which is a different issue and thanks to a lot of help from some of you, but even in the schools that are tough, you never hear of a child being chastised in an american school for challenging orthodoxy. because we know the only thing that allows change to occur is to break the mold that went before. and it's a little bit like that famous answer that steve jobs gave when asked at stanford by a student what do i have to do to be more like you, mr. jobs? and his response was two words, and you all know this: think different. think different. and i'm not sure there's any other country in the world, any other country on earth that promotes and teaches and just in its culture has such a sense of think different, don't be afraid, challenge, challenge orthodoxy. as a result of that, more than any country in the world, in my view, america is hard wired, hard wired to innovation. it's what's been able to give us the world-changing ideas from the cotton gin to microsoft. it's what made hollywood the world's storyteller. it's the reason that i remain -- and i mean this sincerely -- i remain so optimistic about the future. i got here when i was a 29-year-old kid, and i was supposedly a young on the to mist. if you notice when they write about me, i'm the oldest guy in the administration, and i'm referred to as the white house optimist. well, i am. i am. and it's in large part because of all of you. because the 21st century, in the 21st century the true wealth of a nation is found in the creative minds of its people. the notion of creativity and innovation as a tool for social and economic advancement is not just an more than idea. its universal goal but not met very many other places. i see people as i travel the world, and i've traveled about 900,000 miles just since being vice president. and equally or more than that in the previous years engaged in foreign policy. i see people everywhere reaching out for, in every single country, i see them reaching out to try to figure out how do they do what we do. because we're a creativity and innovation -- where creativity and innovation are expressed and rewarded, all those societies where that happens, they thrive. businesses flourish. people find courage to embrace the kind of reform and change that is needed. and i, this is not hyperbole. freedom and prosperity and stability may not always take root, but it's the places where it tends to take root. and that's good for america. it grows the ranks of like-minded nations and trading partners and friends, and there can never be too many of those. so the question is, how do we create a global economic order that favors creativity and innovation everywhere? that's what i want to talk to you a little bit about today. of course, each society is different, and some are fundamentally different. but there's a certain common ingredient that make up success. basic liberty, so citizens can think and speak freely and journalists can tell people the truth. and even tell people what is not the truth. fair economic competition, a willingness to draw on a society's full talents including women and immigrants. courts that adjudicate disputes fairly and there is a recognition that they do. and a system where intellectual property is protected because in the absence of that protection, it will not be created. america's experience teaches that fostering innovation is not just about crafting the right economic policy or developing the best educational curricula. it's about establishing and forcefully protecting a climate in which it can flourish. perk's been in the -- america's been in the idea business for a long, long time. our founders included inventers like ben franklin and writers and inventers themselves like thomas jefferson. so it's no surprise that the protection of intellectual property is enshrined in the u.s. constitution and has remained a priority for america ever since. both at home and abroad. around the world. today the face of piracy in your industry is changing. it used to be a man not too many years ago sitting in a movie theater with a camcorder trying to go unnoticed inconspicuously, and that camcorder was about the size of a golf bag. recording the movies. that they were going to pirate. the cameras are, obviously, smaller today to a remarkable extent, this practice continues. but now the face of pyres is also a -- piracy is also a computer server in a far-off country stealing an illegal version of a hollywood movie to send it around the world with the click of a mouse and rob you, steal from you what is yours. the technology's evolved and so must our laws including internationally. to deal in a way that's tough and smart as well as persistent with those who engage in large scale stealing of illegal, copyrighted unfringing on movies and music -- infringing on movies and music. the mega uploading sites enablely mask that. in the same way the law's already on books to do offline, on the books for offline illegal copying and distribution. you know, as i i meet with world leaders, i make this point emphatically because one of the things no matter whether i'm in ukraine or where i am of late, part of the issue that still is one of the major elements of our foreign policy is the significant change and promotion of trade, rules for for the 21st century. because the 20th century rules are somewhat obsolete. in taking someone else's -- and taking someone else's intellectual property is theft. plain and simple, what it is, it's just theft. theft not only from the the individual creator and the company, but theft from the united states' gross national product. because billions of dollars and tens of thousands of american jobs. it has profound negative effect on our economy. and i also point out to these leaders until they clamp down on copyright infringement, stealing our1ózzp8#v business trade secr, using our intellectual -- excuse me, using our unlicensed software, that those nations will remain second rate powers. unable to furture that environment that generates home grown innovation. because intellectual property is not just for big america and big america corporations, it's for the software app designer in silicon valley, for the techie in tanzania, for the musician in korea, for the medical researcher in poland. .. it literally, the character of the countries involved in this theft. how can a nation say it's a law-abiding nation when you're government and its people steal the most valuable ideas from our country? they would never steal a shipment of a thousand automobiles pulling into a port for sale in their country. what the heck is the difference? no, really. what they are stealing can be even much more valuable than the commodities we ship. but it goes beyond intellectual property. that's just one of the several issues that we have to result in terms of what constitutes a legitimate international trade regime. the world has changed. delete irishman innocent after teddy, he used to always tell me why the hell are you always quoting irish poets, joe? i quote them because they're simply the best poets in the world. and yates had a line as many of you remember in the poems he wrote easter sunday 1960 about the first rising in the 20th century. a line that is more applicable to the world you all face today than it was to ireland in the 1960s. he said all has changed, changed utterly, the terrible beauty has been born. all has changed. it has changed utterly. we are a truly global economy. we have to do what we did at the end of world war ii, our grandfathers did, and update the rules of the road for this new era of globalization and trade. that's why we've been so aggressive in proposing major new traded from its. not only generate growth and prosperity, but to strengthen the global trading system and enhance our foreign policy. because the choice this countries -- countries make in the next few years will shape the character of the global system for competition for decades to come. and a lot is at stake for you. a lots at stake for america. the rest of the world is not standing still. president obama and i are not going to sit by and let the outcome of this new system be determined by others. that's where we are currently negotiating to major trade agreements. the first is a trans-pacific partnership which would connect, connect us to the economies both in the western hemisphere and in the pacific basin. including japan, malaysia, peru, others. making up 40% of the world's gdp if it's successful. that's what the president is doing in advance of his trip to asia last week. the second is the transatlantic trade and investment partnership, as only washington would refer to as ttip, which will significantly keep in the multi-trillion dollar economic relationship we have with the european union. together, they would unite two-thirds of the worlds economies and support of open and fair application, the very competition to generate innovation and intellectual property. and the benefits for america and particularly for the middle class would be significant. 44 million americans work for companies that export goods. hundreds of thousands more would be working if they didn't steal your property. jobs supported by exports pay as much as 18% higher wages than the national average year we shouldn't be afraid of this competition. i tell leaders all over the world, america welcomes this combination. it's stamped into our dna. and if it feels is even remotely level we will succeed, you will succeed. ladies and gentlemen, we've learned a lot over the last 20 years about trade agreements and a truly globalized and integrated economy. things we did before we are not willing to do any longer. we are negotiating differently, reflecting what we have learned. we've learned that agreements do not a -- labor practice that are inhumane in the countries that engage in it, and undercut our businesses at home as well. we learned that if agreements do not include environmental standards, it damages the health of the people in the country that are competing with us and it puts us at a competitive disadvantage because we do protect the environment and the production of our products. we learned that at an agreement doesn't include stands protecting intellectual property, other countries often make no effort to protect it and it hurts us badly and does not provide the environment which they can create their own, their own intellectual growth. we learned in state owned enterprise are forced to compete in the same terms as private companies, other countries will pick say -- favorites to the detriment and considerably damaged american companies. so we make no apologies for insisting on the change standards between nafta and now. fair labor standards, well-defined environmental standards, protections of intellectual property. it amazes me how many people around the country don't realize that is a multibillion-dollar issue. most people have no sense of it. and new disciplines regarding state-owned enterprises. the basic elements that should be included in the 21st century trade agreement that america will sign if they are included. we are also actively working through the world trade organization in the u.s. courts to promote and enforce the rules that i discussed that are in place now. it was in that spirit that i sat down with then vice president xi in 20 to 20 talked about how we're going to more fur trade and i said it's real easy. alall the have to do is pick upa phone. you think i'm being facetious. i'm not. literally. he said, the bureaucrats are a sleep in china now. and i said, mr. vice president have considerably more power to wake up your bureaucrats than i do. and guess what? a some of you were there, literally by the end of that lunch we had a handshake. it was a massive but it did grow access for american films, as crisp spoke to. it did impact your bottom line. the point i'm raising, making and raising, is proof is that things can be done if the real it -- if the will exists and if we are insisting enough. the next year the number of blockbuster foreign films showing in china has increased by over half, and our share of box office revenue has doubled, or your share of the box revenue has doubled. keep me in mind for chris's assisted later. and access for independent films has increased as well, not all that we need but movement. obviously, this is just the start, and implication and for the progress is going to be essential but it's all tied in to the mindset about where we are relative to trade, international trade agreements. but rest assured, with your help we are keeping at it. but let me close with this thought. the stakes are a lot more than economic for you and for the country. the people in your industry understand about as well as anyone here, and i'm not just talking about entertainment industry. i'm talking about microsoft, all of the creative elements of the society. that the face off, that the face of america isn't the diplomatic soldier or the president or the vice president hu shows up in other countries. it's our businesses, it's our culture. speaking of movie industry, your movies speak directly to more people by a longshot than every single diplomat in every single elected official in the united states of america ever could. you provide a glimpse for the rest of the world and the culture, the attitudes, the values of the american people, not always good, but you give a clear and sometimes raw rendition of who we are. but there's a profound difference when people in nondemocratic countries see the technological wizardry in animation of avatar, gravity. the fundamental decency the american people in movies like silver lining playbook and the dallas buyers club. the moral force of films like lincoln or the old fit him like "to kill a mockingbird." like it or not, along with our musicians, athletes, writers, business people and students, you are the face of american culture to the rest of the world. that's a pretty awesome responsibility and i'm not here to let you, you about anything. -- lecture you. it's our responsibility together to create a global economic order or creativity and innovation can thrive. because if we do, we will leave our children not just a stronger more prosperous america, but a brighter and better world. with a hell of a lot greater chance to avoid the gigantic misunderstandings that result in conflict. that's more than you ever wanted to hear, but the truth of the matter is you are at the epicenter of whether or not we can achieve the goals we set out to do. we choose to lead the world not just by the power of the example of our power, but by the power of our example. thank you all so very much, and i've got to go to lunch with angela merkel. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, guys. >> c-span2's book "sundays at eight" from a collection of interviews with some of the nations top storytellers. >> when she arrived in berlin with the family, she was in love with what she referred to as the nazi revolution. she was enthralled by the nazis which really struck me as a complete the surprising thing, given what we all know, hindsight. how could you be enthralled with the nazi revolution? but there she was. >> erik larson one of four unique voices from 25 years of our q&a conversations, c-span's "sundays at eight" now available at your favorite bookseller. >> looking begin from a broadband plan, if you take that 150-ish number, instead of auction, you need to forget what comes next, what comes in that 2018, 2019, 2020 charge. it worked to identify the specter needs to start right now there to reference the cisco projection, they are staggering. cisco projects between now and 2018 the demand for mobile wireless bandwidth will increase eightfold. if you thought traffic and washington will increase eightfold between now and five years in the u.s.a. we need new roads. we face the same problem we need more spectrum. the auctions will help. additional infrastructure investment will help the new technology will help, that would probably also ought to be looking at figure out what the next tranche is after the incident of auction. >> what's next for industry tonight on the committee at eight eastern on c-span2. >> i please speak to you on c-span2 we are live in washington of the pudding is the president of the national district attorneys association, and date and contents with the national association of attorneys general holding a two-day national symposium on crime reduction. they will hear first this morning from the attorney general eric holder. this is live coverage here on c-span2. >> it brings together i think the coalition of a partnership of individuals that are also looking at these major issues, statewide and nationally, but i think it also incorporates any symposium like a like is peopleh actual on the ground experience combined with academic experience and people who have, or looking down the road, down the future to what type of action and what type of engagements we should be looking at for the next 10 years, the next 20 years in our criminal justice system. some have of the national association, thank you very much are being here. let's get started. [applause] >> as i mentioned our first gig will be general holder. we will receive them right now so if you could please just break in place we would be back momentarily. please don't go anywhere. [laughter] [inaudible conversations] >> as you may of heard the event just taking a brief pause. this is a national association of attorneys general and the national district attorneys association and their two-day conference in washington on crime reduction and they will their first this morning from the attorney general, eric holder. the house and senate are in session this week. the senate will be in this afternoon at 2 p.m. eastern of course live on c-span2. the house back tomorrow at noon eastern for morning our speeches at 2 p.m. for legislative business. involve the house on c-span. last week the oversight committee subpoenaed john kerry to testify before the committee on may 21 regarding the attacks on benghazi in 2012. cq writes about another issue. they say hours after the subpoena majority leader eric cantor of virginia issued a statement calling on attorney general holder to appoint a special counsel to investigate whether the irs targeted conservative groups and that also on the heels of house announcing speaker boehner last week announcing that they would form a special oversight, special investigative panel in house to look at benghazi. and, of course, has to be approved on the house floor. not sure when that will come upon house but possible this week. live coverage on c-span2 waiting to hear from eric holder. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> it is indeed my pleasure to introduce to you this morning our united states attorney general eric holder. i've had the opportunity to this a number of different times in the past. he has been considered enough to come to numerous attorney general meetings and to talk to us about various issues of neutral importance to us. general holder of course has been in the field for many years. he's been serving as attorney general i think since 2009, and sometime prior to that president clinton had him serving as his deputy attorney general, of course a significant capacity in and of itself. he has previously been nominated to the federal bench by president reagan. he has worked in the private legal capacity as well. obviously, he has considerable experience that is brought to the department of justice and he has the opportunity and willingness to share with us. as i just greeted him in the back room i somewhat said tongue-in-cheek that we've got to stop meeting like this in the back room, but the reality is we need to do more of it. our ability to continue to move forward as a nation to continue to protect our children and its citizens is not just dependent upon even though it's very dependent upon what we do at the local level, it's become and greatly depend upon what we can do cooperatively working from the local level and the state level with our federal partners. i think that general holder a properly recognizes that which is why he has graced us with his company here today. so it is indeed my privilege to introduce to you the united states attorney general eric holder. [applause] >> well, good morning. you are right, we've got to quit meeting in those back rooms, you know? i want to thank attorney general dan holland for the kind introduction. it sounds like i almost can't hold a job the way he described all those things. and also for your leadership as president of the national association of attorneys general. i also like to recognize district attorney henry garza for his services as the president of the national district attorneys association and i want to thank the leadership teams and professional staff and the dedicated members of both organizations for the outstanding work that people form every day and for all that you've done to bring us together for this really important symposium, the reduction of crime. as staunch advocate for the rule of law and as champions of the cause of justice that drive the efforts of local prosecutors and state authorities across america, you have to remarkable organizations have for decades provided indispensable leadership and guidance in advancing our dialogue about criminal justice issues. to the work of the national attorneys general training and research institutes, the important events just like this one and through gatherings like nagg and conferences i attend earlier this year. you routinely bring innovators, public servants and law enforcement leaders together to address what are the most pressing public safety challenges of our time. so it's a privilege for me to help open this critical forum and to stand with you all yet again as we convene to share knowledge and expertise, to speak very frankly, frankly about the threats facing our respective jurisdictions and to discuss cutting edge strategies for reducing crime and victimization throughout the nation. i know that you and your colleagues serve on the front lines of this fight every day, and you are working closely with u.s. attorneys, fbi agents and other justice department officials to check with citizens that we are all sworn to serve. together we are reminding policymakers here in washington, something that's very important, that dialogue on even the most difficult and divisive issues need not break down along partisan lines. disagreements are inevitable. whenever passionate people confront questions of real magnitude, but we are showing that vigorous debate is not only healthy, it stands to make our work stronger and more effective because we are all responding to the same realities. we all share similar priorities and we come together in pursuit of the very same goal. reducing crime, holding individuals responsible for their actions, protecting the american people and improving criminal justice outcomes. especially in recent years, names have led us to find common ground. take meaningful steps forward on a range of efforts to recalibrate crime-fighting policies and practices. new actions and initiatives have risen from innovative federal, state and local partnerships. these collaborations have been pioneered by leaders from across the political spectrum and they are driven by the recognition and the broad-based consensus that we have both the responsibility and the opportunity to make our criminal justice systems more fair, more efficient and more effective than ever before. the importance of these efforts and urgent need for action on the historic changes we're working to bring about was really brought into sharp focus by its landmark study that was released just last week i the national academy of sciences, national research council. this new report was funded by the national institute of justice as well as by the macarthur foundation. its findings were based upon a comprehensive nonpartisan, independent examination of incarceration rates in the united states over the past four decades, over the past 40 years. as this study makes clear, the rise in imports ration that we witnessed over that period was, and i'm going to quote, historically unprecedented and internationally unique, unquote. the current rate of imprisonment in the united states is roughly five to 10 times greater than incarceration rates of other democracies, and this shockingly high rate has resulted in extreme disparate racial impacts and devastating consequences for already disadvantaged communities including uplifted urban areas and predominantly minority communities. these conditions have been shown to contribute to family instability, to high unemployment as well as to low wages. they often correlate with high rates of poverty and serious public health concerns and they not only feed, they exacerbate the vicious cycle of poverty, of criminality and incarceration that traps to me individuals and devastates entire communities. the principal conclusion was that u.s. policymakers at every level must take steps to reduce incarceration rates by making targeted reforms to criminal justice policy, including sensing risen reforms in order to condition and broader social policy changes. these recommendations are entirely consistent with the work that's under way through the justice department's smart on crime initiative which launched last summer to improve the federal system at every level as those efforts being led why many of you. the study finds also catalogued the reality is that so many of us see every day as we thrive through this crime and jurisdictions that we serve. to illustrate that the cost of our nation's overreliance on incarceration are far too high to bear, and they show that increased incarceration rates, and excessive prison terms imposed these costs without me to improving public safety, without significantly reducing crime, and without concretely benefiting our nation in a meaningful way. fortunately the leaders in this room are not only uniquely qualified to guide our national conversation on these issues, you are also empowered to make a lasting positive difference i advocating for the proposals that you believe in, by calling for reforms to improve the lives of our fellow citizens and by implementing strong and tested policies that can move our country forward. with new reentry and diversion programs like drugs, mental health and veterans groups, we can keep people out of prison and help them successfully we joined their community. with new sentencing measures and the careful and appropriate exercise of prosecutorial discretion we can ensure that punishments are proportional to the conduct in every case. and with the support of a broad new coalition of experts, committee leaders, law enforcement officials and other stakeholders we can conserve resources. we can improve public safety and we can bring our system in line with our society's interest and our nation's highest ideals. many of you are already showing i think tremendous leadership in this regard. in recent years a total of 17 states, 17 states supported by the justice department reinvestment initiative and led by state officials again from both parties have directed significant funding away from prison and toward evidence-based programs and services like supervision and drug treatment that have proven to reduce recidivism while improving public safety. i'm pleased to note that rather than increasing costs from one report by the bureau of justice assistance projects that these 17 states will save $4.6 billion over a 10 year period. the full impact of these policies remains to be seen, it's evidence that they already show significant promise. they should be studied. a should be emulated, and we must continue to support this kind of innovation to expand on proven strategies and to reinforce the robust federal, state and local partnerships that can amplify our individual successes. at the federal level our smart on crime initiative that is bring about major shifts in sensing and incarceration, reentry and executive clemency policy. last year, under this initiative i took steps to ensure that the stringent mandatory minimum sentences for certain federal drug-related crimes will not be reserved for the most serious criminals. so defendants on low-level, nonviolent drug offenses will face sentences befitting their individual conduct rather than penalties that are more appropriate for a pilot trafficker or drug taking been. i also ordered a renewed focus on prisoner reentry in all 94 of our u.s. attorney's office. i have been encouraged to see more and more leaders from again both parties stepped forward to take up this cause to ensure that our criminal justice system is used to punish, deter and rehabilitate, and not merely to wear hats as they forget their earlier this year i was proud to be joined by senator rand paul in calling for state and local leaders to restore voting rights to those of served their prison terms in jail or prison, completed their parole or probation and they paid their fines. i urge each of you to take up this fight when you return home because the free exercise of our most fundamental rights should never be subject to politics or geography or a think the lingering effects of flawed policies. i also ask you to join me in working with congress to advance commonsense legislation like the bipartisan, i want to emphasize the bipartisan smarter since impact which would give judges additional discretion in determining sentences for people convicted of certain federal drug crimes. as a nation we pay far too high a price in terms human, economic and even moral whenever our system fails to deliver the just outcomes that are necessary to deter and punish crime, to keep us safe and to ensure that those who have paid their debts the chance to become productive citizens. this is what in addition to calling for legislative remedies, the justice department is doing important work to restore justice, fairness and proportionality to those currently involved with our criminal justice system through an improved and expanded approach to the executive clemency process. two weeks ago the deputy attorney general announced new criteria that the department will consider when recommending clemency applications for the president's review. this will allow the department and the white house and ultimate the president to consider additional applications from deserving individuals who do not pose threats to public safety. we anticipate receiving an influx of really thousands of applications as result of these changes. we are committed to devoting the time, the resources and the personnel necessary to ensure that each one received the full attention and the rigorous scrutiny that it deserves. at the same time as a national academy of sciences report makes crystal clear from we must also increase our efforts to identify and to confront disparities at every stage of the criminal justice process. and with this goal in mind at my direction a team of more than a dozen u.s. attorneys known as the racial disparities working group is currently examining sentencing disparities in developing recommendations on how we can address this. the department has also launching a new center for building community trust and justice and going forward this center will enable us to explore, to assess and to disseminate information about strategies intended to enhance procedural justice, reduce implicit and strengthen relationship between law enforcement and communities of color. my college and i will never stand idly by as i said acts of discrimination harness the outstanding work that is performed by the overwhelming majority of america's law enforcement officers every day in this country. i have been encouraged to see organizations like nagg and ndaa and many other members take steps to make good on this commitment by a strengthening community outreach by broadening engagement and by bringing citizens and law enforcement officials together to end the era of suspicion and distrust. going forward, this work must continue to grow. we need to keep extending the reach and impact of these other efforts across the board. because finding new savings and efficiencies will allow us to invest in innovative crime reduction strategies focusing on diversion and successful reentry will boost neighborhood of safety and it will forge stronger families and communities. including sentencing policy, expanding justice reinvestment and confronting racial disparities will save taxpayer money. it will restore faith in our justice system and they will build trust in law enforcement. and taking a comprehensive view of crime challenges and a holistic approach to addressing them will enable justice professionals to enlist new allies confronting the root causes of the problems facing our communities rather than just responding to individual symptoms. we convene this morning in a unique and i think perhaps unprecedented moment of promise, at a time of innovation and potentially and potentially broad consensus when our national debate, our professionals expenses and the very latest in cutting-edge research have cast the challenges we face in very stark relief. this is a time for thoughtful discussion to give way to principled action. this is a time for 21st century problems to be met with 21st century solutions. and this is a time when policymakers from opposite ends of the political spectrum have laid aside their differences and resolve to stand together in the recognition that crime reduction is a goal that knows no ideology. public safety is a cause far greater than short-term parsing gang. and countless lives and promising futures hang in the balance. so the need for robust collaboration and serious reform is as urgent as ever. as we seize this important moment, as weeks have the opportunities now before us and as we renew our determination to move aggressively in combating violence and reducing crime i want you to know that i'm proud to count you as allies and has friends. i'm confident in our collective effort and leadership of america's state attorneys general and local prosecutors can take us in here. i want to thank you all once again for the chance to take part in this very important symposium. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you, general. normally we as the national district attorneys association give out little gifts to our presenters and the like but general holder has been such a frequent visitor as i alluded, we have run out of gifts. so i'm sure he can still hear us. you just have our gift of appreciation i guess. so thank you for joining us. i will now call henry back up to introduce our first panel. >> thank you. i'm honored to introduce our first moderator and panelists as they prepared to examine the merits of the broken windows theory. our moderator is daniel donovan junior. where are you at? there he is. district attorney for richmond county, new york, richmond county is also known as the state of staten island which makes him one of the five d's serving new york city. he has been public service for over 25 years and to serve as a dh in a position for over 10. during his time as the a dan is implemented many innovative policies aimed at reducing crime pic is also an active member of the national da associations serving as state director for the executive working group here with a nagg. our panels include three experts in the field of community police, george kelling. george, where are you? george kelling, codevelop of the broken windows theory, senior fellow at the manhattan institute and professor at the kennedy school of government at rutgers university. tom tyler is a professor at yale law school. tom? okay, very good. and robert tracy, chief of crime control strategies for the chicago police department has stepped in for his boss, and please join me in welcoming these panelists. [applause] >> okay, we will take a five minute break, set up the chairs for the panelists. and five minutes. we will ring the bell. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> this is a two-day conference on crime reduction, hosted by the national association of attorneys general and the district attorneys association as well. moment ago they heard from attorney general eric holder. on capitol hill for senate and house are in this week. the senate coming in today at 2 p.m. eastern. that, of course, live here on c-span2. the house comes in tomorrow, and they're in at noon for morning our speeches 2 p.m. tomorrow for legislative work. they are se sent this week to bn the so-called tax extenders and the first bill up this week in that line will be the one that would make permanent the research and develop a tax credits. that's set for this week in the house. they are likely to take up whether to issue a contempt of congress citation on former irs official lois lerner. and a number of hearings this week off the hill. off the floor of the house i should say. the armed services committee will mark up to 2015 defense department budget. that will be wednesday. the president's nominee to be the next health and human services secretary, current office of management and budget director sylvia mathews burwell will be before the senate confirmation hearings. that will be the senate health education committee. that hearing is coming up this week and she's also before the finance committee as well. look for coverage of those hearings on the c-span networks. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> okay, if we can start. we will get started. [inaudible conversations] >> well, thank you all for coming this way. as i was telling the panel that's going first, alicea guys are paying attention right now. we don't want to go at 3:30 p.m. tomorrow. you can see the bad mistakes will make any others will not make mistakes. first is george kelling. george is the codevelop of the broken windows theory. is a professor at rutgers university, a fellow at the kennedy school of government at harvard university diversity and deceitful at the manhattan institute. george was a professor at the school of promote justice at rutgers university. is thoroughly researching organizational change in policing and development of comprehensive energy crime prevention programs. he has practice social work as a childcare worker, a probation officer and has administered residential care programs for aggressive and distributes. in 1972 he began work at the police foundation and conducted several large-scale experiments in policing. most notably the kansas city prevention control experiment and the newark foot patrol experiment. the latter was the source of contribution for his most from a publication in the atlantic, broken windows. during the late 1980s, he developed the order maintenance policies in the newark city subway the ultimate lead to racial, radical, excusing the radical crime reduction's. lady consoled with the new york police to bug as well especially india with -- his most recent publication is fixing broken windows, restoring order and reducing crime in our committees which develop with his wife catherine. currently is studying organizational change and policing in the development of comprehensive energy crime prevention programs. george has two children and four grandchildren. george is a graduate of university of wisconsin milwaukee and university of wisconsin-madison. ladies and gentlemen, george kelling. [applause] >> professor tom taylor is a professor at yale law school. he is a maclin fleming professor of law and professor of psychology. his research is towards the dynamics of authority and groups, organizations and society. in particular he examines the role of judgments about the justice and injustice of group procedures in shaping legitimacy, compliance and cooperation. he is the author of several books including the social psychology of procedural justice, social justice in a diverse society, cooperation in groups, trust in the law, why people of april law, and why people cooperate. he received his ph.d in social psychology from ucla in 1978. since then has taught at northwestern university, the university of california at berkeley, and in what you. leagues and gentlemen professor tom tyler. [applause] >> chief robert tracy from a career law enforcement professional was appointed chief of the office of crime control strategies chicago police department in 2011. under the direction and guidance of chicago police superintendent terry mccarthy, chief tracy broke new ground within the chicago police department by mentioning, by bringing the internationally acclaimed concept process to chicago. chief tracy, overseas process and envelopment strategies and initiatives to reduce overall crime. since 2011, chicago has experienced a 36% reduction in overall crime. chief tracy began his career in 19 a four with the newark city police department and throughout his 24 years of professional service chief tracy served in challenging and procedures roles. as commanding officer, u.s. marshal regional fugitive task force, chief tracy let a specialized and joint task force comprised of nypd and more than 50 federal, state and local agencies in the apprehension of wanted fugitive felons. he also served as liaison between nypd and out of state international law enforcement agencies to coordinate, capture and extradite wanted offenders. chief tracy organized and led a unique new unit was established to apprehend a continuing list of the top 150 violent felons. during his tenure as commanding officer of the firearms investigation you know, chief tracy led his team of investigators for illegal firearm usage and trafficking working with the organized crime, investigations bureau and the atf joint our arms task force. chief tracy retired from the nypd as a captain and commanding officer of the newly created firearm suppression division. interposition chief tracy forged relationships and coordinate activities with the joint fire arms task force which -- firearms investigation unit and get an astonishing and. from 2006-2010 chief tracy work in the private sector. at some point in his life i guess he wanted to make money. first user that vice president of global crisis response manager for the office of business continuing with the citicorp corporation where he coordinate the global crisis management efforts for a banking family. before taking his position with the chicago police department, chief tracy was ahead of operations for major security company in new york metropolitan area. chief tracy of the masters in public administration and bachelor of arts in history. he lives in chicago with his wife and their five children. ladies and gentlemen, chief bob tracy. [applause] here's what we're going to do. will let each of our panelists speak for about 15 minutes, and then open up the floor for questions. knowing you have an opportunity ask questions, as a panelist are speaking rather than interrupt them, if you just jot down your thoughts and will open up for discussion afterwards. what i'd like to do now is start with george kelling. back in 1993, new york city had only 2200 murders. at that time professor kelling met chief bratton at that time and then he became police commissioner of new york city and together they came up with implementing a lot of george's theories of combating crime. the police department has followed those procedures over the last 20 years. in the swingers wen we went from 2200 murders last year new york city had 340 murders. a remarkable reduction in violent crime in new york and many, many people in new york city credit this man. ladies and gentlemen, let me present to you george kelling. [applause] >> referring to broken windows, at first it was five years ago, then it was 10 years ago, then it was a quarter century ago, and now it's 30 years. i'm still around and still talking about it. and still, still remains somewhat of a controversial idea. i don't think the broken windows ideas are really that controversial if you understand the broken windows idea. if not they can be controversial and i want to talk about that in a little bit. broken windows as recognized as a metaphor. the power of metaphors is a communicate complicated issues in a simple way, capture your attention and they are easy to communicate. the weakness of metaphors is that they simple by competent ideas et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. during the past several months since i become active again and retirement so to speak working with bratton in new york city, i've come to understand that i once again and getting a lot of credit. gym is getting credit as well although he is a longer with us, getting credit for the high rate of imprisonment, both nationally and in new york state. it turns out i'm also getting credit from a study along with jim and broken windows for reducing incarceration in new york state. for depending on your view, you can take your pick their i will try to convince you that the latter interpretation is the correct interpretation. when one understands open windows and broken windows is practiced, that's the key in my mind. i thought i would begin by saying how to become to the idea of the broken windows? i've heard stories about that as well. jim and i were having dinner subways and results in and kids smashing up a car. it's a different story than that. as was mentioned i did a study a foot patrol in newark in new jersey. i spent a lot of time walking the foot patrol officers find out what they were doing. and when we wrote the final result it turns out that in areas where we have foot patrol officers, crime dropped a great do. crime didn't drop come if you want to know about that asking a question. and putting that aside. the fear of crime dropped a lot. if he took foot patrol a way, fear of crime increased a lot. trying to make sense of that was difficult because first of all, you had less than probably you had 30 hours a foot patrol the week. so it wasn't that there was complete coverage during that time. you know, police officers have reports to write, there are other things that take them away from work. and so in that regard it was a very small part of the week that's covered by foot patrol. a scholar who some of you might recognize by name, by the name of aegon pittenger kept saying george, what did they do? go back to your field those. what do the officers do? what came to my attention as it went over my nose was that officers would dealing with small problems. and that is the aggressive panhandlers, getting in the face and saying hey, prostitutes, embarrassing husbands in front of their children and family, graffiti. those are the kinds of issues that police officers were dealing with. i wrote that up, talked about police officers developing standards with neighborhoods working with citizens and people come living there, including street people by the way and that's often missed. and publisher that, and jim wilson read the articles, read the last chapter of the newark foot patrol study and asked if i wanted to write an article with him. jim warned me at the time that just his name alone would capture a certain amount of attention because in some circles he was notorious. having published the kansas city study which i'll talk about another time when we speak, i was used to controversy and i said let's go for it. and so we wrote the article. and basically the metaphor goes like this, and i'm certain many of you know it. most of you know it. just as the broken window left unattended is a sign that nobody cares and leads to more damage. so disorderly conditions and behavior left unattended is a sign that nobody cares and leads to series crime, more sirs khan and urban decay. basically we will -- serious and urban decay. we're putting together three arguments. first, in this we argue doesn't need any doubt justification. order is an end in itself. that is if you live in a complicated society of strangers, if you want commerce to thrive, if you want educational institutions to be able to work you have to have minimal levels of order. how the order is established to be negotiated. there are a variety of ways but order we don't deal any justification. the second issue has received several attention, and that is if you have order main the focus is getting compliance without having to arrest. i consider it a good broken windows program that you might have an initial increase in the number of arrests until people getting the message get the message and then you get a decline and unrest over time. if you're talking about arrests you are talking about jail time short term of not, not the kind of imprisonment this is suggested by many of the critics of broken windows. the first real test of broken windows was in the new york city subway. as many of you know, i knew bill bratton since the early 1980s. i have been asked by the chairman of the board of the new state transportation authority to help them deal with what was called a problem of homelessness in the subways, and there was no leadership in terms of dealing with those problems. i persuaded a colleague of mine persuaded a chairperson to recruit bill bratton. bratton. bratton was hired and order was restored in the subway. as far as i'm concerned, the strongest test of the power of broken windows was in the subway. can you imagine me as an academic? i have an idea along with a colleague. we published an article in the atlantic. what a nice place to get published, they would get new york city subway as a place to test our idea. that doesn't happen very often in real life. on top of that, the person who introduces broken windows happens to become commissioner in new york city as well and those ideas are tested in new york city. here is what i think we have to be careful. i think broken windows was part of a repertoire of activities carried on the newark city police department under bratton's administration. i know nothing about what happened after bratton left. i have not visited the newark city police department until bratton was back again, and so i'm not going to comment on what has transpired since. but i do know that broken windows was part of what was omitted in the city, but the anticrime strategies that develop in the city were far faster because nukes itself was a much more complicated social environment than was the subway. the subway was relatively simple. and by the way, i do know whether many of you remember the subway. i have recently gone into culture shock getting back in the subway since not having been there since the early 1990s when it was purgatory on earth. i mean, if you were doing a film showing a damsel in distress you put her in the newark city subway being chased by shadowy figures and you had your purgatory. .. >> for me, it was a wonderful, a wonderful sight. that was part of my initial opening comment about order as an end in itself. if you're going to have a vibrant subway, you have to have order for people to use it. in the early 1990s, ridership was at three million and declining, now ridership is at five million and increasing. so let me just wrap up with the last -- i'm really sorry jim isn't here. jim, as many of you know, was a an extraordinarily serious thinker. and the last thing we wrote together was at the quarter century point. the broken windows idea does two things, one indisputably good and the other probably effective. it encourages the police to take public order seriously, the overwhelming majority of ardent people desire and raises the possibility that more order will require less crime. so far most studies suggest that more public order, along with other factors, is associated with less predatory street crime. with all this in mind, we believe it remains a strategy worth pursuing. and i would just close by saying this is one of those areas where police are in need of help to develop guidelines. this should develop themselves. -- they should develop themselves. helping officers to use discretion wisely when dealing with issues of public disorder. for the most part, this is reminding people of their responsibilities. last comment. when bratton took over the subway, 250,000 people a day weren't paying their fares. 250,000 people were going over the turnstiles, under the turnstiles, bending the gates. that was part of the overall, overall chaos. the first thing, the first thing that we did was to give the people opportunities to back off, and that is we made it very public we're going to be cracking down. stop beating the fare. we're going to get you if you do. so warn people about what you're going to do. and what we so farred was a good portion of -- discovered was a good portion of those who continued to fare beat had lengthy criminal records. not all fare beaters were criminals, but a lot of criminals were fare beaters. and that is, the bad guys are busy, constantly busy, and broken windows not only strengthens communities and creates order, but it gives police contacts with people who are very active in nominating themselves for more drastic action. but again, my model of broken windows is high activity, low arrest, lot of warning, etc. i can go into more detail if -- i don't know how much time i've taken. >> finish, george. [laughter] >> oh, thank you. i asked imto be ruthless, and -- him to be ruthless, and he was. >> well, and, please, note what you'd like to ask him. professor tom tyler, i thought it was interesting about the names of the books he's written; trust in the law, why people obey the law and why people cooperate. i'd like the professor to speak about that, and later on you'll have the chance to ask the professor some questions as well. professor? >> thank you. well, first, let me say that for my entire professional life, george kelling has been the intellectual leader, so it's both an honor to be here to talk about broken windows and a little bit intimidating. so i will try to talk about a couple of things that i think come from trying to look at a broken windows from from a contemporary policing perspective. the first thing i would say is something that i think all of you already know, and that is that every era of law enforcement faces its own challenges. what made broken windows so important and so influential as a theory is that it very effectively addressed the questions of a particular era, the '70s and '80s. at that time the really central issue in the public was fear of crime. it's hard for us, i think, now to go back to -- maybe we can watch serpico or some old police movie to tib this not only -- to think about this not only a sense that there was crime everywhere, there was disorder, there was instability, but that it was out of control, that it was spiraling out, and there was nothing that we could do about it. the police didn't know what to do, they had no strategy. and broken windows provided a road map. it did a couple of things that i think are very important, and professor kelling has already coached on sop of -- touched on some of the this. first, it said that the police should be focused on the concerns that are driving the public's fears. at the time focus on disorder seemed to many police to be trivial. they wanted to be out catching murderers, and they had to be convinced that focus on the concerns that were actually driving the public to be afraid and to leave cities and undermine communities. and the other is that it communicated to the public that the police actually were concerned about the public. seeing officers on foot patrol, seeing the actions of the police communicated reassurance and the belief that the police, first, actually were concerned about public feeling and, second, that they had a plan, they had a strategy. there was something that they could do that would actually be effective. and these were very important ideas at the time that they came forward. they had a very dramatic impact as we've seen now. so let's fast forward to today. today we're in a different era, and i think the question we all have to ask is, is broken windows still the model we should be using? well, let's consider the situation. one thing that we've already heard several people mention is that crime is down. it's down substantially, it's down in most cities, all cities in the country, it's been going down steadily. it doesn't seem to be a fluke. and you will hear this afternoon what i'm guessing will be a very lively discussion about who gets the credit, whether it's the police or not, but i don't think that's really the question for us this morning. it's true. but i want to point to another thing that's equally true, and that is even though crime is down, the public isn't in love with the police. that is, we've had a consistent and ongoing issue about popular legitimacy of the legal system, the police, the courts. stop, question and frisk is an example of the public controversy about a tactic that is not ubiquitous to american policing, but certainly a feature of major citiesment especially young -- cities. especially young people, minority group members distrust the police. for the, -- in fact, in 2004 the national academy of sciences report on policing was extremely laudatory, as it should be, of the great success of law enforcement against crime but pointed out that legitimacy remained as a major issue that has not been effectively addressed. well, that's still true today. if we look at 2012 national survey of the person public, we see that about 66% of the public -- 60% of the public ebbs presses confidence in their local police and courts. so, in other words, 40% don't. and more strikingly, there's a 30% ratio gap with african-americans, 30% less likely to say they trust the police and courts in their community. those people who have had personal contact with the police and courts trust them less. and these are not flukes. if we look at public opinion polling data over the last 30 years, basically since broken windows was written, we see that trust and confidence in the police is basically a flat line between 50 and 60%. the ratio gap i mentioned has been consistent were decades, is not going away. and we've seen a series of racial incidents. you can name your racial incident of choice running from, you know, the gates incident in cambridge, the trayvon martin incident in florida, but, of course, you know, the rodney king -- you know, there are many. so the point is that it's a little early to declare victory, at least in terms of the relationship between the police, law and american communities. and i think what's particularly important to us is to recognize that declines in fear of crime and the crime rate have not led people to have higher levels of trust in the police and the courts. this is of concern because in the original idea of broken windows, there was a very reasonable sense that the police were responding to public concerns about crime and disorder and that by responding, by showing that they were concerned, by doing something about it, the police were addressing the issue of trust. they were showing trust with the community. we see that. and i think just from a pragmatic point of view what we would want to be concerned about as law enforcement officials is there's an enormous amount of research that shows that the police, the courts and the law gain when they're trusted. people are more willing to defer to the police, to judges if they trust police and judges. there's less anger and resistance, less injury to officers, are less violence. people comply with the law more in their everyday lives if they view the police and courts as he. >> it mate. they -- legitimate. they cooperate. they report crime and criminals. they serve as witnesses, they serve on juries. they accept the police as arbiters of public conflict. they don't go into alleys and beat people up, they call the police. and, of course, central to everything we're discussing, they support the police and the courts politically. they want to have those groups in charge of public order in their community. so it's troubling that we don't see more support for the police and courts, and it's perturbing because as the national academy of sciences quite correctly said, we've seep amazing gains in the -- we've seen amazing gains in the quality of policing services in america; effectiveness in fighting crime, professionalism in other ways. okay. well, so what we might be interested in doing is thinking about refoxing on the -- refocusing on the issues of right now. and i certainly don't mean this to be a criticism of broken windows, because i think, actually, a refocus would be going back to what i understand to be some of the core ideas that are in the original broken windows theory. in particular, if the police are going to gain support from the public by addressing public needs, we have to recognize that perhaps the public's concerns and needs are different now than they were in this earlier era where there was a focus on fear of crime. in fact, it's a good time to reconsider the public's relationship to the police because crime is low, as we're all acknowledging. and fear is not driving the public's reactions to the police and the community in the way it did in the earlier period. well, what are the communities' concerns? here again we have a number of studies that have been done over the last 15 or 20 years that are very consistent in finding a common set of concerns for both white and minority community residents, concerns that are reflected in general surveys of community and also in interviews with people who have dealt with the police or gone to court. actually, it was interesting that the attorney general -- i guess i should have to distinguish the big attorney general, holder -- [laughter] said in his talk that the department of justice has just put a lot of resources behind procedural justice initiative. that is actually based upon research on what people look for when they deal with the police and courts. they look for fair treatment. something that we call procedural justice. the most important issue to people is whether or not they feel that they have received fair treatment when they deal with the police officer or a judge, when they evaluate police forces or courts, they ask do they generally provide people with fair treatment. fair treatment means that people get decisions made fairly, that they're listened to before decisions are made, they have voice, that they can see that the authorities are neutral, that they're following principles of law, that they're being consistent, that they feel that their status in the community is respected, that they're accorded the respect that they deserve when they deal with the police, they're not treated in a biased way, they're not insulted, they're recognized as people who are entitled to bring their concerns, to have issues that they can address legal authorities. and they trust that the motives of the police are sincere, benevolent and caring, that they are trying to do what's right for all the people if the community, that a they're trying to take people's concerns seriously. okay. elements of feeling fairly treated. and, again, i would say the main point is at this time in history this is what dominates public reactions to the police and the courts. so we know, we have a sense for what it is the public might want and what it might find to be lacking in current policing. when we put it that way, we can see why the public might be having trouble with current policing efforts, because the police are not focusing on those public concerns. they're not addressing those issues. they're continuing toíf&róz focn crime reduction, in particular violent crime reduction, as the primary issue that drives the way they're interacting with the public. this has been associated with policies like zero tolerance, stop, question and frisk, and it isn't being responsive to what the public is really concerned about which is why we're seeing these manifestations of public discontent.ç what's the effect, for example, on young men of being stopped by the police on the streets? we have research on that in new york city. the police are viewed as less legitimate, crime goes up because legitimacy is a credible factor in criminal behavior, willingness to cooperate with the police goes down so that the way in which people are experiencing dealing with the police is actually having the effect of increasing criminogenic tendencies and behavior. and in particular, there are constant complaints about harassment and intimidation by the police. during these stops factors that are really separate from whether these kinds of activities have some reasonable crime reduction content or effectiveness, my point to you would be that really this is not broken windows, as professor kelling said. and, in fact, what we really should be looking for is a return to the idea of trying to build the and respect of the community through policing activities and focusing on what it is the public says they want as a way to do that. and i'll just conclude by saying that i think, to me, one of the parts about the broken windows model that's really central to its original presentation and that has gotten lost over years is the connection to the community. in the original discussion, the point was that people were leaving communities because of fear of crime. and if the police could create a reassuring presence in those communities, they could support social and economic development. since that time we've recognized even more the centrality of economic and social development, the community well being, and we now have a lot of research that suggests that the police are really important in met -- in motivating the creation of social capital, economic activity, political activity. but the point is that it's the reassuring presence of the police that promotes that activity. the belief in the part of the public that police are trustworthy, that they're a legitimate force in the community. and those kinds of feelings are needed even more now than ever to try to build economic and social activity and communities. so i'll just finish by saying that i think it's a great moment to think about going back to the original ideas in broken windows. we have a low crime rate. the police can focus on being not a menacing presence, but a reassuring presence and on the task of building economic and social well being. because as the police themselves say all the time, you can't arrest your way out of crime. you need to promote the conditions that eliminate the need for crime. thank you. [applause] >> if anyone has any doubt about what the professor said, you have to take a hook at what times square looked like in 1993 and take a look at what it looks like now in new york city. and go try and buy a townhouse in harlem right now. you can't do that on a prosecutor's salary. [laughter] and, professor, i wasn't smart enough to get into yale, but when you talk about the reduction in this room, it's the prosecutors. [laughter] >> my mistake. sorry. absolutely right. >> next we have chief bob tracy. we heard about some of the academic theories and how the studies of these two gentlemen have been put into place. now we have a gentleman who's actually had to work with these theories and put them into place in two major cities in our country, new york city and chicago. this is chief bob tracy. >> good morning, everyone. >> good morning. >> morning. >> thanks, dan. and it's great to see you again. we haven't seen each other for about eight years now. >> long time, buddy. >> i'm a big fan of george kelling and also tom tyler, we're actually putting some of the practices from both of these gentlemen into practice in chicago, and i saw it in practice in new york city. as the district attorney said, he saw in my biography that i went to the private sector for some additional money, but having five children right now at agings 7 to 16, can you imagine a few years ago how young they were, so i was drew out to private sector to let my wife stay home with the children. when this opportunity came along, superintendent mccart think when he was appointed the head of chicago police department, he gave me a call and said would you come to chicago. i looked at my wife, she said i know what your calling is, so we'll make it work. sold the house in new york, bought a house in chicago, and my wife says i don't care where your next move is, we're staying in chicago. that's how much she loves the city. [laughter] you can commute back and forth. so i have to do the best i can to make that city a better place because we're growing roots there, and my chirp and my wife -- my children and my wife are growing friends. i'm fully vested, so it's in my best interest to continue to drive crime down in chicago. i'm just going to go back to my years in the nypd. i was very fortunate, i was a police officer in the 1980s and then a young sergeant late '80s into the '90s, and mr. kelling spoke about the subways and the crime and the fare evasion. there was two different police departments, there was a transit m.d. and the new york city police department, but we started seeing great things happen with the new chief, william bratton, who took over the transit police at the time. and what had happened in the subways and the dramatic decrease in crime by applying these measures of going after the little things which was fare evasion. and most of these individuals were off-duty crooks or they were actually someone that's going to go out and commit a crime is certainly not going to pay for a fare. and that crackdown, they were the gatekeepers in the subway. and that helped reduce crime to where it is today. the chief will probably get into it later when she speaks, but it's a dramatic change, and a sea change in addressing the smaller things will take care of the bigger things. and at the same time, when you're addressing -- i was mostly in those violent crime units going after mostly the violent crimes, the heavy hitters and the people wanted mostly for murders and shootings throughout most of my career in new york city. but my time in fugitives, that was also another sea change. because when bill bratton came along, as we were addressing the quality of life crimes, these people were getting what was called c summons. these are notice of violation to appear in court out in the street. at the time my units were going after the robbers, the burglars and murderers. and they had said we're going to go after the people who do not answer their summons. we started looking at them, and most of them -- to back up what you were saying, mr. kelling -- most of these people, yes, they were doing low-level crimes, but they had extensive records of violence. so at the same time we were able to address that, address the people that were doing, that were affecting the quality of life and getting a bang for the buck because some were carrying guns and putting them back into the system or possibly catching them for warrants. so that was a big sea change for me because i had taught at the same time what is this going to do? we're after the bad guys, what is this going to do for us? so it really changed the way we started thinking in the police department, and we started seeing crime go down. so i'm a big subscriber to it. i've seen the results, and i was fortunate enough to be in the police department ten years before the quality of life enforcement in the new york city police department, i've watched the city from 2200 murders come down to almost 400, chief? 340. i don't like to talk about that number because now they compare chicago against new york. [laughter] and believe me, we hear it all the time. so that's where it's come from. and i used to see -- and at one time the chief was a commander in the 33 precinct, but i had work inside the 34 precinct which is in washington heights when i was a sergeant. i was there for seven years. that precinct was a three-mile radius, i mean, split from the 33 and 34, but within that radius, we had 120 murders. and i went to community meetings, and the focus in the community wasn't so much on what we were doing about that violence, but what are we doing about the quality of life that was in the street. and that really resonated with me a long time ago, almost 25 years ago. so i'm going to fast forward. i'm in a unique position. i got the job of a lifetime to follow a gentleman i believe in, gary mccarthy, and come to another big police department back out of the private sector to my calling. and an opportunity to apply some of the theories of the gentlemen that are up here here. and we introduced one thing that we had to do, we looked at the chicago police department. it wasn't set up to develop the support and deliver the services that we needed to reduce crime and to address the quality of life enforcement and gain the trust of the community. so what we had to do when we first came to chicago, we put in place a comp set system. business management principles that are applied to policing. this management tool is huge, and it's not just about metrics of outputs. we want to look at it about outcomes. and these outcomes is where we're at as far as what we're doing right down to quality of life enforcement in conjunction with reducing crime. we looked at -- but we were up against some challengings. the chicago police when we walked through the door was overpoliticized, and it was overspecialized. when you get overpoliticization, and i've got jack blakey here, he can probably back me up with the politics when he even came down into the police department. what mayor rahm emanuel did was give superintendent mccarthy the support and the cover to run the police department with his strategy, as he said, without politicians' influence of who the next leaders are going to be. so what we had to do is find the right leaders, build a bench, and he was able to promote the right people in place. not to say some of these people that were put in all aldermen and councilmen's choices, i think they set them up to fail because they weren't ready for the positions that they had. we flattened the organization. because of the politics, as the summit would like to say -- superintendent would like to say, the organizational chart of the chicago police department looked like periodic chart in high school. [laughter] so there was things that we streamlined it, we flattened it, we eliminated three ranks because we wanted the message to get from the superintendent and the chiefs right down to the troops on the ground. you put too many layers in place, and they were all political positions, and we also combined units and put them in the right place to break down the silos in the police department. overspecialization, chicago police department the idea of reducing crime, they did a very good job of it prior to our administration coming in. but they had city wide units, and these citywide units moved all over the city, did not know the community. and they were flown in anytime there was my type of violence. so they stayed for three weeks, they occupied the area, they pissed the community off, and then they left. so who's left to deal with it in the beat officers and the people that are in the districts who needed that support to begin with. so what we did is disbanded these specialized units, and what we did is we put them pack into the -- back into the districts. put them back into the districts. >> because the biggest complaint is when we go to community meetings, you're just driving by, you're driving by the bad guys. you're driving by the gang bangers, and you're not doing anything about it. well, if you don't know your community and you're not the same person in there at time, that you're not going to know they're just the same jimmy jones, johnny smith, you don't know the kids coming from basketball practice as opposed to the kids trying to sell drugs. even the gang bangers, they even dress nicer. of course, they have the economics to buy those clothes. so you have to get the same officers in the same beat every single day. what we also do is when it comes to narcotics, we want to make sure they're in the same areas. narcotics like to take a buy, and then they want to buy up which is going to take them to different parts of the city. we want to make sure they work the same area, and then they also buy down, and we take these drug dealers off the street. and we take the drug dealers off the street, one of our strategies is now to plant police officers in that area, build block organizations, hold that area, let them have some confidence that we're going to be there for 'em and at the same time once we can start slowly pulling out that when the next person that comes by to buy drugs, they're met with a cop. so we're going to take it block by block by block. of we cut the trees, we make sure the pod cameras are right, we clean up the vacant lots, we make sure troubled buildings comes in, and we take a lot of things, every city's experiences payoff the foreclosures and the forfeitures of housing, they're becoming crime nests for our bad guys on the blocks. so we're insuring that when we take them down, we get the trust of the community, we come in and do what we say we're going to do. and we hold that ground, and we make sure that commanders are doing it as well. that's a different way doing strategy with our narcotics unit. the return to cabrini policing, i discussed it. got to make sure that we have the people there. and how we do this at the same time when we make sure all the officers in the district, the proactive policing now can be done. we also probably answer more calls for service than any ore big police department in the nation. and we -- and the superintendent made a policy decisioning to take 20% of those out of the queue to allow our officers to handle the jobs that we need to. and handle the conditions that are some of the community concerns. and we went on a public campaign and let them know what we're doing. and most of these jobs are my kids are fighting over the remote, my dog is lost. i mean, we were responding to these jobs. i mean, we have an alternative service for that. and we've moved a lot of those jobs over, and we educated the community on what we were going to do. you just don't pull the plug on those things, but at the same time we wanted to make sure officers had time to deal with the conditions that the community needed addressed. we also, we also do a lot of things that the other police departments do. we have hot spot policing. but we also have hot people policing. we took a look at, we took a look at angel pop chris call social network -- crystal social network analysis, and we were able to work with the illinois institute of technology, and we were able to identify the players that are out there through their associates and their associates' associates of some of the worst or most violent people in the community. and the people that associated with them through arrest records sometimes are not the most violent people, but they're the most prone to be a victim of violence and murder. so we actually go back into the community, address them, we bring them into gang call-ins which is following david kennedy's model of violence reduction strategy, a cease fire -- david kennedy from john jay -- we bring our gang members in, and a lot of 'em we ask them to volunteer, but the thing we have over their head as leverage is either on parole or probation. so they have to come in or their parole or probation would be violated. and what we do with these individuals is we don't -- excuse me one second. we don't threaten them, it's not tough love, it's not scared straight. what we do is tell them exactly what we're going to do. you are influences in your community, and payoff that we're asking -- because of that, we're asking you to go back, stop the violence. we have the fbi, the dea, and we speak with them as a police department to go back to their community. but we also tell them if you do not heed our warnings within the city of chicago is 59 main gangs. and out of that there's 650 factions, about 100,000 gang members we're dealing with. so we can't get to them all. but if you want to stick your hand up and we give you a warning and say pick me, we will pick you and put 12,500 police officers on top of you to try to eliminate your gang, and we'll do it in every means possible. so we let them know that. and we speak to them about social services. we take away the excuse. if you don't have your ged or you need a job, we have people from not-for-profits, we will put them at the top of the list, and we will get them a job, we will get them a high school diploma. takes away that excuse. and the third part that we're doing with our gang members is we have a moral voice of the community. and that person is someone that has lost a son or a daughter to violence or someone that has rehabilitated themself, paralyzed or come out of jail and really connect with them. we're starting to get a real good groundswell of these gang members signing up for social services as we continue to do this. and we find the reduction in violence in the areas, and we're doing it in six districts, and we're expanding i. and we find in the areas that we're doing this crime has gone down in those areas for a short time. it starts to come back up. and we're not going to -- we're never going to get away from our deployment strategies. but these are things that are helping supplant connecting with the community where they see we're actually out there to try to help them. from this, this thing called custom notifications, this is where we pick gang members out, people of influence. we go to their houses and speak to their family, and we speak with them. we don't mind if we're not home. if we can get someone of influence, tear grandmother, their aunt, their uncle, anybody, their mother, whoever's there -- some of them don't even know the type of violence they're in or how influential they are in the community. we speak with them. we probably have done about 140 custom notifications. we've had -- nobody's been arrested for a violent crime in the last six months, but we did have two people that have been shot and killed. they did not heed all warnings, but we know we have the right people. and because of this program a lot are stating away from the violence. but two didn't stay away from the violence, and they're not here right now. what was done with the custom notifications on top of it, we don't wait anymore. if there's some kind of conflict going on in the community, we go right to the people using two degrees of association which is our hot people and the associations, and we go to their houses, and we meet with these gang members periodly to tell them let's -- immediately to tell them let's put down the gun, stop the violence. the cook county state attorney's office, helps us out with that letter, giving them the warning that we'll not here to arrest you. we bring social services immediately to their places. one of the last things that we looked at or one of the things we're going to look at, we're implementing things slowly in the zag police department. there was a big -- chicago police department. when we first looked at the department, we took 500 people from behind desks and put them back on the street. fresh eyes, duplication of efforts with administrative efforts. very unpopular decision, but the way the budgetary constraints are, you want to get everybody out on the street. we don't want the duplication of efforts. procedural justice and police legitimacy. you heard it here, you heard it from tom tyler. this is huge. tom and tracy meres came in and helped us develop some curriculum in the chicago police department. we're probably one of few departments and the largest police department that has train, and we've trained almost our 12,500 police officers, we're up to about 10,000 police officers. and there's going to be a part two to it. we feel strockly this is make -- strongly this is making a difference. i think with maturity they have an understanding what works in a community and what doesn't. this gets to the younger officers and showing them the importance it's not so much what you're doing, it's how you're doing and the respect in the community. in return, that's going to give us better cooperation and better partnership which is going to help us have less lawsuits, it's going to help cooperation, it's going to have more witnesses, and our clearance rates right now have skyrocketed since we've been there in crime and cooperation. and i really believe it's a combination of everything that we're doing. and procedural justice and police legitimacy is a big part of it, understanding our officers practice it out in the street. right now we have departments all over the nation coming to see how we're doing in chicago, and we're training the trainers and sending them back to their departments. >> [inaudible] >> when it comes -- >> you've got one minute. >> one minute. [laughter] just the quality of life enforcement. one of the things that we had in chicago is we had civil court summons that addressed public urination, gambling, public drinking of alcohol in the street and low levels of marijuana. with that, it's 70% of these summons went unanswered. so how do you address community concerns and keep police officers on the street when they know they give out a summons that a guy could take, crumple, throw over his back. we were able to lobby the city council with a city ordnance to make it a summons-able offense, so it gave some bite into this sum ponce to help correct behavior of the bad guys. and we had addressed some to have bad guys being off-duty crooks. when they're out there drinking, they're out there gambling, that's a recipe for disaster. in chicago we've seen a lot of gun violence around gambling, so we can address that situation immediately, it gives us an excuse to address them, and at the same time we can engage some of our bad guys and take some more guns off the street. i think what's the result after almost three years in chicago of applying our police strategies in addition to some of these theories and broken windows, procedural justice and police legitimacy, ending 2013 the chicago police department, we had our lowest murders since 1965. we've had the lowest murder rate since 1966. we've had the low crime since 972 -- 1972. our clearance rates are the highest since we've been there and in self-years for all crimes -- in several years, and overall we're down about 36% in overall crime. but i think the most important point for you to take away with all our strategies addressing the violence and doing these things, we're arresting less people. we're actually down considerably in arrests, because we're addressing it, we're giving warnings, we're giving summons, we're giving them a chance to comply. having a bite with these summons that we didn't have in the past because we didn't have a tool in chicago which we were able to convince the city council to help us out with that. and is we're gaining better trust with the community, because we're addressing those concerns. >> thank you so much, chief. >> thank you. [applause] i'm sure after hearing our three panelists you have many, many questions. let me start off the questioning, and then we'll open it up to the floor. george, i remember back in i guess it was the '70s when daniel patrick moynihan wrote a piece called defining deviant behavior downward. people had signs if their car, "no radio," hoping no one would steal their eight-track or cassette player out of there. the theories behind broken window is not zero tolerance. is that correct, george, and can you explain why there's a difference there? >> yeah, zero tolerance, first of all, has been used as a term -- i'm glad you asked that question. watch how i twist the text to meet my answer.

Related Keywords

Capitol Hill , New Jersey , United States , China , California , Tanzania , Manhattan , New York , Russia , Washington , District Of Columbia , Ukraine , India , Hollywood , Cambridge , Cambridgeshire , United Kingdom , Ireland , Newark , Poland , Richmond County , Singapore , Chicago , Illinois , Stanford , Malaysia , Japan , Rutgers University , Florida , Wisconsin , Virginia , Staten Island , Cook County , Washington Heights , Peru , Dallas , Texas , Berlin , Germany , Americans , America , Irishman , Irish , American , Tom Taylor , Robert Tracy , William Bratton , Trayvon Martin , Henry Kissinger , Terry Mccarthy , Joe Biden , Jimmy Jones , Lois Lerner , Daniel Donovan , John Kerry , Jim Wilson , John Jay , Dan Holland , Gary Mccarthy , Ben Franklin , Sylvia Mathews Burwell , Angela Merkel , Johnny Smith , Henry Garza , Jack Blakey , Eric Cantor , Rodney King , Daniel Patrick Moynihan , Thomas Jefferson , Erik Larson , Rahm Emanuel , Tom Tyler , David Kennedy , Aegon Pittenger , Bob Tracy , Chris Dodd ,