By Rhea S. Arledge, Legislative Counsel

San Mateo County, California, District Attorney James P. Fox Testifies Before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary

On June 5, NDAA President-Elect James P. Fox testified before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary concerning S.456, the Gang Abatement and Prevention Act of 2007.

The committee was chaired by the sponsor of the legislation, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and attended in part by Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA), Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI), and Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL).

Additional witnesses included Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, Los Angeles Police Chief, William Bratton, Boni Driskill (Wings of Protection), Claude Robinson (Uhlich Children’s Advantage Network), Gregg Croteau, (Executive Director, United Teen Equality Center) and Detective Patrick Word (Gaithersburg, MD Police Department).

President-Elect Jim Fox testified on behalf of the National District Attorneys Association and the California District Attorneys Association concerning the importance of S. 456 to the nation’s law enforcement officials. Mr. Fox discussed the extent of the gang problem at the national, state and local levels and emphasized that the issue is not just a local community issue but a national epidemic requiring federal assistance. Mr. Fox noted that the gang issue is multi-faceted and complex, and seriously jeopardizes our communities and the safety of our citizens. Furthermore, with the relative ease with which gang members can today cross state lines and international borders and their ability to utilize ever-emerging technologies to communicate and perpetrate crimes, the solution to the problem requires the cooperation and coordination of federal, state and local authorities.

Funding for additional police officers and the use of gang task forces is extremely important. San Mateo County, California, has established both a Gang Task Force, as well as a Gang Intelligence Unit. These entities are supported with active participation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Every law enforcement entity involved participates by providing either staffing or other resources.

District Attorney Fox explained to the committee members that the majority of gangs in San Mateo County, California, do not qualify as “enterprises” as defined by the federal RICO statute and therefore are not subject to federal jurisdiction. Many of the gangs have loose associations with gangs throughout the country but do not have financial or business relationships with the larger, more structured organizations. He also emphasized the need for more funding for prevention, education and intervention and that youth programs must begin in the elementary school years to prevent gang involvement by juveniles. In addition, his testimony highlighted the importance of training for prosecutors in order to improve the quality of advocacy in the courtroom and, in turn, the safety of the public. Mr. Fox suggested that such trainings be conducted through the NDAA training program established at the National Advocacy Center in Columbia, South Carolina.

The Gang Abatement and Prevention Act of 2007 provides for the designation of High Intensity Gang Activity Areas (HIGAAs) by the United States attorney general. In response to Senator Feinstein’s question regarding the proposed Areas (HIGAAs), Mr. Fox expressed some concern that a duplication of efforts may occur with both the HIDTA and the San Francisco Bay High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIGAA) programs in existence. Given the potential overlap between these two programs Mr. Fox advised that it may be appropriate to merge the HIDTAs and HIGAAs.

Senator Feingold (D-WI) questioned witnesses about the necessity of adding a requirement that the United States attorney consult with a locality before handling the case at the federal level. At the current time the legislation does not include this mandate. Both Mr. Fox and Detective Patrick Word agreed that such a consultation should take place in order to assure that the best decision is made concerning the prosecution of a gang-related crime.

Senator Feinstein (D-CA) noted in her opening statement that both she and Senator Hatch have been working over the last ten years towards the passage of legislation that will address the proper federal response to gang violence. She further noted that 2500 jurisdictions are affected by gang activity; that 30,000 gangs have been identified, which cumulatively are comprised of 800,000 gang members; and that the increase in violent crime rates is due to the increase in gang activity. S. 456 provides increased penalties for gang-related crime and also addresses the underlying causes of gang activity by providing funding for gang prevention programs, improved witness protection programs and increased gang prosecutions. The legislation has been supported by dozens of organizations including the National District Attorneys Association.

Senator Specter (R-PA) noted that he has witnessed the juvenile gang problem first-hand from his experience as the district attorney in Philadelphia. He stated that it is appropriate for the federal government to play a more active role in addressing the gang problem and in the underlying cause of gang activity (i.e. poverty, education, housing, employment, and mentoring at-risk youth).

Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), a co-sponsor of S. 456, testified that a balanced approach must be applied to the gang problem—that is an approach that incorporates punishment, prevention, and intervention. Senator Boxer recounted the 2005 murder of Mynisha Crenshaw, who was killed by a stray bullet during a gang conflict outside of her home. Mynisha’s Law drafted by Senator Boxer has been incorporated into the Gang Abatement and Prevention Act of 2007. As part of that legislation the importance of interagency task forces was stressed requiring that the Department of Justice, Department of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Department of Education must all deliver appropriate support. Senator Boxer advised that she will work with Senator Reid (D-NV) to bring the legislation to the Senate floor.

Next Action

The Senate Committee on the Judiciary held a mark-up session on June 14, and S. 456, as amended, was passed by voice vote and ordered to be reported favorably to the Senate.

The testimony of all witnesses can be accessed at http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearing.cfm?id=2805.

The John R. Justice Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act of 2007

Status of S. 442 & H.R. 916

On March 1, S. 442, the John R. Justice Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act of 2007, as amended, was ordered to be reported favorably by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary and on April 10, the bill was reported by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT).2 Currently S. 442 has 39 co-sponsors. Since June 13, Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Senator Max Baucus (D-MT), Senator Barack Obama (D-IL), Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR), and Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) have signed on as co-sponsors of the legislation.

Companion bill H.R. 916 was passed as a “stand-alone” bill by the full House of Representatives on May 15 by a roll call vote (341-73) and has been received by the Senate for action. Currently there are 66 co-sponsors to this legislation.

Attempts were made to pass S. 442 by unanimous consent under suspension of the rules. However, holds were placed on the bill by several members of the Senate. With concerns that the legislation would not pass as a “stand-alone” bill, efforts were made to identify a piece of legislation to attach S. 442 as a rider. On July 23, Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) offered the language of the John R. Justice Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act as an amendment (SA 2377) to the Higher Education Amendments Act. The amendment was agreed to by unanimous consent and on July 24 the Higher Education Amendments Act, as amended, was passed (95-0) by the full Senate.

The current language of both bills would provide federal student loan repayment assistance to state/local prosecutors, state/local public defenders, and federal public defenders (up to $10,000 per year; aggregate total $60,000). The program would require a three-year employment commitment with the option of renewing the contract at the end of the first three years. The program would be established in the Department of Justice and repayment agreements would be between the borrower and the United States attorney general. Several differences exist between the bills concerning the basis for awards; the length of program authorization; and the nature of the studies to be conducted on the loan repayment assistance program.

Key Differences Between S. 442 and H.R. 916

Award Basis and Priority:

Both H.R. 916 and S. 442 would require that the attorney general give priority to borrowers who have the least ability to repay their loans while also making a fair allocation of repayment benefits among prosecutors and defenders, and among employing entities nationwide.

H.R. 916, however, specifies that the attorney general in making a determination as to the borrowers with the least ability to repay their loans, will consider whether the borrower is a beneficiary of any other student loan repayment program (i.e. state/local and law school LRAPS).

Study of the Program:

Both H.R. 916 and S. 442 would require, within a year of enactment, that the Government Accountability Office conduct a study and report to Congress on the impact of law school accreditation requirements and other factors affecting law school costs and access, including the effect of such requirements on racial and ethnic minorities.

H.R. 916 would also require that the inspector general, United States Department of Justice, within three years of enactment, conduct a study and report to Congress on the cost of the program and the impact of such a program on the hiring and retention of prosecutors and public defenders.

Funding Authorization:

Under H.R. 916 the program would be authorized for funding in the amount of 25 million dollars per fiscal year for fiscal years 2008-2013 at which time the program will sunset. The program would then need to be reauthorized.

S. 442 provides that the program would be authorized for funding in the amount of 25 million dollars for fiscal year 2008 and “such sums as may be necessary for each succeeding fiscal year.” There is no sunset provision in the Senate bill.

Funding for NDAA Training Programs at the National Advocacy Center

FY 2007 Continuing Resolution History

H.J. Res. 20 adopted on February 15, in part, provides funding for Byrne-JAG programs and COPS programs to keep these programs running through the end of FY 2007.

All references to “earmarks” (including the NDAA training programs at the NAC) contained in the Fiscal Year 2006 appropriations bill were eliminated. Under the continuing resolution the Department of Justice had until March 19 to submit a “spending plan” to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. Under the continuing resolution, discretion rests with the Department of Justice regarding the distribution of funds for these programs.

Shortly after the continuing resolution was passed, the Office of Management and Budget director issued a directive to all federal agencies advising them that distribution of funds must be handled through the competitive grant process.

The spending plan was submitted by the Department of Justice to Congress on March 19 and it was returned to the Department by both the House of Representatives and Senate Committees on Appropriations. The House returned the spending plan to the Department of Justice in May.

As a result of the OMB directive, the National District Attorneys Association has submitted a grant proposal for the funding of NDAA’s educational and training programs at the National Advocacy Center to the United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. The review process continues at the present time and awarding of funds will take additional time because of the competitive process.

Current Status: Fiscal Year 2008 Appropriations Process

Senate:

The Senate Committee on Appropriations held a mark-up session during the week of June 25 concerning S. 1745, the spending bill for the Departments of Commerce and Justice, the federal science programs and other related agencies for Fiscal Year 2008. The bill was favorably reported by the full committee3 to the full Senate and S. 1745 provides that of the 550 million dollars appropriated for community oriented policing services under the Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, that five million dollars is “for the National District Attorneys Association to conduct prosecutorial training by the National Advocacy Center.”

S. 1745 will need to be passed by the full Senate and the differences between the House and Senate appropriations bills must be reconciled in a conference committee.

House of Representatives:

On July 19, the House Committee on Appropriations ordered that H.R. 3093, the Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies Appropriations Act 2008 be reported to the full House. On July 26, the full House passed H.R. 3093, as amended, by roll call vote (281-142). The House bill does not contain funding for the NDAA training programs at the National Advocacy Center.

While it is a positive indicator that the Senate Committee on Appropriations has included funding for the National District Attorneys Association training programs at the NAC in the appropriations bill and committee report, it was equally important that the House of Representatives include this funding for the NDAA in the appropriations bill.

Current Status of Authorization of the NDAA Training Programs at the National Advocacy Center

On June 14, S. 456, the Gang Abatement and Prevention Act was marked-up by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Senator Feinstein, sponsor of the legislation, offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Included within the substitute bill is an amendment authored by Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Edward Kennedy (D-MA) which would authorize the NDAA training program for state and local prosecutors at the National Advocacy Center and authorizes appropriations for the training. The bill, as amended, was ordered to be reported favorably to the full Senate by a roll call vote of 17-0.

The current authorization language reads as follows:

“Sec. 414 TRAINING AT THE NATIONAL ADVOCACY CENTER

(a) IN GENERAL.-The National District Attorneys Association may use the services of the National Advocacy Center in Columbia, South Carolina to conduct a national training program for State and local prosecutors for the purpose of improving the professional skills of State and local prosecutors and enhancing the ability of Federal, State, and local prosecutors to work together.

(b) Training.-The National Advocacy Center in Columbia, South Carolina may provide comprehensive continuing legal education in the areas of trial practice, substantive legal updates, and support staff training.

(c) Authorization of Appropriations.-There are authorized to be appropriated to the Attorney General to carry out this section $6,500,000, to remain available until expended, for fiscal years 2008 through 2011.”

Executive Working Group

On July 11, 2007, representatives from the National District Attorneys Association Board of Directors, the National Association of Attorneys General, the Criminal Division of the United States Department of Justice and the Executive Office of United States Attorneys met at the United States Department of Justice to participate in a day-long roundtable discussion on the issue of identity theft.

The participant groups each had an opportunity to discuss the developments related to identity crimes within their respective federal, state and local jurisdictions. Representatives from the Department’s Criminal Division discussed federal law enforcement approaches to identity-related crimes and the director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection at the Federal Trade Commission provided information regarding the assistance available to victims of identity theft. United States Attorney General Alberto Gonzales met briefly with the participants to discuss the identity theft problem in the United States as well as issues related to homeland security.

The next Executive Working Group meeting is tentatively scheduled for October 30.

Resolutions Adopted by the NDAA Board of Directors during the July 29 meeting in Portland, Oregon

The Juvenile Justice and Family Law Committee discussed, adopted and reported to the full board of directors the following resolution supporting a coordinated and balanced approach to juvenile justice in response to the ABA’s proposed resolution concerning sentence mitigation for youthful offenders:

Resolution Supporting a Coordinated and Balanced Approach to Juvenile Justice

BE IT RESOLVED, that the National District Attorneys Association (NDAA) supports a coordinated and balanced approach to juvenile justice, emphasizing the importance of proven prevention and early intervention initiatives, such as efforts to ensure the availability of quality child care, after-school programs and programs aimed at reducing child abuse, in addition to ensuring that proper laws are appropriately enforced to hold juvenile criminal offenders accountable for their crimes in a fair and just manner; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that juvenile courts should continue to exist in the criminal justice system for the purpose of addressing most juvenile crime occurring in America in a manner which properly balances the juvenile offender’s age, maturity and amenability to treatment and probation with the need to protect the public safety and the importance of assuring appropriate offender accountability and competency development; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the prosecution of juvenile offenders as adults be limited to appropriate cases involving serious, violent or habitual juvenile offenders and the decision-making process as to whether adult court prosecution of juvenile offenders is necessary should include consideration of all relevant factors including, but not limited to, the age and maturity of the juvenile offender, the threat to public safety, the seriousness of the crime, the certainty of appropriate punishment, and the impact of the crime upon its victims; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that in furthering a balanced approach to juvenile justice, state legislatures are encouraged to enact blended sentencing models that provide enhanced sanctions to juvenile offenders committing serious crimes that do not initially warrant adult court prosecution, but require greater sanctions than provided in the traditional juvenile court system, such as: stayed adult sanctions to be imposed at a later date should the juvenile offender not conform to the conditions of the juvenile court disposition; incentives for youth to remain law abiding in the future; and longer periods of supervision over the youth by the juvenile court; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the National District Attorneys Association hereby endorses the attached statement authored by the NDAA president and chairs of the Juvenile Justice and Family Law Committee in response to the proposed ABA resolution concerning sentence mitigation for youthful offenders.

Adopted by the Board of Directors, July 29, 2007 (Portland, Oregon).

Statement in Response to the Proposed Resolution Concerning Sentence Mitigation for Youthful Offenders

May 4, 2007

The National District Attorneys Association’s (NDAA’s) Board of Directors has had the opportunity to review and comment upon the proposed resolution concerning sentence mitigation for youthful offenders which is under consideration by the Criminal Justice Section of the American Bar Association (ABA). The NDAA strongly objects to what we consider to be an overly broad and one-sided attempt to encourage state legislatures to revise juvenile codes across America to make it more difficult to prosecute juvenile offenders as adults for egregious crimes and to punish juvenile offenders less seriously for their criminal behavior solely because of their perceived immaturity.

The overwhelming majority of state legislatures appropriately adopted sweeping changes to their juvenile codes during the 1990s to properly address what the juvenile justice system had far too long overlooked, i.e., that protection of the public safety is of paramount concern whether the offender is a juvenile or an adult.

Not only does this proposed resolution fail to recognize the importance of this paramount concern of protecting the public safety, it also ignores other important concerns which should rightfully be part of the decision-making process in reference to crimes committed by juvenile offenders, such as the nature and circumstance of the offense, the impact upon the victim, and the juvenile offender’s criminal history. This resolution rather focuses solely upon offender-based criteria as being the factors which should control the decision-making process, be it the decision to directly file or transfer a juvenile offender to adult court for prosecution or the decision as to what sanction should ultimately be imposed if a juvenile offender is convicted.

The NDAA supports a balanced approach to juvenile justice which properly takes into consideration all relevant factors in deciding what criminal charge should be filed against a juvenile offender and whether the case should be disposed of in juvenile or adult court, or handled under a “blended sentencing” model4 in those states incorporating this middle-ground approach of addressing juvenile crime. These factors should include the threat to public safety, the seriousness of the crime, the offender’s criminal history, the certainty of appropriate punishment, and the age and maturity of the offender. This proposed resolution considers only the age and maturity of a juvenile offender, which is clearly inappropriate. In fact, while age and maturity is an appropriate consideration in not only the sentencing but the charging of a juvenile offender (a factor, by the way, which is always taken into consideration by America’s prosecutors), all of the aforementioned factors should be considered in the decision-making process as to juvenile offenders, with the greatest weight being given to protection of the public safety.

The unwritten, but clear implication of this proposed resolution is that too many juvenile offenders are prosecuted and sentenced as adults in our country. The reality is, in fact, quite the opposite. Very few juveniles are prosecuted and sentenced as adults in America, contrary to the unwritten implication of this proposed resolution and a public misperception driven in large part by sensationalistic media coverage of certain high profile cases. Few jurisdictions in America prosecute more than one to two percent of juvenile criminal offenders as adults, and in some jurisdictions this percentage is even lower. In those cases where adult court prosecution does occur, the simple fact of the matter is that adult court prosecution is clearly warranted in these instances.

In a poll conducted in 1993, 73 percent of those surveyed across the U.S. said that “violent juveniles should be treated as adults rather than as defendants in lenient juvenile courts.”5 While more information about human brain development is available today than existed in the mid-1990s, there are few juvenile offenders committing murders or crimes of violence who do not realize that their actions are wrong and most fully understand the gravity of the crimes they have committed. As noted above, the age and maturity of these juvenile offenders are factors properly considered both as to where the proper venue of the case should rest and as to the sentence to be handed down upon conviction. These are not, however, the only factors that must be considered in these important decisions.

Attached to this document is a compilation of just a few examples of the serious and violent juvenile offenders across America prosecuted as adults for their crimes in recent years. We believe the vast majority of citizens in our country would support the prosecution of these heinous offenders as adults, as well as the appropriate prison terms handed down upon conviction for these egregious crimes. To argue that these violent offenders should either not be prosecuted as adults or receive mitigation in their sentences once convicted, is something America’s prosecutors will never support and is contrary to the interests of justice and protecting the citizens we proudly serve.

This proposed resolution also fails to recognize that 13 states in America have set an age of majority for criminal prosecution of less than 18 years of age. The NDAA does not agree with the ABA that the age of majority for adult criminal prosecution of offenders should be 18 years of age in every state. To the contrary, this is a decision rightfully left to local control and the deliberate and thoughtful decisions of state legislatures on this important issue should be respected.

Even more importantly, this proposed resolution fails to acknowledge the most fundamental aspect of juvenile codes across America, namely that a juvenile offender’s age and maturity are always taken into consideration in the disposition of a case. In fact, that’s the reason why we have a juvenile court system in the first place—a system, by the way, which is supported by America’s prosecutors. It is also important to keep in mind that age and maturity are also considered in cases involving juvenile offenders transferred and convicted as adults for their crimes, with the exception of the imposition upon conviction of certain mandatory sentences required by law (and in those instances, it is once again state legislatures that have properly concluded after thoughtful deliberation that certain crimes are so egregious that society should rightfully demand a mandatory minimum sentence for offenders convicted of them).

We outright reject the notion that juvenile offenders are “categorically less culpable than the average criminal,” which appears to be the driving rationale behind this proposed sentence mitigation for youthful offenders resolution. We do not believe it is appropriate to take language articulated in a U.S. Supreme Court decision concerning whether or not to impose the death penalty on juvenile murderers and apply the same logic in a completely different conceptual framework, as this proposed resolution attempts to do. As noted above, age and maturity are not the only factors to be considered in the decision making process in a case involving a crime committed by a juvenile offender. This proposed resolution, therefore, fails to capture the essence of balance and fairness that the American system of criminal justice, be it involving juveniles or adults, should properly be based upon.

The NDAA has adopted comprehensive policy positions on juvenile crime issues which appropriately capture the balance and fairness that this proposed resolution fails to recognize. We encourage you to read these policies, a copy of which is attached to this letter. Contrary to the implicit underpinnings of the proposed resolution and its attached commentary, prosecutors do not seek to prosecute every juvenile who has committed a serious crime as an adult.

The NDAA also supports consideration of blended sentencing options in appropriate cases where serious, violent or habitual offenders are not transferred or waived to adult court. These laws, which are sometimes referred to as a “middle-ground approach” or a “one last chance option” for juvenile offenders, are designed for those youth who have committed a serious offense which does not initially warrant adult prosecution, but which requires greater sanctions and/or longer supervision by the juvenile court than is provided in the traditional juvenile court system. Blended sentencing laws combine some juvenile and adult sanctions, provide for stayed adult sanctions to be imposed at a later date should the offender not conform to the conditions of the juvenile court disposition, provide incentives for the youth to remain law abiding in the future and lengthen the period of supervision over the youth by the juvenile court. Blended sentencing models are appropriate and necessary in the continuum of sanctions available for more serious, violent or habitual offenders, especially for younger youth committing very serious crimes. The NDAA would stand with the ABA in advocating for the passage of appropriate blended sentencing options in states throughout America and we would strongly encourage this to become the focus of an ABA resolution addressing juvenile crime rather than sentence mitigation which is currently the misguided focus of the proposed resolution.

It appears to us that this proposed resolution is both ill-advised and unnecessary, and we strongly urge the ABA’s Criminal Justice Section not to enact it. By its terms, it is a wholesale attack upon the juvenile codes of states throughout America and upon the prosecutors and judges who thoughtfully and professionally enforce those codes with fairness and impartiality every day. Not only are mitigating factors, such as a juvenile offender’s age and maturity and amenability to treatment and probation properly considered in the decision-making process at every stage of the handling of a juvenile crime, so too must aggravating factors be considered, such as the severity of the crime, the threat to public safety, the impact upon the victims and the offender’s criminal history. Only when all these factors are properly weighed in the decision-making process will our system of justice be in proper balance and public confidence exist in the outcomes of the critical decisions made in connection with these cases.

For all of these reasons, the NDAA strongly opposes this proposed resolution. If a resolution is to be adopted, we would suggest the following:

RESOLUTION:

BE IT RESOLVED, that both the American Bar Association (ABA) and National District Attorneys Association (NDAA) support a coordinated and balanced approach to juvenile justice, emphasizing the importance of proven prevention and early intervention initiatives, such as efforts to ensure the availability of quality child care, after-school programs and programs aimed at reducing child abuse, in addition to ensuring that proper laws are appropriately enforced to hold juvenile criminal offenders accountable for their crimes in a fair and just manner; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that juvenile courts should continue to exist in the criminal justice system for the purpose of addressing most juvenile crime occurring in America in a manner which properly balances the juvenile offenders’ age, maturity and amenability to treatment and probation with the need to protect the public safety and the importance of assuring appropriate offender accountability and competency development; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the prosecution of juvenile offenders as adults be limited to appropriate cases involving serious, violent or habitual juvenile offenders and the decision-making process as to whether adult court prosecution of juvenile offenders is necessary should include consideration of all relevant factors including, but not limited to, the age and maturity of the juvenile offender, the threat to public safety, the seriousness of the crime, the certainty of appropriate punishment, and the impact of the crime upon its victims; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that in furthering a balanced approach to juvenile justice, state legislatures are encouraged to enact blended sentencing models which provide enhanced sanctions to juvenile offenders committing serious crimes which do not initially warrant adult court prosecution, but which require greater sanctions than provided in the traditional juvenile court system, such as: stayed adult sanctions to be imposed at a later date should the juvenile offender not conform to the conditions of the juvenile court disposition; incentives for youth to remain law abiding in the future; and longer periods of supervision over the youth by the juvenile court.

Respectfully submitted by:

Mathias H. Heck, Jr., NDAA President and Prosecuting Attorney, Montgomery County, Dayton, Ohio; and the Co-chairs of NDAA’s Juvenile Justice and Family Law Committee: James C. Backstrom, Dakota County Attorney, Hastings, Minnesota; Elizabeth D. Scheibel, District Attorney, Northwestern District, Massachusetts; and Gary L. Walker, Prosecuting Attorney, Marquette County, Michigan

The Crime Control and Drug Enforcement Committee discussed, adopted and reported to the full board of directors the following resolution encouraging the extension of the statutes of limitations in cases of childhood sexual abuse:

Resolution Regarding Childhood Sexual Abuse

WHEREAS, it is estimated that one in five children in America is a victim of childhood sexual abuse at a staggering cost to the victims and our entire society; and

WHEREAS, most of the perpetrators of these crimes are individuals who the child victims know and trust; and

WHEREAS, many victims of childhood sexual abuse do not equate the injuries they have suffered, or are continuing to suffer, with the abuse perpetrated upon them as a child until well into adulthood, and consequently most of these crimes go unreported for many years and most of these offenders escape responsibility for their criminal actions; and

WHEREAS, the National District Attorneys Association (NDAA) represents over 7,000 prosecutors across the United States and is dedicated to protecting the rights and safety of all American citizens, including the victims of childhood sexual abuse; and

WHEREAS, the NDAA desires to pursue justice on behalf of the victims of childhood sexual abuse and to hold the perpetrators appropriately accountable for these significant and traumatic crimes; and

WHEREAS, one means of achieving these important goals is to ensure that sufficiently lengthy statutes of limitations exist for the commencement of both criminal prosecutions against persons who have sexually abused children and civil legal actions filed on behalf of the victims of these crimes.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that on behalf of the survivors of childhood sexual abuse across America, the NDAA urges state legislators to adopt sufficiently lengthy statutes of limitations to enable the commencement of both criminal prosecutions against persons who have sexually abused children and civil legal actions filed on behalf of the victims of these crimes.

Adopted by the National District Attorneys Association, July 29, 2007, Portland, Oregon.

The Legislation Committee discussed, adopted and reported to the full board of directors the following resolution opposing H.R. 1149, the Justice for Public Safety Officers Act:

Resolution Concerning H.R. 1149, the “Justice for Public Safety Officers Act”

WHEREAS, the National District Attorneys Association believes that the protection of citizens from violent criminals that commit heinous offenses in the United States is of paramount concern for America’s prosecutors; and

WHEREAS, the “Justice for Public Safety Officers Act” creates a federal crime for the prosecution of murderers of state and local “public safety officers” including all federally funded law enforcement officers as well as firefighters, paramedics, judges, prosecutors, probation and parole officers that interferes with state sovereignty and usurps the authority of local police and prosecutors.

BE IT RESOLVED, that the National District Attorneys Association hereby opposes the adoption of H.R. 1149, the “Justice for Public Safety Officers Act.”

Adopted by the Board of Directors: July 29, 2007, Portland, Oregon.

Endnotes

1 The information contained herein is current as of August 16, 2007.

2 Report 110-51 can be accessed at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/ R?cp110:FLD010:@1(sr051).

3 The final committee report reflects five million dollars for “National Prosecutors.” The committee report also specifically states: “National District Attorneys Association—Columbia, SC, to train State and local prosecutors nationwide. Sponsor: Graham.

4 “Blended sentencing” models currently exist in 15 states in America and represent a combination of both juvenile and adult criminal sanctions for serious, violent or habitual juvenile offenders whose crimes have been determined by either a prosecutor or judge to not warrant immediate prosecution or transfer to adult criminal court.

5 Sam Vincent Meddis, “Poll: Treat Juveniles the Same as Adult Offenders,” USA Today, Oct. 29, 1993, at 1A.