JAMES ©. EASTLAND, MISS., CHAIRMAN SUBCOMMITTEE:

BIRCH BAYH, IND,

JOHN L. MCCLELLAN, ARK. EVERETT MCKINLEY DIRKSEN, iLL. SAM J. ERVIN, JR., N.C., CHAIRMAN

SAM J. ERVIN, JR., N.C. ROMAN L. HRUSKA, NEBR. JOHN L. MCCLELLAN, ARK. ROMAN L. HRUSKA, NEBR.
THOMAS J. DODD, CONN. HIRAM L. FONG, HAWAII EDWARD V. LONG, MO, HIRAM L, FONG, HAWAII
PHILIP A. HART, MICH. HUGH SCOTT, PA. EDWARD M. KENNEDY, MASS. STROM THURMOND, S.C.
EDWARD V. LONG, MO. STROM THURMOND, 5.C. BIRCH BAYH, IND.

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, MASS, GEORGE A. SMATHERS, FLA,

QUENTIN N. BURDICK, N. DAK. PAUL, L. WOODARD,

JOSEPH D. TYDINGS, MD. CHIEF COUNSEL AND STAFF DIRECTOR

SEORGE A. MATHERS, FLA Wnritea States Senate

JOHN H. HOLLOMAN Ili
CHIEF COUNSEL AND STAFF DIRECTOR COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
(PURSUANT To S. RES. 236, 90TH CONGRESS)

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20510

August 5, 1969

Professor Joshua Lederberg
Stanford University Medical Center
Department of Genetics

Stanford, California 94305

Dear Professor Lederberg:

NINWE Ws

I wish to acknowledge receipt of your letter concerning proposals for
amending the Bail Reform Act of 1966 to authorize preventive detention and
to thank you for the copy of your article about using communications
technological advances in the fight against crime.

nema

Initially, I want you to know that I am deeply concerned about our
crime problem in this country and about the safety of our law-abiding citizens.
In fairness to those who worked diligently for passage of the Bail Reform Act
of 1966, I should point out that crime on bail has actually decreased since
the Act took effect. The Act has certainly not made our crime problem any
more acute nor has it increased the danger to our law-abiding citizens.

Notwithstanding the above facts and the fact that only a slight
percentage of crime is committed by persons on bail and awaiting trial, such .
crime does constitute a serious problem which we must meet and overcome.
Reliable studies show that the majority of such crimes are not committed until
more than 60 days after release. Thus, one clear answer to our problem, and
the one I favor, is the speedy trial of criminal suspects and the swift and
severe punishment of the guilty.

In order to attain that objective we must bring major improvements,
long overdue, into our system of criminal justice. We must have more judges
with adequate staffs and facilities, more prosecutors with sufficient
supporting personnel and a more efficient system of defense for suspects
financially unable to obtain counsel. The Congress is now considering means
to achieve those ends. While working toward such long range reform, we
can, I believe, meet our immediate problem by greater effort on the part of
our judges and prosecutors to bring about speedy trials, by the advancement
of cases involving defendants believed dangerous, and by wider use of the
procedures established in the Bail Reform Act of 1966 to supervise and
control the conduct of defendants on bail.
An alternative solution, which some people favor, is the pretrial jailing
of so-called "dangerous" defendants. Such detention raises grave constitutional
questions when considered in light of the 8th Amendment's guarantee of
reasonable bail, the due process clause of the 5th Amendment, the 6th Amendment's
guarantee of access to counsel and the opportunity to participate in preparation
of a defense, and the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th
Amendment. In my view, jailing people because of possible future misconduct
repudiates the most basic principles of a free society and smacks of a police
state rather than a democracy under law.

Not only does the proposed pretrial detention unfairly deprive an
individual of the opportunity to assist in his defense, but it may cost him
his job, it is detrimental to his family life and it subjects him to the physical
and psychological degradation of prison life. Moreover, I do not believe that
judges are gifted with the prophetic powers necessary to determine accurately
which individuals represent a danger to the community. The law would therefore
result in the imprisonment without trial of many innocent persons and would
be highly susceptible to abuse.

In my judgment, it is infinitely better to strive for the constitutional
goal of speedy trial than to resort to the enticingly simple but desperate and
unjust device of pretrial detention.

Thank you for your expression of interest in this matter.
With all kind wishes, I am

Sincerely yours,

Sau. FE win Yo,

Sam J. Ervin, Jr.
Chairman

SJE:gkr