role in it, social medias role in it. when is the black committee going to say impeachment. it's time to go after him. i don't hear you. don't another person come up to me it's a you go girl. no, you go. [cheers and applause] >> for the past 30 years the video library is your free resource for politics, congress and washington public affairs. whether it happened 30 years ago or 30 minutes ago, find it in c-span's video library at c-span.org. c-span, where history unfold daily. >> now bill bratton of the former newark city police commissioner and los angeles police chief on the challenges and successes of community policing around the country. posted by the heritage foundation this runs one hour and 45 minutes. >> good morning. welcome to the heritage

foundation and/or douglas and sarah allison auditorium. of course we welcome those are joining us on her heritage.org website on all of these occasions as well as of those joining us on the c-span networks. we would ask everyone in house to be so kind to check that are mobile devices have been silenced or turned off as a courtesy. and, of course, for those watching online you're welcome to send questions or comments at any time simply e-mailing speaker@heritage.org. we will of course posted his program on the heritage homepage for everyone's future reference as well. leading our program today and welcoming and introducing our special guest is heritage ronald reagan distinguished fellow emeritus, chairman of the light legal center as well as the 75th attorney general of united states edwin meese. [applause] >> thank you, john. ladies and gentlemen, good morning. i join john in looking to the

heritage foundation and particularly for this program today. heritage has over the years done a great deal in the policing, law enforcement, and public safety areas and we certainly are very pleased to have our keynote speaker today. particularly a pleasure for me to introduce him as we've known each other for a number of years. believe it or not i think we first met when we're both at harvard, believe it or not, for the executive session in policing that they had some years ago. the united states has had many fine police chiefs over the last century or more, but there were some that i would call the kind of their exclusive group. of the finest people without an impact on the police profession through an entrepreneurial spirit and with a good deal of imagination and innovation in

improving policing in the united states.de it goes back actually almost a century ago, the chief of police in berkeley, california, kind of interesting that's where improved policing started and deal with what's going on today. he was also chief of police for a brief time in los angeles.s. and then in the middle of the last century, bill parker in los angeles and stanley in cincinnati, and they were followed by wilson in chicago and pat murphy in new york, detroit and washington, d.c.. i want to say there's no question that these leaders in police excellence formed a distinguished group in which today's keynote speaker as an innovator, as an imaginative leader and as a person who has done very much uniquely, has had a unique place in policing

excellent in this country, and has in many ways has had a unique career that is very difficult for anyone i think to follow and duplicate what he has done. he's headed six police departments, including some ofof the largest, two largest in the country. he has done an outstanding job in all of the police department he has headed, and has really set a standard for policea stana leadership. he has in the sense invented language. nobody knew there was such a thing as comps that in chile came along -- comstat. and now almost every large police department in the country using some form of comstat. in addition he has had in all of the departments in which is provided leadership, three results in each one.

the first has been improved policing. the second has been decreasedin crime. and the third has been better relationships between the community and the police. this is a terrific record and that's why we're so pleased to t have him here today. i could say more about him but i think you want to listen to him and he think it will be well worth your attention to hear what he has to say about policing in the 21st century. ladies and gentlemen, it's my pleasure to introduce my friend and an outstanding leader of the law-enforcement profession, bil] bratton. [applause] >> good morning. it is a good morning. general, i want to thank you for that more than gracious introduction. the general and i do go back a long way. we first met at the harvard kennedy school executive sessions on policing, late '80s, early '90s.

i was the chief of the superintendent of the metropolitan police in boston at the time, the state police agency. the executive sessions more soet just but any other government activity that i'm aware of over the last 50 years shaped american policing and shaped it for the better. we are still in profession that is developing, evolving continually, but a major revolution was created during those sessions. but widely known was the generals role in that. as attorney general to the national institute of justice, it was funded and a republican administration funding an executive session one of the most liberal colleges, universities in the united states created what effectively was community policing. kennedy policing that oftentimes, the politicization we often time bring to these issues was hard to associate with democratic administrations

of the '90s, with effectively created by funding and active participation of the reagan administration but in the person of the attorney general who attended, despite his incredibly busy schedule, every session of that over many years. so he's to be applauded and i am an extraordinary admirer of them. it is an unheralded accomplishment on his part and a welcome the opportunity today to remind people just how instability was personally in his capacity as attorney general in helping to point americaner policing in a very defining way at a very difficult time in history of our country. i thanke thank him for the secoe inviting me here to the heritage foundation to give a speech on this issue. first time was 1996 and october 21 years ago. i had shortly before left the nypd, working with mayor

giuliani, and this time i have been out of the nypd for the second of having worked for mayor bill de blasio. two individual from totally different spectrums, republican conservative, progressive liberal democrat. myself, i thought i could work with anybody, and so by giving those two examples i think that's proof positive that i can. i want to acknowledge the importance been distributed today that i was not able to attend the symposium held earlier this year by the heritage foundation, and the number of reports that came from that. i had the opportunity to read all of them. they help for my prepared remarks as well so my extemporaneous i will make in some of the questions that will follow. i was very taken with the substance of them all, and some in particular. some written by very close colleagues of mine, garry mccarthy from chicago, former chicago pd, nypd, extraordinary piece on the issue of bias and

race on this issue. noble contributed significantly. chip stewart several papers he put in. and again i think those people for their continuing contributions of the dialogue. i see chuck wexler. chuck and i worked togetheron ad since 1975, now director of her picking interested in these issues and if the monthly over the years to be affiliated with perf. hopefully today will be the opportunity to discuss as they say in the paper policing in america, lessons from the past, opportunities for the future. i think i can speak to the past, speak to the common situation and offer some thoughts going forward with her so much contention at the moment about where do we need to go at this particular point in time. the remarks, the comments are mine. i been in the business for almost 50 are starting with

three years in a military polie in 1967. i think i've seen the arco policing over this incredible time, continue evolution with many periods of revolution. community policing initiative the attorney general ed was one of those revolutions. comstat was another. i'll talk about several others. with that introduction, i thank you once again, attorney general. the company i only work with works almost exclusively with the private sector. so ironically after 50 years i i am very limited in my involvement with policing wheren i put most of my life but the private sectors needs are the same as the needs of american policing getting out in the 21st century terrorism, even with cybercrime issues, social mission -- social media issues. the combination between private and public is effectively what community policing was all about. the idea of collaboration that

we all of shared interests. with that let me speak to you about the paper i am presenting. first let me give you the title, cops down, police matter, preventing crime and disorder in a 21st century, preventing crime and disorder. they are linked. i passionately believe that preventing crime and disorder is the key to successful policing, rather than measurement of our response to it. and it has been since sir robere peel articulated nine principles of the profession of policing. my original copy of those nine principles of policing. they are effectively my bible, my foundation written in 1829 they are more relevant today of the 21st century than they were back in 1829. his first principle is the basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent, i emphasize prevent, crime and disorder.

the three go together. more importantly, when they go together they are successful. it's a large part of our history, particularly over these last 50 years they did not. so in the '70s and '80s we lost our way. the '90s with the guidance ofhea the community policing initiative. we got back to the basic mission for which the police exist. the ninth principle is a test of the police efficiency, is the absence of crime and disorder. not the visible evidence of police action and eating with it. meaning if you can reduce crime and disorder of the need for police to be seen effectively engaging in the suppression of crime and disorder, their time can be spent more effectively and more productively collaborating with communities working together. the idea, the visibility of enforcement, generates a much of the hostility. in today's 21st century world of videos, there's not a week because by where police are

using force and the video representation of the force whether it's lawful, if it looks lawful it pulses of our resin brings us together. if we can use comedies or to such an extent we can reduce police use of force, that will bring us a long way towards bringing us together. i believe that nine principles have been key long before they were first enunciated in 1829. for as long as society and democratic governments have trusted and apart some of its a citizens, we the police and we are a citizen police of this country, to keep other safe. in our country the first obligation of government is public safety. it's in our constitution, our declaration of independence, our bill of rights. public safety. that obligation is fulfilled principally in our criminal justice system and most visibly with the role and responsibly of the police. cops count, police matter is a term i've used in the first

using the lapd in 2003 as part of the rebuilding of that very damaged organization. it could effectively ceased to police the city of los angeles. crime was rising. spirits were low, morale was deplorable and as a way the inspiring that department came up with that mantra. in simple terms it means the individual actions of cops count, good and bad, and that the actions of police departments in the police profession good and bad matter. cops count, police matter. we can assure those actions of good more often than bad are always guided by what i've described as the three seas. we need a police constitutionally. can't break the law to force it. we need police compassion. we are policing fellow citizens that we are policing people. we need to police consistently, not police tivoli and poor neighbors mark my neighbors and we might invite waiver it or rich neighborhoods.rh

and at all times increasingly in the 21st century with the advent of cameras and we need to police with transparency. they can be no denying too much of our history, particularly in our relations with african americans are actions and those of our government that direct of those actions were shaped by our country's original sin. the spirit of slavery. nearly 300 use of slavery on this continent come more than 100 years of jim crow laws following, a terrible national legacy we still deal with today. likewise many of our actions with immigrants, legal and illegal, with the native americans whose land this was first end with other marginalized groups were oftens shaped by societal and political prejudice, racism, bigotry andun homophobia. but policing and the last quarter of this 20th century and now into the 21st is changing for the better more rapidly and so fundamental ways, and i've been part and

privileged to be part of that change. in that regard we the police need to shape the narrative, the opinions and the rhetoric. we have not been doing that very well. we need to write the real american police story, blemishes and all. under no circumstance can we allow it to be framed primarily by those who don't like us, respect us, or trust us. nor do we allow to be framed by those who seek to advance beliefs and social agendas by denigrating the heartfelt, reasonable, practical and effective efforts of police leadership that change and to prepare up an associate with police leadership for most of my career. i know many of the police leaders of the past and of today. they are an extraordinary group of progressive thinkers who face these issues with open mind and a determination of pride in the profession and to determination to really help address the main

issues that police are expected to address, plus the many others that by default have fallen to us. police can and must stay focused not only on the prevention of crime but also disorder. there has been great debate about the concept of open windows and quality of life. i say to you it is essential toe effective policing that we focus on both crime serious and we focus also at the same time on quality of life here that you go together. in the '70s and '80s separated them. we saw the disaster of 1990. police prevent crime and they prevent disorder. they do so by changing behavior, and that is so incredibly important. they do so with targeted enforcement, not indiscriminate enforcement. with immigration sweeps of people who have done nothing but intricate illegally, even though

that is a crime. they do so by working with prosecutors who seek full force that fair sentencing. not a return to harsh guidelines that limiting judicial discretion and fill prisons with people who can be dealt with michael effectively another by this. they do so with neighborhood engagement where police work with people to prevent problems. that simple, it really is that simple. we have made it too complex. i spent 50 years in the profession of policing as a military policeman in vietnam, starting any patrol car, walking the beat an all-black neighborhood in boston. spent two years before was an all white jewish neighborhood but through the real estate bussing to win on in the city at that time, and then spent the next number of years did with desegregation of schools, desegregation of public housing

in one of the most segregated parts of the city of america, perhaps even more segregated many in the south at that time. as a leader and change agent at six different police departments, one, 60 police officers, another with 38,000. so basically manage or directed or that police departments of every size in this country. during that time the depression has swung like a pendulum from prevention and response and back to prevention. without false modesty i believe i played a large role with many of my colleagues to swing back the focus on prevention. that occurred essential begin in ththe 1990s. that was, in fact, reinforced by the efforts of the executive session focusing effort back on prevention and not on response. my concern is we may be swinging back. i watched with great concern the pendulum back to the days of the '70s and '80s. we don't need to go that way. we have found in the '90s and

in a 21st century other ways to do it. american police chiefs in particular understand that because they been living it. if we see history a as a pendulm we can see the swing away from prevention in the 1960s, away from the model of the cop on the beat who took active steps at times discretion of steps to maintain order and prevent crime. sir robert peel. while the idolize officer friendly as a cop on the beat of which will be even kept the neighborhood beat, or for that matter my personal hero, detective joe friday of the los angeles police of the '50s and 60s, who focused on responding to crime but never with compassion. no sergeant joe friday put his arm around anybody. he solved the kind of basically the lapd model at the time was response oriented you keep your distance from the public. we must acknowledge efforts of crime prevention in the air were not always fair nor just.

as -- kelly has been a friend and advisor for most of my police life and james wilson by the privilege before his passing to spend a lot of time within. aas a point out in the broken windows article some of the steps and a quote, meaning the actions of the police, probably would not withstand the legal challenge today. sometimes officers enforce social wars rather than the law and social mores can be unfair and discriminatory. this was certainly true during the civil rights era. the social upheaval and unrest of that era and the terrible riots since the pendulum hurtling from one extreme to th other. this one from too much discretion in hands of officers all the way over to the spot era of the '70s and '80s. the much needed when such as miranda, they were necessary to correct reduce abuses of the past to third-degree, they were

necessary changes to deal with the issues of the 60s as we moved into the '70s and '80s. but the pendulum swung too far. police gretchen gave rise to police oversight. and police reform and reports like the current commission at all that coming up with new ideas about the origins of crime. the current commission report, i had to read this book literally almost memorize it to take my sergeants promotional exam in 1974, the boston police department. it was part of the professionalization and liberalization of police agencies at the time here the books i had to study to pass the promotional exam, i was the end to sergeant everett in the history of the police department at age 27, a sign of of the change of times. we read this book, we read the american bar association on race relations in the united states we read management and theory, the idea of one of the recommendations of this book the professionalization of the police.

this report and the preceding crime report the president johnson commission set us on a path for the next 20 years that literally bodice to the 1990s. while there are so many extraordinary good recommendations, a lot of whatat we talk about today legitimacy policing efforts, there was one that really tore us apart. idea that we should focus on response to crime, they believed at the time the cause of the crime racism, poverty, and unemployment, demographics. they thought those were the causes. they were not. they are not and they never have been. her 20 years and amended. american policing was shaped bya i'll point to one line in the report that sticks out to me. the idea that in alleviating manpower to the ghetto, enforcement emphasis should be given to crimes that threaten life and property. stress on social gambling or

loitering with more serious crimes not only diverts manpowee but distrust, tension in the ghetto community. they advocated american policing overweight from disorder and control. non-understanding that african-americans in their neighborhoods, latinos in their neighborhoods, which import, all want the same thing. nobody wants the prostitute in the doorway. nobody wants they gain on the corner dealing drugs. nobody wants the graffiti with your white or black. but effectively what they advocate in that report with so many great suggestions that and the earlier crime report, the emphasis on responding to crime, and that's what we did in the '70s and '80s. 9/11 came into being and we responded. celebrated we could get there in eight minutes initially. and if it became 30 minutes, 40 minutes, and many times we never came. we celebrated with active investigation, joe friday, technology, all types of things

to solve the crime after the fact. we celebrated in the patrol. moving offices route in vehicles to get the more rapidly to those 911 calls to the crimes had already occurred. we moved from sir robert peel prevention of crime focus to response. it took us 20 years, andso basically ran us down the rabbit hole. in the 1990s we help with the executive sessions, american police leadership, community wih leadership. what did we get right? the cause of crime is people, criminals, or emotionally disturbed or others in moments of passion who commit criminal f acts. the others, influences your and certainly that police don't have control on those influences but we can have impact on them. we have righted the ship starting in the 1990s. this report while so valuable, effectively in many respects

moved is in the wrong direction. the social of people and unrest of the air and the terrible right since the pendulum to the other extreme. police gretchen gave rise to police oversight and as a reference report such as the current -- crime became less that what johnny did you join a crazily about what may johnny act the way he did. the focus of root causes was well-intentioned, n.o.b.l.e.-ini even, but what they were worth the causes, they were the influences. if there was any way to look at johnny's behavior, didn't always help joe. joe still remain victim. the advent of 911 in 1968 and the spread of portable radios in vehicular patrol had the unintended effect of relegating police to being response agents rather than prevention agents. if the crime was about behavior,

if as a result of deeply entrenched inequities and by the way some of it is in there was a much a cop could do other than answer calls, pick up the pieces, and there were a lot of pieces in the '70s and 80s as our society went crazy.80s. this response model was a senator in the area deinstitutionalization in the 1970s when homelessness got -- meant a sufficient into. a well intended effort with unintended catastrophic consequences that we see exploding what to get on the streets of america. so-called homeless, certificate portion of the population, are people who really should be in institutions in some instances, in other environments with you can get treatment and not relegated to hang in parks and streets of our cities where they waste away. as an aside one place where the ability to behave behavior runs up against wall is addressing the emotionally disturbed. providing mental health services

should not be on the cops as so many things end up being on the cops her i had the nypd a a fouy crisis intervention training program in 2015 with the a genes funding from the mayors office. more than 6000 new york's cops received it, all of them will receive it over the next year. they effectiveness of cit should mean we stick with the feathers of our mental health care system -- shouldn't -- threat the country and it is another epidemic that we did with in the 21st century. response model still in place during the '80s when crack and hyper violence spiraled out of control. america's homicide peak was 1980 but new york city's top that in 1990. the year i went to new york as chief of transit police. with 2245 murders. cops were quite simply not preventing crime. we were responding to it. i became chief of the newark city transit police in 1990 i set about undoing undoing this

perception. i had a major police department that i can put into practice ideas that me and many of my colleagues policing, polices and leadership shared and, indeed, many political leaders. root causes should be considered by police executives, by judges, by anyone whose goal is making us safer warfare world but for a cop on a street has to act upon is not root causes. behavior.. i demonstrate that in the transit police. i demonstrated again at the nypd and 94-96 with the prevention oh comstat. we gave copsey billy to do with there were meant to do, prevent crime and disorder. we let them go out and control behavior, always in accordance with the law of course which democracy as our part. cops can't control behavior but again they must pursue a

constitutionally, compassionate, consistently and with transparency. so the pendulum swung back again in the '90s to prevention. we began taking back corners of parks and whole cities. 2002 i went to los angeles, we brought crime down there as well. overall crime in the united states went down dramatically id the 1990s and although there's been spikes over the several cities, it is still down overall. los angeles, just that it's safe his summer going to the early 1960s in terms of number of homicides. it will in this year with a lower number of homicides for the year.of t we are getting it right in many cities and we cannot lose focust on how to get it right becauselo the aberrations of certain other cities but for a variety of tbe reasons are not expensing the same declines.

but as i mentioned pendulums don't rest picking the city that comstat model became confused with the metrics used to garry mccarthy and tha i've had extraordinary conversation about this. he was deputy commissioner of the strategies of the time of the fifth shift of comstat in the 21st century. it became synonymous with zero tolerance which it never was. cops went from having a lot of discretion in the corner report, too much, having less and less in the response era. having returned as part of the early comstat in figure having if they can awaken as comstat was missed used in the 21st century and the quest fory numbers, numbers driven activity driven policing. the pendulum back and forth, back and forth. while comcast going down, it was flattening out. more law enforcement, not speaking specific about new york. york. more enforcement for smaller anm smaller returns.

i returned to police police commission under mayor bill de blasio gave the resources and political support throughout my three years there. three years of extraordinary resources unlike anything i had experienced the previous 47. new york city's current crime control and police committee achievements would've beenthentm impossible without that resourcing and support over those three years. that resourcing and support unfortunately is missing in so many american cities and some of those with some of the worst problems where expensing at the moment i think are reflective of that resource issue and political support as well as other issues, particularly some of those communities. i can't stress that enough. in many ways what's missing is not the ideas of leadership. extraordinary leaders with extraordinary ideas we have pick its resources and political support oftentimes and community support. while those ideas of resources to implement them. i want you to look at the graphic that was handed out just

prior to this meeting. one page graphic and i will speak to that as we go throughe it. look at murders and shootings on that graph from 2003-2012. this is new york city. compare the inconsistent decreases in those categories. nearly flat really with the skyrocketing rate of enforcement in the form of arrest, summonses and the issues that metastasize so drastically in new york city stop, first. homicides loving off the police activity increasing dramatically even necessary was getting safer and safer and safer. and s then the 2013, 14, 14, 15 and 16 as enforcement plummets, violent crime doesn't rise. it falls, too. the aunt was something initially called intelligence led policing. in predictive policing, and now assisted greatly by algorithms, decision policing.

effectively it's the comstat of the \90{l1}s{l0}\'90{l1}s{l0} on steroids in the 21st century. i help the department there something it already knew. like it indiscriminateblanket enforcement isn't the key. prevention is the key, supported by decision enforcement. this year 2017 new york city is on track to see fewer than 300y murders, about 235 with current projections, down from 2240 in 1990.ear po without issue -- possibly the lowest number in modern times going back almost 50 years. the city with 1 million or more in 1990, 8.59 with 69 taurus 100,00100,000 tourists every dan new york city to go from 2200 murders to the 245 figure for the first time in over 50 years fewer than 100,000 reported part one index crimes. over 500,000 in 1990 with fewer people. chicago this year unfortunately has had more than 500 already

with about 30% of new york city's population. if new york at baltimore's homicide rate we would have nearly 3500 murders at this time. instead, fewer than 300. think about that in terms of that large american city, l.a., the second-largest city with many fewer police resources, both starting to continue the trend that has gone on for 20 some odd years of steady consistent crime decline. prediction for you in this room, nonresident of new york city, that crime will not go back up in new york city. it may spike you are there from time to time but they have found a way to effectively prevent it, control it, and deal with it. look again at the pictures of murders and shootings and compare them with enforcement activities we measure. we have had better outcomes with less enforcement, that's the truth. the truth brings the to something else. like the so-called fake news that is come to dominate public

debates in this post truth error in america. there are three falsehoods that are taken root in the public discourse promoted by different parties. in some ways their mutually exclusive but they are entrenched. there's a saying that all i can go around the world while the truth is putting its pants on. that is happened here in those three falsehoods are the result. the first is a falsehood of the academics. the notion please don't control crime. they don't have an impact on it. there's been so many moving parts no one can ever know what crime rises and falls. remember boston 1985 as police commission of you, to talk about comstat. the plane at the international criminologist association meeting in boston was that in new york we did it everywhere all at the same time. why didn't we do half the city so they could do a study of evidence-based understanding what happened that would've been fine for the hundreds of lives saved in manhattan, but the people in brooklyn might've

objected to that, that experiment of purposes we do not save lives. the academics can't figure out at least have figured it out. and new york city is the living example of it. and going forward you will seeeg evidence-based policing in that city here so everybody trying te figure out how does it go down for 27 straight years will have the answer. i think i know, and i was happy to play a part in that productioreductionas a predictit going to go up in new york city ever again to the levels we saw over the past. everyone who lived in new york city saw the the change of the '90s, the massive plummet from 93 to 96. why? comstat, tops, look leadership. several police commissioners and for mayors over 27 years, crime has gone and every year. mayors have totally differentth lyrical ideology.

very different police managers,d police chiefs but they're all working with comstat, all working with the belief that something could be done about crime. belie now you're seeing other hand up the nypd over the past four years, mayor de blasio was elected, there were predictions that armageddon was now coming to the door with his new progressive mayor. armageddon did not arrive but rather four more years for straight crime decline. the idea being that with progressive, liberal, conservative, if you have the right medicines you can have the right results. it's a demonstrable decline despite the fact may academics that crime could not go lower. in some cases even claim that a great of crime would be tolerable if it meant less b intrusive tactics. imagine that. i think you can have lessve intrusive tactics and crimeme reduction. while precision policing proved them wrong and will continue to

prove them wrong, the next is aa falsehood from the left that police biased is pervasive. this is false, totally false. i've been in this profession for 27 years, left it a year ago. now i look at it as an outsider. bias exist, that's a reality, but it is not a professional issue. it is the issue of individuals, individual police officers. some instances unfortunately maybe some police departments, but to paint with a broad brush with a fine tuning of an artist fine brush is appropriate, is what is needed. the damage that evening created among american police forces in terms of their morale, the damage of the potential building relationships among the public and the neighbors that need us most by that broad brush basically that american policing is fundamentally racially biasel is wrong. it is false. it is incorrect.

and they do not believe that a make a mistake in making that statement. i fully acknowledge the profession has miles to go in the pursuit of racial equalityha but i object the idea there's any further to go in society at large. i think where much farther along than society at large. it are conflicted and we need to do a better job of each other. not looking past each other. i use that expression based on a common from sweet alice, black activist from watts who came from a sharecropping form a belief in mississippi or alabama act in the '50s or 60s we spent a lot of time in los angeles, myself, my wife, the lapd working on developing police community relationships pick yesterday david kennedy in an article talked about some of the success of the dealing with race issues in watts in hasn't always which were the worst crime areas. we spent a lot time on initial building race relations and has us leaving my wife and i to go w back to new york after seven

years in l.a., the "l.a. times" editorialized finally the court has been turned on race relations in los angeles. sweet alice basically just my eyes, here's my wife's eyes, tears in her eyes, says to me for life with a southern accent, chief, you know i would like you so much? and i said no, sweet alice, why is that? you see us. you really see us. those words, ucs, well, police, community, we all need to see each other. and if we make false claims, if we paint with a broad brush we will never able to see each other. and i would say to you that american policing in the society that is still written by so much racial tension as result of our history, policing is probably and it's going to be in a position to light the way because we are in truth on the frontlines are the issue every y day.

with regard to the racial and ethnic diversity nypd, with regard to rates of representation, i will stack the department and other american police departments against any amount of government, any newsroom against any corporate office or ivy league campus, and i like my odds that the nypd is more diverse. we reflect our city. 40% latino, 18% black, 20% women. women. i think we know have three transsexual individuals who went to operations, who have faced no dissemination in the department. we have over 1000 muslim officers in that minority majority city with almost 700,000 muslims. 40% of the population in the city is foreign-born. 60% of the population was not there in the 1990 in the bad old days. so new york city, a city that works, new york city police department that reflects what we all are advocating for him and departments of reflect the communities they serve, all of

this build built into the succet new york has been experiencing. the bullpens many of the nation's leading newspapers could also stand to take, to look a little more like a typical precinct roll call in new york city if you ask me. as i've emphasize the great shout of race this nation's original sin and enduring challenge, but neither can we assume that the spirit is in place enforcement are proof of bias when they're tied to disparities in crime rates. there's an inconvenient truth to use outdoors quote, that disproportionate impact reflects the reality of the cause. you would not expect a doctor or a physician to of life chemo or radiation out of proportion for the cantor that he is treating. that would be medical malpractice, or deny treatment when it is essential. why is that expected in the 21st century of american police?nt why is it advocated? why has it become the mantra? data-driven or evidence-based

policing is not biased policing. cops go with the problem is. cops go with the calls are an unfortunate in america for minority resins, tickets are african-american and our poor, that's where the crime is. that's with a disorders. that's where the need is and that's where american police are. it's not driven by racial bias. the challenge for us is to ensure while we are there, we see each other. finally, there's a falsehood of the right which has only heavy-handed tactics can control crime. this is false. it may be the most harmful falsehood of all. the new york experience was come has worked better thanro zero-tolerance. it's proof focusing on behavior works and i bias has no place in that equation even though it still occurs unfortunately. i know behavior matters more than biased because i know that the disparities that supposedly demonstrate bias or not the whole picture. disparities and enforcement are often taken as proof oficture disparate treatment and impact.

you never contemplated this proof of disparate behavior. but that can be called in question by one thing, ginger. no one says you should as many women arrested as men. no one objects to the fact women make up on a 27% of arrests of arrest. but violent crime, 80% of people arrested are men. is there bias against them, or is a behavior the issue? minton to be more violent than women, that's a fact. new york city more than 95% of murders perpetrated by minorities. but more than 95% of the victims are minorities also.5% that's a fact. it's not fake news. in the terrible impulsive rate the nypd drive shootings and murders down. the disparities are not a policing issue. it is about behavior. at this some of the right elbow each other and say see, i told you. but they are wrong, too. the enforcement disparity is real and the violence disparity is real, but so is the disparity

between the part and all. new york city would take about 800 shooters out of nearly, talking about maybe 800 shooters out of an early 4. 4.5 million violation of people of color. 800 individuals who are responsible for significant part of the shooting violence remains in new york. we have an expression in l.a. when i was there, 10% of the victims account for 50% of the victimization to 10% of the locations account for 50% of the calls service, and 10% of the criminals account for 50% of the criminal behavior. that is effectively what is at work. that all populations can be dealt with precision so we don't end up impacting a larger population with inappropriate and excessive amounts of police attention. hsavior and bias are both real. so here's the good news. we can control both. sir robert peel. legally respectfully a partnership with the committee as evidenced by david policing initiative this going in new

york now being led by police commission jimmy on you. we could have cops do what they do best, keep people safe we can have a profession that recognizes the inescapable bias, inequality and terrible history that makes whites in this country 68 times wealthier than blacks under certain formulas. we can use precision policing to focus on the impact players who push the short violence into newer neighborhoods were using neighborhood policing to address the vast majority of the other people who don't. the law-abiding. we can and we are and it's working, and i use new york as an example. los angeles, to some extent. you have the crime numbers and are self-evident. we have other numbers. i will begin to close. hold the brush of the overall nypd trust rating is at a 66% approval rating. the president would like to have those numbers. i think he's at 32% currently. so what congress. i think their latest is 19%%. so with the media. they are at 9%.

i'll take the top numbers. i like them better. recent new york pd polling, may now to the most intimate polling of any entity in america, down to the block level in newark city. they can be done at any time. recent nypd polling shows 65% of blacks and 71% of hispanics agree that quote, based on the personal experience most nypd officers in their neighborhoods treat them and those they know with respect. falling crime, increasing satisfaction. 2017 we have emergent template for what to do in new york, just as we did in 1994 with comstat as the attorney general reference. we have much more to do and we can't ever arrest s. con. res. auto bolstered we can't forget the consent of the government -t there is a template. the template does not emphasize indiscriminate enforcement or immigration enforcement for that matter piccolo does hinge on target enforcement of criminal behavior no matter who commits it.

even libertarian think tanks report what cops know. immigrants don't commit more crime. maybe i should mention that here but the kid institute notes and greater less likely to be incarcerated also. in fact, they are far more likely to be victims and perpetrators and pushing them into the shadows makes that much worse. we need to know where the crime is we need to know who the victims are if we are policies and procedures that discovers them, working with us than we are truly not seeing each other. .. her. if they are choosing not to report crime, it doesn't mean that the crime is not happening. it doesn't also does hinge on fully applying existing and appropriate sentencing or impact. it is discriminating. it is precise, not prejudice. the obligation to address the issues in this way has been knocking on the door now for

three years since the cultureless protest in 2014. >> protests across the country. fergus ferguson, in my city, two police officers in the car. the death of a police officer remains an incredible controversy. tools with precision policing have been building. it's not the culmination of nearly half a century in the business for me, but the evolution of the police profession. and thankfully community policing in the '90s. when opportunity knocks, shouldn't we answer the door? opportunity is banging on the door with a battering ram. let's open it. policing is not a government program, it's a moral covenant. it's keeping people safe. it's an underpinning of our democracy. our police profession has a

once in lifetime chance, a chance to change its legacy, to shape its future. it has the chance to con found demagog demagoguery. it's a chance to make our country safe for everyone. it is, after all, what we do in policing, to try to make it safe and fair for everyone. thank you for your attention, thank you for this opportunity. thank you. [applaus [applause] >> bill, thank you very much. as we leave the stage, we will have a panel coming up to discuss these comments and to add to them. so, if you'll just remain in your seats, the panel will come up and we will take our leave. sit right down here.

>> . >> guest: thank you, ed. i'm john malcolm, vice-president for institute for constitutional government here at heritage foundation and i also have the privilege of being the director of edwin meese center for judicial studies. these are very difficult times for police officers. there have been spikes of crime in a number of cities over the last couple of years, attacks, police fatalities are up, ambushes on police officers are up. there is a tremendous amount of social unrest. we now have new terms that we didn't have before such as the ferguson effect. there's unrest in cities like chicago, baltimore, dallas, and of course, this past weekend in st. louis. they're also an increasing number of consent decrees to which police officers are now subjected. as commissioner bratton, it's

not all doom and gloom. there are major pockets that crime is down and increased or improved policing techniques and in many communities the relationship between those communities between those are good and improving. when there was a change in administration and a new tone coming out of the sessions justice department, than existed under the holder and lynch justice department. general meese and i decided it's time to bring together major thought leaders in the police for the to talk about the challenges that they're facing, what's working, what's not working and perhaps how there might be changes with this administration that might affect the course of policing. so, we had an off the record, full day, quite frank, convocation of leaders, three of whom are on the stage with me today. i'm going to introduce them all briefly. they happen to be seated in the order in which they will speak and then they will give brief

remarks and time permitting i'll ask bill bratton if he'll come back on the stage and we'll open it up for questions. our first speaker is perry te tearrent he's assistant in seattle. law enforcement 34 years of experience and spent most of that in the tucson police department. in 2014, he was appointed to coordinate the city of yakamas intervention programs and to act as the city's emergency preparedness director. a master's degree from northern arizona university, a certificate of graduate study at criminal justice at university of virginia and a bachelor's degree in political science from university of arizona and also the current president of noble, the national organization of black law enforcement executives. and next we'll hear from gary

mccarthy, the president and ceo of gfm strategies. from 2011-2015 gary was the police superintendent for the city of chicago, the second largest police department in the nation. he eversaw 1.4 billion dollar budget and 13,000 sworn police officers. under his leadership chicago saw four straight years of overall reduction of crime rate and reduction in complaints against the police. prior to that, he served as the police director for newark, new jersey, from 2006-2011 where he saw crime reductions and reductions in complaints against the police from that city and then in the new york police department he rose steadily through the ranks and ultimately as you heard, deputy commissioner of operations where he was involved in planning, coordinating and directing the response to the world trade center attacks and

its aftermath. gary attended the prestigious columbia police university and a program in marris college in new york. and james stewart, none to one and all as chip. chip is director of public safety and injury fellow at cna corporation. he is a nationally recognized expert on criminal justice, use of analysis, capability and technological application such as body-worn cameras. currently a senior advisor to the department of justice's technical assistance and training to 35 law enforcement agencies all the way from baltimore to los angeles. prior to joining cna, chip served as a commander for the oakland criminal investigations division and a white house fellow and a special assistant to the united states attorney general and from 1982 to 1990

the longest serving director in the history of national institute of justice. chip holds master's in public administration from california state university and ba from university of oregon and a certificate from the fbi academy in quantico. with that, perry, let me turn it over to you. >> good morning. again, my name is perry terrent, i'm now the past president of noble, my term expired last month. the national organize of black law enforcement executives specifically to look at crime in urban communities and how crime was not only taking place, but also looking how enforcement was taking place within these communities.

i want to thank attorney general meese for the invitation to be a part of this discussion that took place back in march of this year. i will tell you that it was a -- it was an honor to be invited. it was, to say the least, a frank conversation and i will tell you at times not only was i uncomfortable, but i'm pretty sure i made other folks uncomfortable at the same time during that conversation, but the product that came out of that is certainly reflective of the overwhelming sentiment of the folks who participated in that conversation. so, let me begin by saying, history is important. it's important for the lessons learned and self-reflections. i'd like to use a sports analogy here because we are currently in the football season. and i will tell you that --. [laughter] >> portfolios games and individual athletes normally

review prior game films in the history for self-improvement as well as individual performance improvement. their mvp's not only look at a collective performance, but critical of their own individual performances towards self-improvement and raising the bar for the team. the history of the mvp, who his parents were, who he came from are not important to the spectator. but what is important about his performance and his history is the predictor of his performance going forward. you heard from chief bratton about the nine principles of sir robert peel's policing. i grew up quite a bit outside of the u.s. and law enforcement wasn't called law enforcement, it was called police service. coming into the u.s. and

learning the transition to law enforcement, it was a bit of a dichotomy and you heard chief bratton talk about that pendulum swing. so, there was a point in time where there was absolute focus on service, that the pendulum swung back in the opposite direction, the emphasis was largely on enforcement. but i'll continue with my analogies and talk about high performance teams. when you start looking at organizations like the air force thunderbirds or the navy's blue angels, you have individual pilots that are flying at super quick speeds, doing some amazing things with aircraft and every one of those pilots has a unique responsibility to perform at his best. having had the opportunity to watch a debrief of a performance, every one of those pilots didn't talk about what

the other person did wrong, they talked about the shortcomings of their performance and they all promised to do better the next time they went up and flew. policing is no different. poor performance by one officer is reflective and reflects poorly on every officer performing in this industry. i would suggest to you that it goes far beyond that. when we start talking about history, and we talk about the history of our country, we have to talk about not just specifically policing, but talk specifically about laws, formulated within this country. we've asked the police to do some pretty amazing things over the years, starting with the enforcement of segregation, the enforcement of anti-semitic

immigration, to round folks up for japanese internment camps and the housing laws. that was the advent of the paddy wagon. as chief bratton mentioned earlier, contact with the police is that first contact that most people have with government. to quote a previous mayor that i worked for, the call to 911 occurs when every other system has failed. it was in that capacity, in order to move forward and to have the conversation about moving forward, we have to acknowledge that history exists and that we're going to do better. wellesley, massachusetts chief terry kung --

cunningham retired now, and there were things that impacted particular populations and let's not overlook the owe indication of misduct by law enforcement and the impact on the legitimacy of policing. speaking at georgetown university, former fbi director comey reflected on disparate during during the civil rights movement. he specifically identified the lack of substance in the search warrant affidavit to tap the phones of dr. martin luther king. the summit that was held earlier this year at the heritage foundation's focus on advance in policing. as you can imagine, just bringing that many different perspectives into a fairly

large room, there was considerable amount of, i'd say back and forth, but i appreciate the frankness of the conversation. the bottom line is, and again, i'll defer to the statements made by chief bratton, community relationships are paramount in determining police legitima legitimacy. relationships and legitimacy are necessary for effective policing, it's the first topical area listed in president obama's 21st century police task force final report. the group that was assembled here at heritage did a phenomenal job. more importantly, we acknowledged the phenomenal job done by law enforcement each and every day, but we do a very poor job of telling the stories

of accomplishments on a daily basis of the cops as they go out and do their jobs. >> i like the comment made by chief bratton, in terms of the bad news and the false reports, travel at a greater speed or i'm sorry, travel around the world while good deeds and the truth are still putting their pants on. part of our discussion was about data collection, and i will tell you that i absolutely believe in the value of collecting data. however, data is just data unless it's placed into context. law enforcement organizations have been collecting data on things easy to count, like numbers of arrests, traffic citations and things of that nature. this data is important, but it's one dimensional.

more agencies are taking on the expense of doing quality control surveys to find out more specifically how the relationship is going with their communities. the community i work in are a rating a little higher than new york, coming in at about 71%. i also want to kind of talk about data collection as relates to reducing crime and crime reductions. collecting data is absolutely important when it comes to precision enforcement. we know the three things that must intersect in order for crime to occur. you have to have an available location. you have to have an available victim. and you have to have a motivated suspect. data-driven policing attempts

to identify all three of these areas, which then allows us to place our resources in a focused manner on impacting and reducing crime. the fourth factor in reducing crime is the community. and the community must be engaged in that effort. i've used data collection to educate victims or communities to reduce their likelihood of becoming victims. we've used collective data to actually redesign locations and determine where we need to put resources. likewise, we know who our high impact offenders are and collecting data on them and how they execute their crimes certainly makes us more effective at doing that. and i can give you a very specific example.

while i worked as a precinct commander that had a high homicide rate, we took an analytical and methodical approach on how to reduce crime. the first thing we looked at-- we looked at a lot of historical data. citations we were collecting. we looked at who was being arrested in those areas. we took that data and went to the neighborhood and the businesses and told them we were going to take on the initiative to reduce crime in that area and we learned from them by having that conversation. we then went to the community almost door-to-door and had similar conversations and shared the data that we collected and what we learned was not just their concern for dividing crime. more important to the crime or

the issues around quality of life. quality of life overwhelmingly was the conversation. we involved them in the strategy that we built out as it related to our response, and then we responded. we took that particular area to zero homicides for the entire summer based on data driven efforts that were initiated. i'll close out here shortly by saying, it was an honor to participate in that conversation here at heritage. there were a lot of folks that walked away from that conversation initially scratching their head and i have to credit mr. malcolm continuing that conversation

back and forth and more importantly generating the documents that you now have in front of you. thank you. [applaus [applause] >> good afternoon, i'm gary mccarthy. i just got to tell you, i'm always fascinated listening to bill bratton speak. i've known him since 1994, worked for him in nypd. today i learned something, i finally beat you at something, bill, i made sergeant at 26. [laughter] >> that's one thing i got. that's all i got, guys. but i'm really pleased to be here and general meese, i want to thank you and john having me participate in this endeavor. i put a paper together talking about, quote, unquote, systemic racism, i have a problem with what's been happening especially in the last administration from the department of justice. i dealt with it in newark, new jersey.

i didn't deal with it in chicago because i was never invited to the conversation when they put together their report. and i think that if you're going to investigate the policies and practices of a police department, you should probably start with the individual who implemented the policies and practices of that police department. and i found it incredibly troubling when loretta lynch was in chicago releasing that report and got up in front of national and international news audience and said somebody asked her, how come you didn't interview gary mccarthy and she said that they attempted to get in touch with me, but were unable to do that. and i responded with all the resources of the federal investigative services you couldn't find me in river north, chicago? so i have a big problem with the way that a lot of things have played out and i think that politics played way too much of a role in what's happening.

that's kind of the summation of my paper, both bill and perry have framed some of the same issues i'm going to mention. they came up during our conversations back here in march, and they're going to continue to come up. so, simply, simply stated, in my mind, the single most challenging issue to policing is what happened in the last administration, in that data driven policing, as bill talked about, is now considered systemic racism. we've got to put that genie back in the bottle eventually because we really can't do our jobs without doing it. without having-- without having data-driven policing. c constat bill talked about. we put more resources where and when crimes happen looking for who is going to commit a crime to prevent the crime.

and putting the cops on the dot, and precise policing is getting better and better. it's no secret that those neighborhoods where the des enfranchised communities exist across this country in our urban center is generally minority and depending on the part of the country, in many cases, mostly african-american. and those communities suffer through a number of issues, whether it's poverty, breakup of the family unit, lack of education, poor resources, no optimism, so jobs, poor health care, lead in the water, all sounds familiar, right, folks? rampant narcotics, rampant crime, rampant alcohol abuse. this creates something called legal cynicism. i know most of you know what it is, but legal cynicism is defeened as cultural orientation in which the law and agents of its enforcement

appear unresponsive, ill-equipped for the public safety. think about that, the law is illlegitimate and not just talking about the police. it's an indictment of the entire system of government that is not providing what those communities need. look at flint, michigan. look what happened there. so, in my mind, what we're looking at how is legal cynicism on steroids. and as perry and bill rightfully point out, the most forward elements of that failed government system are the police. we're in people's living rooms, we are on the street with them. we are the point of the spear for the government. you don't see the state's attorneys on the street. you don't see u.s. attorneys on the street. you don't see elected officials on the street, unless they're campaigning, of course, unless there's an anti-police march

these days. but the problem is the political reaction to questionable incidents, and by the way, questionable incidents do occur, whether it's baltimore, kevin, whether it's in chicago, whether it's ferguson, questionable incidents occur. the problem is, the political reaction to those events is making things worse. we've misdiagnosed the problem. the problem in this country is not the police. the problem in this country is the social and economic divide that puts people in those disenfranchised communities in the positions that they're in. so in essence, we're taking the wrong medicine for what ails us. the simplest way to describe it. the result is, what we're doing and certainly, chicago is the worst example of it. we're em boldening criminals

while hamstringing the police at the exact same time. now, chicago, you talk about a misdiagnosed problem, during-- well, not during my tenure, but chicago in 2015, less than half of 1% of the shootings in the city of chicago were police related shootings. less than half of 1%. so what does that mean? that means if there wasn't one of those 19 police related shootings that existed in 2015. there still would have been 4,300 people shot in chicago in 2015. the police are not the problem, okay? the political reaction to laquan mcdonald has resulted in a huge increase of the crime rate because of the landscape created in places like chicago. there's a lot of accountability for this and i use the word accountability because that's the word that's always used

when we're talking about the police. and the accountability goes to elected officials, it goes to community leaders, but in my mind, the worst offender over the last eight years was the department of justice. the department of justice, by saying that-- saying that we're engaging in systemic racism and pointing to investigations which, by the way, i believe they did 25 investigations during the time frame of the obama administration, each one of them came to the same conclusion, they're methodology flawed. i think the conclusions were pre-determined. if you watched the methods they used they go to a city and take testimonials and then they say a-ha. the problem is, that they draw the same conclusion almost

exclusively that the departments that they investigate are engaging in systemic racism. now, we all no about harry stops, stop, question and frisk, and across the country. the department of justice has changed the supreme court decision with their findings. he comes from the 1968 case of terry versus ohio. you can stop somebody based on reasonable suspicion. in their findings, the department of justice constantly comes up with the phrase that we're disproportionately stopping someone. in the investigation of the puerto rico police, they're saying that they're using this against dominican individual. and here we're disproportiona

disproportionately stopping african-americans. they campaign information to the stop data. in the city of chicago, if we went to-- before the supreme court and said we're using population demographics as basis to stop people, i believe that the supreme court would say it's unconstitutional based upon reasonable articulatable suspicion. we did a two-year analysis in chicago, who, when and where crime is occurring. there are a couple of charts attached to my paper that are in your books, but 32% of the population of chicago is african-american, yet, city wide for the period 2013-2014 were african-american. crime data had it that 72% of

crime victims were identified as male blacks. the city that has an out of control crime rate into englewood, 97% of the population is african-american, we're expect today stop 32% c caucasian individuals. and don't the individuals there deserve to live in safety? the bottom lime stop data in chicago closely mirrors crime data, the charts in your books show that. the only demographic stopped at a higher rate for the crime data for the two year period in chicago were caucasians. everybody else matches up almost precisely. for 2013-2014, what were the results that we had? during the analysis that i gave you, we had 1965 murder rates

in the city of chicago. we had a 40% reduction in overall crime. we made 20,000 less arrests, as bill pointed out. you don't arrest your way out of the problem. everybody loves to say it, i hate that phrase, but it's factual, it's factual. you don't arrest everybody, you arrest the right people. with 20,000 less arrests we made more gun arrests. chicago takes more guns off the street than any city every country in the year. 3-1 comparison to los angeles. 7-1 comparison to new york city yet we had a 68% reduction in police related shootings during my tenure, that's a fact that's certainly not out there. at the same time, we had a 50% reduction in complaints against our officers. so it's not all bad, but shootings and murder have gone up 85% from the numbers that we got them down to in 2013-2014

and almost 800 murders in chicago last year represents more than the 2245 when you look at per capita that bill mentioned in new york city in the worst year we ever had. what are the fixes? there's no political solutions for practical products. it talks with truth telling. perry mentioned some of us are uncomfortable in a room talking about race. putting body cameras on is not going to reverse 300 years of racist laws by white police officers. and every one of our interactions is viewed through the prism of history. we have to add truth telling and talk about our history as a nation. it's going to make us very uncomfortable, but the first step towards redemption is recognition. you've got to recognize the problems. what we did to ourselves, how we got ourselves in this

position. you can't reestablish something that hasn't existed and i love to hear when we reestablish trust in the african-american community, but we have to recognize the social and economic problems and actually address them. not put ban kadz on a gunshot wound and the last thing that we need to do is establish the constitutionality of data driven policing in a public forum because we cannot do our job without the understanding and clarification of that, we do not engage in systemic racism by addressing crime patterns. it's called intelligent policing. this misapplied mischaracterization represents the greatest danger to modern policing. we can in the establish trust we never had without it. present day chicago is a most glaring example of that today. thank you. [applaus

[applause]. >> thanks, garry and perry as well. and thank you, bill bratton for your continuing career in public service and thanks to the heritage foundation and particularly to ed meese for sponsoring this forum and for bringing this attention to it most serious of all of our kinds of problems we're facing in our communities. both bill and general meese talked a little about the executive sessions and to some extent, heritage is continuing that kind of dialog with having, as you've heard today, multiple voices coming together to discuss what they consider to be the most urgent problems. and i think that's commendable and i'm glad to see my friend kevin davis here from baltimore, duane crawford is here from noble, chuck wechsler from perth. vince delucci, and great to

have tom from the montgomery and also major city chiefs. we're really fortunate to have this kind of attention and community of support that are coming together to hear from the heritage foundation who is sponsoring this event. i think it's very important. let me say that there's a couple of papers in here that i've had the chance to share some views. one of the things i want to talk about is this idea of crime without consequences. that turns out to be a tale of two cities, and i'm not talking about new york and los angeles. i'm talking about within the same city, that citizens look to their local police to preserve life and property and maintain the peace and those are more elusive for the second year in a row.

violent crime rates, especially homicide rates have risen in most major cities. in end of 2016, 13 cities including houston and san antonio and chicago. as garry reported its 500th homicide already this year and wasn't spoke been, 800 carjackings. it's not happening throughout the city, it's happening in a few neighborhoods. even in charlotte, north carolina, a spike of 13% involving drug homicides, but more troubling than that, and this is something that hasn't been talked about, is that the police are solving far fewer homicides than we have in the past. the philadelphia inquirer concluded 2017, to quote, people are getting away with murder.

the homicide clearance average rate for the large cities has been in steep decline for the last 60 years. from around 90% when ed meese was assistant district attorney in oakland and i was a police officer there, 90% down to less than 60% in the 50's, that are currently happening now. the impact of falling crime rates, can be seen by a quick calculation. there have been-- if you do the back of the envelope kind of calculations, there have been 211,000 homicides that have not been solved in that period of time. those are people, that, a, haven't been held accountable and b, may have gone out to kill again because the police were not able to prevent that. in some chicago neighborhoods, followed by the police student, the clearance rates for homicides are in the single digits and suspects may never be arrested. a murder for a violent crime generates growing attention

across the country, and shortfalls in criminal justice department, ability it hold the defend e defenders-- offenders responsible and demanding greater priority and attention. there's a situation that's occurring that also, it's not just on the police. the police in many large cities are struggling not only with the higher violence crimes, but also the communities that have lowering levels of trust and cooperativeness with the police. former dallas police chief david brown says that community anger at the police have left criminals emboldened to commit violent crime and resist or attack the police. the police and their communities are at risk with help in reversing these trends. and individuals who commit murder and other violent crimes have an overwhelming

probability of never being held accountable. in some communities, witnesses are afraid to help the police because they believe, a, nothing will happen to the perpetrator and, b, they will be targeted for reprisals to snitches. even with sophisticated new technology like forensic dna developed here at the federal government, digital cameras, facial recognition technology, gunshot detection, integrated data systems and in-car computers, often missing are the updated investigatory techniques, street intelligence and community, and witnesses and participating in criminal trials. the police need real assistance to address the challenges with practices that are evidence-based and practical for the officer in the field. for body-worn cameras are one example of a practical technology adopted by the

police department that is being lauded and praised by stake holders in the community, advocates for better policing and better training, and have been embraced by police unions as a way to quickly exonerate police officers where their behavior has been correct and according to policy, and holding officers in the rare cases where they show that they violated the training that they've received, that available for some kind of sanctions and improving their behavior. that has been a game changer, no longer do you spend six months trying to figure out who was responsible and end up by saying, well, we can't tell because he said-she said. in this way, with the body-worn cameras within a few hours you can get a result and you get a result that ends up with a definitive answer in terms of whether the police conduct was, in fact, correct or was a violation of policy.

let me just say that the interesting thing about police cameras is that many people speculated that people wearing body-worn police would depl depolice, and less police. in las vegas, they did the largest experiment wearing body-worn cameras and found out there was about a 15% increase in self-initiated activity in pedestrian and vehicle stops by police officers wearing body-worn cameras than those that didn't wear the body-worn cameras. this was a random assignment. more than 400 officers involved and the evidence is pretty phenomenal in terms of being remarkable. well, what are those circumstances that we're facing, both the issues of racial hostility, the distrust of police and low clearance rates? i've proposed a series of

things for the trump administration, and criminal justice things, one reducing violent crime and other serious crimes and the first thing i'd like to say they ought to expand the technical assistance program to provide analytical and technical support to local police agencies, combat crime and others, and murder. what i'm suggesting by that, they need to increase the kind of work that's going on right now in the public safety partnerships in 15 different locations and the smart policing that was developed cna that is now working in over 45 jurisdictions to demonstrate crime reductions and important lessons learned through administrative approaches and quasi-experimental designs. for example, the smart policing pairs an analyst with the police department and a research partner to work together as partners in not only identifying the problem, but solving it. so that you don't get a researcher who then says i

gotcha, issues a report and walks away. for somebody that works in partnership with the police, that are actually responsible for helping solve that problem. for instance, in the l.a. police department, bill's former department. he was there when they introduced smart policing, they piloted new strategies in your favorite district, the shooting newton, and they reorganized that and using an analyst and two detectives zeroed in on hot spots and they were able to reduce commercial burglaries by 20% and the project proved so successful that charles beck is now beginning to migrate that through every district in the l.a.p.d. and in the boston police department. they leveraged the grants from spi, to reduce homicides and they now have a reduction of 15% in the number of homicides and an increase in the clearance rates by 35%. there are things that can be

done, but police do need some help. it's not that you just say, well, let's get a new chief. there has to be a comprehensive way to make a difference in that. in richmond, california with technical assistance they moved from 38% solution of homicides to 66% and in oakland, they went from a low of 57% to 74% after this kind of federal assistance that worked together. i also think that providing best practices for real time crime centers, real time crime centers, that was something that has been done by bill bratton and many others to be able to be sure that they are identifying areas where crime needs to be prevented and move in a much more effective ways. i would just like to say that they need to work-- another idea is to work more with the task forces and look at new jersey, new york one

going on with the executive district attorney. they're doing a great job with the police with helping them and chauncey parker. there's much more done in the community partnerships and i would suggest they look at weed and seed and project safe neighborhood that really made a difference and were embraced by the clinton administration, by the bush administration and abandoned, quite frankly, abandoned, by the obama administration that needs to be recast for modern day, you know, today. this is an opportunity for the trump administration to begin to make a difference and to use the research money and the technical assistance money to actually address things that are relevant to the local police. because that's where the measure has to come from. it should not come from washington and the police have to conform, but it should respond and work with, as partners, with the local police, and with a--

with that i'd like to close and cede the remaining of my time to questions for the audience. >>. [applause] >> and we're going to run a little long, bill. that clock is five minutes fast. if i could ask you perhaps to come join us. i know you have a hard stop. you've got to go? okay. well, come on up for one question and maybe we'll take one more, we'll let you be first. i want people to have an opportunity to ask you something. i'll not take moderator's prerogative. i'll turn it over, bill will take one question and speak first and duck out and we'll talk max for ten minutes and leave it at that. any hands up here? there's a hand in the back. do we have a microphone back there? >> i would like a comment from

bill bratton on the militerization of police departments and the equipment coming from military and the impact on that on community perception. >> the militerization as it's called is, i think, maybe somewhat of an overdramatic term. reality of policing '70s, '80s, '90s, the violence required to equip our officers with what they're experiencing. starting in the '70s, bullet-proof vests. more training. new york city in my time, every one of the police cars are equipped with ballistic doors, ballistic windows, in the trunk of every police car ballistic helmets and heavy duty vests so as officers respond to increasing concern, either terrorism, active shooters,

this week along he think we've seen three incidents in schools of active shooters, we have an obligation to our officers to give the appropriate equipment, appropriate training, appropriate supervision. so i think one of the ferguson effects was the inappropriate appearance and potential use of some equipment that had been given to police personnel, but some of the reality of what we potential will i face, we have an obligation to our officers and the obligation is ensure that what we acquire or given by the military is appropriate use in appropriate circumstances, that's part of the challenge, but the reality is, there was reference to the ambushing of police, the increase in murders of police over the past year or so, that's the reality that we face and we have an obligation if we're going to ask them in go in harm's way. active shooters we used to tell them wait outside, columbine and now they go through the

doors. and we have an obligation to save their lives as they're running in to save other lives. i have to apologize, i went over on my remarks, i have a plane to catch. thank you for your attention today and to the heritage foundation and general, to you, as always, for the opportunity to no longer in the business, i still live in this country and still live in this city and i'm still concerned. thank you very much. [applause] >> let me ask you guys whether you have, you know, anything you want to say about the sort of the ending of the 1033 program. that was the surplus military, and now it's coming back. do you have anything you want to say about this so called militerization of the police? >> yeah, i think it's another example of throwing the baby out with the bath water and it's a political overreaction. >> i can tell you at the time i was the vice-president of the major city chief police

association as ferguson went on and we were aghast in policing, speaking for myself, my polling, if you will call it that at the way those protests were handled. the police can turn a protest into a riot and you know, you don't have bearcats on the front line of a protest. you don't have people with rifles, point them into a crowd saying that they're using the telephone scope as binoculars. i got an idea, get a set of binoculars, right? so you throw out the baby with the bath water. in chicago, we had an incident when i was there an active gun battle that went on for about 45 minutes and we used our bearcats to extricate 30 civilians and ten life vested officers from inside the red zone. that's the way you use it. you don't use it in the fashion that it was used in ferguson.

so one picture of one individual police officer spurred this whole thing and as bill rightly points out, we have an obligation to not only protect our officers, but to protect the public we're not talking .22 revolvers on the street. we're talking ak-47's and high velocity bullets. >> we have time for one more question. >> let me just -- i want to weigh in. we did work at national institute of justice and one thing i tried to do is give police officers alternatives to the kind of ways to help suppress or deescalate incidents, working on mace or chemical spray and working on what eventually became the taser, as alternatives to police. i think the federal government can do a lot more than just give us surplus military equipment. i think the federal government

needs to design equipment that is for the police task and i think that's one of the things that has made an error. i think the police need to advocate for their own research area and the police in a small budget at national institute of justice developed a bullet resistent vest that saved thousands of lives that the military now uses. they developed the taser and other kinds of things that are very important, but police-specific. and we haven't gotten enough of that kind of support. there needs to be more of that and that somehow has been frowned upon by lots of people, but the police really need it. they can't rely on getting surplus tanks from somebody or flame throwers because that's not what we're going to use. on the other hand, garry is right, we've been in contact

with active shooters and alexandria virginia people are here, a fine job of that, question, the police are getting better because of the fact, a, more scrutiny and more resources. the police can't figure it out on their owns, they need some help. >> and quick question and quick answers. and you've got a microphone here. >> thank you, john and general meese for doing this, i spent 19 years in law enforcement culminating end of my career earlier this year. the ferguson effect is one of the most lamentable things i saw take place over the past few years of my career. while thing we can come up with ideas how local officials can motivate officers to go out and be more proactive. i'm wondering your thoughts on what the federal government can

do? and we talked about the demiliterization, and the obama administration and-- i agree with the last statement, it was probably, seriously, you know, i had the opportunity to meet the president on a number of occasions and i found him very engaging and he listened to us, tom and myself and a couple of other chiefs sat with the president on a couple of different occasions and he heard us, but the application of whatever happened after that, i can't explain. i think that the federal governme government, police officers need to know that they have support and the political landscape in this country has changed dramatically over the last few years in places like baltimore, chicago, various places across the country. and everything we do, the recommendations that i have as far as acknowledging now history, looking at the

socioeconomic issue, not necessarily blaming the police for everything is something that needs to happen on all levels of government. and you know, unfortunately, we see a lot of government inaction, especially here in washington these days, and i don't know if it's ever going to happen, but on a lower levels, i think it's easier to probably push that through. >> i think one of the things with the ferguson effect that you're talking about is the ubiquity, with cell phones. it seems like it's happening next door and it gets repeated. it may be happening three time zones away, the problem is locally you get there. the other thing that has slowed down the public is the police themselves have been slow to get a narrative out about what happened and because-- well, we disagree about that,

but the district attorney-- >> have you ever met the chicago press? >> actually i did, yes. i spent time with their editorial boards. but the police, when they hold off on getting any information out, on shooting or an incident and they wait for six or nine months, another narrative is picked up and it's based on what perry talked about, this generational history of abuse by police enforcing laws that have been jim crowe and other situations that occurred, housing discrimination laws, and by waiting for the courts or somebody else to tell the narrative, it is told over dinner tables and over bars and in barbecues every day, how the police have abused it and how they're cooking up another story. so, that in order to help with that, there's something we can do collectively to get that information out and quite

frankly body-worn cameras helped stimulate that because it's only in response to the cell phone. if the cell phones weren't there, the body cameras wouldn't be as urgent to get the rest of the story out. >> the bottom line, all policing is local, so whatever the dictate and mandate on the federal level, to address crime occurs locally. the motivation of the personnel at that local level belongs to that chief or that sheriff. >> thank you all for being here at heritage today and please join me in thanking them. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> the u.s. senate is about to gavel in. after the republican health care plan went down yesterday when maine republican susan collins came out against it, the senate awaits hearing from leadership about what they'll be working on next. pending is a bill citing

defense department programs for the next budget year. live coverage now of the senate. [inaudible conversations] the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. holy god, who causes wars to cease, bring peace to our nation and world. let that peace first begin in our hearts.