standards, too, have declined in the home and the community. Because of adult delinquency, young people are not being given the proper guid ance. Public indifference to organized vice has made it easy for the sales men of the criminal empire to reach young people with obscene material, narcotics and other evils which weak en their character. Television and movies, I think, must also share part of the blame. The highly suggestive and, at times, offensive, scenes, as well as the fre quent portrayal of violence and bru tality on television screens and in motion pictures, are bound to have an adverse effect on young people. Q . Do you have any suggestions con cerning how this youth-crime problem can best be dealt with? A. I have been called an advocate of a “ get tough” policy with respect to young criminals. I do not deny the charge. Of course, I do not propose harsh treatment for perpetrators of minor offenses. The treatment o f young criminals, like those who have passed their eighteenth birthday, should be fair, reasonable and realistic. How ever, I can see no difference between a 17-year-old who willfully robs, rapes or kills and a person of greater age who commits the same acts. Frankly, I am disgusted by the misguided sentimentalists who want to pamper and excuse teen-age thugs. This leads only to disrespect and con tempt for law and order. As long as we have people who in sist that tender age is an excuse for any and all misdeeds, we will have young hoodlums who will think they can get away with anything. When they realize, however, that they will be held strictly accountable for their crimes, many of them will be de terred from committing crimes. Q . Is it going to be necessary, then, for the public attitude toward criminals to change? Has the time come when police authority needs to be strengthened? A. There is a large segment o f the public which seems bent on protect ing a criminal regardless of what crime he has committed. I firmly be lieve that the lawless must be con vinced that they will be held strictly accountable for their willful acts. Unmerited sympathy only encour ages disdain for law and further depredations. Certainly this is no time for weakening the authority of law-enforcement agencies, but the matter of strengthening authority must be decided by the people ac cording to their needs.
Q , In view of various police scandals we keep hearing about, can the American people really trust their law-enforcement agencies? A. Yes, of course they can. Now, I know that there are dishonest members of the law-enforcement pro fession — just as in every other pro fession. But I am glad to say that such low characters are very few, and the vigor with which honest officers ferret them out is a credit to the profession. Since I took office in 1924, public respect for law-enforcement agencies has progressed to the point where the American people can and should take great pride in them and provide the support they need and deserve. Q . In your opinion, are most criminals mentally ill people who should be treated in a hospital, not punished? A. The trend toward labeling all criminals as “ mentally ill” is gain ing popularity among some people. I view this as just another attempt to shower sympathy on those who mock law and order. Hardened criminals definitely are “ morally ill.” Their “ sickness,” in my opinion, is more dangerous to society than the most dread communicable disease, and society can be protected from them only by their isolation. Q . What is your position on capital punishment? A. I believe that despicable crimes must be dealt with realistically. Ex perience has shown that the best deterrents to crime are sure detec tion, swift apprehension and proper punishment. Each is a necessary in gredient. It is my opinion that, when no shadow of a doubt remains relative to guilt, the public interest demands that capital punishment be invoked where the law so provides. I cannot see where the complete abolition of capital punishment would benefit this country. Q . Whaf are your feelings about parole, probation and other forms of leniency for convicted criminals? A. I realize the necessity of re habilitation efforts. I stand behind the principles of parole, probation and other forms of clemency. But nothing can discourage a law-en forcement officer more than to see some criminal he has risked his life to capture set free through unwar ranted leniency. I have seen too much abuse and maladministration of the systems of parole and probation, and too many instances where little or no consid
e r . J. Edgar Hoover, director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation eration was given to the need of protecting society by isolating de praved criminals. It is imperative that the rights of law-abiding citi zens receive at least the same respect and consideration as the rights of the lawless. To give you an idea of how often ill-advised trust has been placed in convicted criminals: Mo r e than 20,000 of the persons listed as fugi tives in our Identification Division are wanted as parole or probation violators. Of the 160 criminals who have appeared since March, 1950, on the FBI’s “ Ten Most Wanted Fugi tives” list, 135 have previously re ceived some sort of leniency. Q . Mr. Hoover, both you and the FBI are held in high esteem by most Ameri cans. What are the organizational prin ciples which you have followed, to earn this respect? A. The FBI is organized under three basic principles: Recruit the best-qualified men and women of in tegrity possible, thoroughly train them, and hold them strictly account able for the work they are assigned to perform. Each applicant for work in the FBI is thoroughly investigat ed and carefully judged to deter mine if he meets the high standards we have for employees. We strive to weed out the weak and the un trustworthy before they join us. We realize we hold a great trust, and all our principles of operation are aimed at insuring that we do not violate or misuse this trust in any way. —Courtesy of U.S. News and World Report
12
THE KING'S BUSINESS
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker