LIDO CIVIC CLUB OF WASHINGTON, Re H.R. 826. COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Washington, D.C. Attention: James T. Clark, Clerk. DEAR SIR: Thank you for your letter of February 13, 1967. On behalf of the Lido Civic Club, I wish to write to you to express its sentiments in support of the passage of the Anti-Crime Bill. We feel that with the ever-increasing rate of crime in the District of Columbia some legislative steps must be taken to protect the interests of the general public. While we wholeheartedly endorse passage of H.R. 826, we question whether or not this proposed Bill adequately copes with the handicap forced on law enforcement officers as a result of the Miranda decision. It would appear to our organization that police should not be required to legally advise suspects, nor should they be required to advise suspects that they are entitled to counsel. We submit that this is not proper police function, and in view of the extreme notariety and publicity attached to the effects of the Miranda decision, feel that suspects are more conversant with their rights than the police. We realize that H.R. 826 has its problems in passage, but strongly urge favorable consideration so that the pendulum of justice may once more swing to the benefit of the innocent general public rather than the overzealous protection of persons accused of a crime. Please advise whether there is anything else that this organization can do to assure the passage of an Anti-Crime Bill for the District of Columbia. With kindest personal regards, I am Very truly yours, Hon. JOHN MCMILLAN, Committee on the District of Columbia, P. JOSEPH SCUDERI, President. Washington, D.C., February 25, 1967. U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: As a businessman and a resident of the Washington area, the problem of crime in the District of Columbia is one of extreme concern to me. The ever-increasing toll of property loss and personal injury has shaken all in the business community as well as the community at large. Therefore, as a responsible businessman and taxpayer, I enlist your personal support of an effective anti-crime program. This program must be implemented with adequate police protection and sufficient court services to control crime and the criminal. I am sure that you share our concern and will do all in your power to effect a strong program to stem the tide of crime in the District of Columbia. Very truly yours, F. SCHRIER. THE METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON FEDERATION, Hon. LYNDON B. JOHNSON, DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: The Metropolitan Washington Fecdration of Business Associations, Inc., have gone on record stating the Metropolitan Police Department of Washington, D.C. are endeavoring to perform their duties in combating the increase in crime here in the District of Columbia as best then can, but they are hampered in making arrests by decisions of the higher courts thereby again turning the criminals loose on society. The crime situation here in the District of Columbia is dangerous in crimes of violence with weapons, especially so in robbery and related crimes and is getting worse and we do not know from whom or how to get protection. Your assistance and consideration is requested in this matter so as to make our homes, streets and businesses safe for all of our citizens. Respectfully yours, cc: Congressman McMillan Senator Bible LAWRENCE M. SIGLER, President. MARRIOTT-HOT SHOPPES, INC., Washington, D.C., February 28, 1967. The PRESIDENT, The White House, Washington, D.C. MR. PRESIDENT: As one of the major employers in the Washington area we would like to express our deep concern over the rising crime rate. In the past year we have been the victim of 16 robberies amounting to over $43,000 in uninsured losses. Most important, however, our employees' lives have been threatened and one of our restaurant managers was actually kidnapped in broad daylight. Because of this situation it is becoming more and more difficult to find competent men willing to work and raise a family in this environment. We are aware that we do not face this problem alone and that businesses large and small are confronted with the same situation. The closing of our shoppes in certain areas is not the answer. We would like to align ourselves with you in a positive and effective law enforcement program to make our Nation's Capital the prime example it should be. We are sure you and the members of Congress realize the seriousness of the problem and will give top priority to legislating effective anti-crime measures. We join with all responsible citizens in pledging our support to a constructive law enforcement program for the Washington area. Respectfully, cc: The Honorable John L. McMillan. J. W. MARRIOTT, Jr. GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, EXECUTIVE OFFICE, Washington, D.C., March 20, 1967. Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN, DEAR MR. MCMILLAN: The Commissioners of the District of Columbia desire to report on H. R. 2325, a bill "To require the registration of pistols in the District of Columbia, and for other purposes.' The principal purpose of the bill is to require persons owning or possessing handguns in the District of Columbia to register such weapons with the Chief of Police. The bill is identical to draft legislation submitted by the Commissioners to the 89th Congress on March 16, 1965 and introduced as H. R. 6745 and S. 1632. However, the Commissioners have concluded, in light of the serious nature of the crime problem in the District at the present time, and particularly in view of the high incidence of violent and armed crime, that more stringent controls are now necessary over the possession and ownership of handguns. Accordingly, on March 1, 1967, the Commissioners and the then Acting Attorney General of the United States jointly transmitted to the Congress a draft bill having for its short title the "District of Columbia Crime Reduction Act of 1967", and introduced as H.R. 7327. Title I of H.R. 7327 provides for the kind of control of acquisition and possession of handguns which the Commissioners feel is vitally needed in the fight against crime in the District. The provisions of the first title of H.R. 7327 would require, among other things, that 1. Any person desiring to possess or carry a pistol in the District of Columbia shall first obtain a permit. Such a permit would be issued by the Commissioners, in their discretion, upon a showing by an applicant of his good moral character, responsibility, and need for the weapon. 2. Any person purchasing or obtaining a pistol in the District shall, at the time of such acquisition, exhibit a permit to possess or carry a pistol, issued to him by the Commissioners, and no person may legally transfer a pistol to another without first having such permit exhibited to him. In addition, title I of H. R. 7327 would add to the categories of persons presently prohibited from possessing a handgun those persons who are drug users, alcoholics, or mental incompetents, and, except under regulations that the Commissioners may adopt, persons under twenty-one years of age. In the belief that the stringent provisions of title I of H. R. 7327 will provide more effective control over the possession of handguns in the District of Columbia than would be provided by H.R. 2325, the Commissioners strongly recommend that the Congress favorably consider these provisions rather than those contained in H.R. 2325. The Commissioners have been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that, from the standpoint of the Administration's program, there is no objection to the submission of this report to the Congress. Sincerely yours, WALTER N. TOBRINER, President, Board of Commissioners, D.C. GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Hon. JOHN MCMILLAN, Chairman, Committee on the District of Columbia, EXECUTIVE OFFICE, Washington, March 20, 1967. DEAR MR. MCMILLAN: The Commissioners of the District of Columbia have for report II.R. 4212, 90th Congress, a bill "Prohibiting the use in the District of Columbia of firearms in the commission of certain crimes." The bill provides that whoever uses or carries any firearm during the commission of any robbery, assault, murder, rape, burglary, kidnaping, or homicide (other than involuntary manslaughter) in the District of Columbia shall be imprisoned, in the case of his first offense, for not less than ten years, and in the case of his second or subsequent offense, for not less than twenty-five years. The Commissioners believe that the specified mandatory minimum sentences would severely limit the discretion of the sentencing judge. A mandatory minimum sentence is particularly objectionable when applied to the mere act of carrying a firearm, which may not be used in the commission of a crime. For example, a person committing an assault with the fist while having a pistol in his pocket would not be the appropriate subject of a ten year or twenty-five year mandatory minimum sentence. It should be noted that the defendant still can be charged with carrying a concealed firearm under existing law (D.C. Code, sec. 22-3204), where the penalty for a first offense is a fine of not more than $1,000 or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both. A second offender is punishable by imprisonment up to ten years. Also, section 22-3202, D.C. Code, provides that if any person shall commit a crime of violence in the District of Columbia when armed with or having readily available any pistol or other firearm, he may, in addition to the punishment provided for the crime, be imprisoned for a term of not more than five years. A second conviction is punishable by imprisonment for an additional period not exceeding ten years. A third conviction is punishable by imprisonment for an additional period not exceeding fifteen years. A fourth or subsequent conviction is punishable by imprisonment for an additional period of not more than thirty years. Furthermore, a mandatory minimum sentence, as proposed by the bill, would make it more difficult to obtain convictions since the Commissioners believe that a judge or jury would be hesitant to find a defendant guilty where the mandatory minimum sentence is ten years or twenty-five years. In light of the foregoing, the Commissioners oppose enactment of the bill. The Commissioners have been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that, from the standpoint of the Administration's program, there is no objection to the submission of this report to the Congress. Sincerely yours, WALTER N. TOBRINER, President, Board of Commissioners, D.C. THE POLICE DEPARTMENT SALARIES The minimum salary for an Officer shall be $10,000 per annum, with a $500.00 raise each year until he retires. This shall include all Officers of all ranks. ANNUAL LEAVE I further ask that all Officers of all ranks shall receive, 30 days Annual leave and 30 days sick leave. I also ask that the liaison between the Police Department and the Courts be improved. Because of this existing condition the moral of the Police officers is very low. FAMILY AND WIDOW BENEFITS In the Event an Officer loses his life while on duty, his widow or next of kin shall receive $2500.00 immediately. SCHOOL TEACHERS The basic salary for all school teachers shall be $7000.00 Per annum with a $500.00 raise each year until Said teacher retires. If it be possible the said teachers will receive salaries 2 months after the close of school. Remarks: In my opinion Such raises in the Departments mentioned, would do much to solve the ever increasing Crime rate in Washington D.C. It also will attract more Officers & Teachers in these Critical Departments. We must protect our Policemen, and try to get more qualified teachers. Respectfully Submitted by OSCAR W. EADY, 1302 S.C. Ave. SE Li-40460. (Constituent of the Hon. J. L. McMillan of South Carolina.) STATEMENT OF H. CLAY JOHNSON, PRESIDENT, ROYAL-GLOBE INSURANCE COMPANIES, ON BEHALF OF AMERICAN INSURANCE ASSOCIATION, BEFORE SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS, WEDNESDAY, APRIL 26, 1967 American Insurance Association is a voluntary, non-profit organization of 168 stock companies writing all lines of insurance other than life. Its member companies sell insurance through independent agents and brokers. The letter from the Chairman of this committee, inviting American Insurance Association to appear at these hearings, stated: "The purpose of this hearing will be to determine the extent of financial loss due to crime for small businesses and what remedies can be applied." We assume, therefore, that the Senate Select Committee on Small Business is concerned only with the diminishing market for certain types of crime protection insurance resulting from prevalence of crime in particular areas. It is our further understanding that this committee does not expect us to comment in detail at this time on S. 1484 establishing a Small Business Crime Protection Insurance Corporation. At the outset it should be helpful to outline briefly the manner in which crime insurance is sold. Burglary (which may include theft) insurance is available in a variety of policies covering different types of exposure. Burglary policies are designed for both commercial establishments and residential properties. Burglary insurance is also included in commercial multiple peril policies which provide coverage for many other risks. American Insurance Association companies account for approximately 90% of burglary insurance written as a specific coverage and over 80% of commercial multiple peril coverage which includes burglary insurance. Thus, our member companies provide the major crime insurance market for the businessman. There are a number of other types of insurance which insure against crime. Most fire insurance policies have attached thereto the so-called extended coverage endorsement which, among other things, provides indemnity for damage caused by riot or civil commotion. Vandalism and malicious mischief coverage can be added as a supplement. These coverages are also embraced within the various multiple peril policies for both residential and commercial properties. Plate glass insurance covers glass losses caused by malicious destruction or vandalism and, again, this protection can be purchased either separately or as part of a multiple peril policy. Other forms of commercial insurance providing protection against crime losses are so-called inland marine policies which are of an "all-risk" nature and written for types of establishments such as camera, fur and jewelry stores. As already mentioned, the trend in recent years is for burglary insurance to be written as part of a multiple peril policy. Thus, although the premiums written by stock companies under separate burglary and theft policies declined from $104 million in 1961 to $98 million in 1965, this was more than offset by the increase in premiums written under commercial multiple peril policies which rose from about $75 million in 1961 to almost $445 million in 1965. With the substantial increase in crime, commercial burglary insurance underwriting experience has deteriorated in recent years. In 1959, the average incurred claim cost for burglary insurance (excluding residential risks) was $360.00 and in 1965 it was $485.00. For the entire period 1961-1965, incurred losses and expenses have exceeded premiums and over the last three years (1963 to 1965) the aggregate underwriting loss for stock companies exceeded $11 million. This deteriorating underwriting experience was incurred despite a succession of upward rate revisions which have averaged 18.2% countrywide during the period 1964 to date. It is interesting to note the rate adjustments in certain areas for the same period: Los Angeles (excluding Catalina Island).. Cuyahoga County (Cleveland) Detroit Metro. District.. New York County (Actually, the 1966 revision was not ap proved until April 12, 1967) District of Columbia__ +9.3 - 12. 9 No change +0.5 +34. 2 +61. 5 These rate increases relate only to burglary and theft insurance written separately, but embrace both commercial and residential coverages. However, the rise in crime has also adversely affected commercial multiple peril experience. Also, part of the sharp increase is partially explained by the narrowing nature of this line of insurance as more and more burglary coverage is being written in the commercial multiple line policies. While crime is a nationwide problem affecting all areas, both urban and rural, the heaviest impact of property crimes has been felt in urban centers and their suburbs. Where crime is rampant, understandably underwriters cannot provide the same kind of market as exists under normal conditions. Our rating bureaus do not establish separate rating areas for individual cities or sections of cities. Instead, a county is used as the rating basis and there is no subdivision within the county for rating purposes. If one part of the county has an unusually high crime incidence, that is reflected in the insurance losses charged against the entire county. As a consequence, risks located within areas which are continually overridden with crime and violence will naturally become less desirable from the standpoint of prudent underwriting. Stock companies sell their product through local independent agents and brokers whose principal clients are the small businessmen. Insurers are not insensitive to the plight of the businessman who lives from day to day in constant fear of robbery, burglary, shoplifting, vandalism, and other crimes. In our judgment, however, the cure for this situation must lie in the safeguarding of life and property by the forces of law and order rather than in attempting to arrange financial indemnification after these forces have failed in their appointed duty. Surely, terror and destruction cannot be tolerated as a normal condition of a civilized society. The basis principle of insurance is predicated on the expectation that losses will occur with reasonable predictability. Insurance rates are designed for various degrees of risk, and with sufficient rating flexibility companies are able to provide an adequate market for insurance under a variety of circumstances where law and order prevail, but when law and order breaks down the principle of insurance becomes impossible of application. We recognize that insurance companies have a vital stake in the crime problem. The causes of crime are deep and complex; the solution is the number one job facing the nation on the homefront. There is a growing awareness in all industries, including insurance, that the private sector must work with the public sector in solving many of our difficult domestic problems. Our insurance industry has an outstanding record of performance in this respect, ranging all the way from participation in the government's War Damage Insurance program during World War II, through the later cooperative effort with the AEC in solving the problem of |