knowing his name. in the community oriented police, they would have been able to say that was alexander. or that was striker or that was, you know, the officer that comes through here all the time. they couldn't even relate to it was so that is a total disconnect. >> they are dealing with the fact that it's a whole lot harder to shoot somebody you know. it's a lot harder to shoot somebody and you were able in the decision-making peace of who is a threat and who is not a threat when you know the people in the community. and so i talk to folks when the police officers know this kid is a baby and he might be 6 feet tall at 13, but he's not going to hurt anybody. and this this kid is fourth with three that he is a killer and i know that because i know the

community. at what point do we stop saying that over and over again either the community policing becomes a fabric of local police policy or do we understand when you have percentages of officers that within communities, those officers have a different perception of policing my community versus occupy in their community. >> this is a all-day faceted issue but i will say one thing that you gave as a part of your answer your cell phone a police agency has a collaborative community policing program, that is a problem. it is a program or the six officers over there in the community policing and the rest of us do real policing or is it a philosophy that is welded in the agency and this is how we function and this is how we operate. you are part of that community.

you are not an independent for years and into try to keep the peace. you are part of that community that you serve and you become part of it and that has to be mandated everywhere from the chief all the way through the agency said that when the reverend walks out into an issue that occurred in the police show up the reverend can look at him and say tom let me expect to you what's going on here. that becomes a part of our process because this is as much i want to know what your score was when he when he went to the range to shoot and also want to know what you're relationship as with other people in the community. but we have to be able to do is always give it to the communication and have contact with each other because

something is going to go awry just by the nature of the job something is going to happen that they are not going to agree on but if they are able to sit down and communicate because they have relationships that makes it better. >> about you all talked about it this is someone from the outside looking in that police leadership are looking at two options. a zero-tolerance option or a community policing option. >> but i don't believe that it is zero tolerance. >> if we are looking across the country, it almost seems as if the moment that there is a spike in crime that the response is zero tolerance, and in many cases you can have zero color -- zero tolerance. why does it seem again the perception on the outside looking in the dc political pressure to have zero-tolerance versus political pressure to have the community policing.

spin it because every mayor that i work for somewhere in the united states of america that has an emerging crime rate and he or she needs to get we elected and that is the reality of the peace, too. when we have the police living in the communities communities are the cities ideally that is great but in many cities and in many of the accumulative senate country we have the police unions that are very strong and very positive and they push back very strongly on that. so it's not just the police often times. it is also other entities that may have influence, whether it is elected officials, police units, etc.. but i think that one of the most important things that can happen , and the chief striker spoke to this come is that developing a philosophy in policing. i becomes a part of that culture, we are going to see

change. i'm totally convinced of that and it's going to have been pretty fast in this country. i truly believe it because we are at a place right now in light of everything that has happened and is continuing to happen, there is going to be change. and i think the president and attorney general are positioning us for their change. but it's going to be pushed back into print places. but we still got the fight because we didn't get here overnight but the important thing is that for us as a community one thing we know we have to have, we have to have public safety. a policing are not the policing are not going away and neither are the communities. >> i'm going to open up the floor to you all after these very quick questions because none of these are easy.

but when you talk about getting to that place and there is a slogan that is thrown around over and over again. sometimes it seems to be the case if there is a perception that there is a lack of justice, to be asked this point blank. if we look at the majority of the cases over the last ten years that have involved the police shootings and we understand that in many cases there have been few indictments that have come from local judges were state judges in many cases when there was an indictment of any kind of ended up being federal investigations that came in and overturned in many cases rulings that have already been made by local judges are we saying in your estimation that most of those police shootings

were justified or can we acknowledge that in many cases there is a flawed process by way of a grand jury and in many cases the infringer was relationship between prosecutors and police and that we need to provide local communities with more options than the judges are grand juries that included a civilian review the civilian review comes to show prosecutors, as the role. >> there is no question about it here talking about perception. the reason people don't buy the decision in ferguson another reason it is the way it is is in fact the whole region is the way that it is is because people do not trust the criminal justice system. not just police. they don't trust the courts, they don't trust the judges and they don't even trust their

governor because that is their dalia experience in that community. i'm going to tell you those people have been horribly mistreated by the criminal justice community in ferguson. there is absolutely no question about it. i don't mean to be biased. michael brown was just the tipping point to what's going on. that's all he was. it was coming eventually but it happened on his time on this earth. if you remember a few weeks later in st. louis. they returned fire. you can't get any more justifiable than that. the problem and the outrage of the community was the police must've thrown down must have

thrown down a gun on the ground because that just continues to speak to because these people are not irrational or a logical. they are just as smart as anybody else and they support the police just as anybody else but the fact that there was absolutely no trust in their whole criminal justice system, that speaks volumes. >> and that isn't just perception because if he is in that same time span -- >> the one that had a knife. >> within 16 seconds of the police showing up that young man was shot. he wasn't lunging towards them and so there are some perception issues but there are some reality issues. i want to deal with the accountability piece. how do they feel comfortable when in many cases the only

options are a grand jury or judge neither of which they trust and there isn't a rule that says a special prosecutor comes in during certain situations and to be a civilian review. and do we see more effective accountability of the officers? >> a special prosecutor coming and that he doesn't in that it doesn't have a relationship and make a difference? instead of the special prosecutor that was brought in and the officer that shot and killed a young man and wide about it and he did a poor job in my estimation. i wasn't even as the police chief was never even called as a witness in the trial. how do you excuse back into the officer was found not guilty as

an exceptional police officer in his background he has the dishonesty of shooting and killing someone. how do we explain this? i don't think that we have an explanation for it. i will say that there was one way that we proved that an officer had applied in that situation and that is we started to put -- mounted cameras in the cars at the time. we only had them in about 15 cars. that intersection was not directly involved in the incident and recorded the entire incident. what is the chance of that and can we win the lottery tonight x. guess what happened. the one car drove to that intersection at that exact point in the second when the officer pulled the trigger and fired a weapon.

that is how we were able to stand there and say that this officer is lighting. the officers stories without the technology stands as justifying the incident because they gave a convoluted statement that said that they did justifiable for him to inspire his weapon at that point killing that young man. but as a police chief, knowing that i've got an officer isn't truthful without that's technology i could not have said that we've got a dishonest police officer. that is and what occurred so my point is technology could help us in the future. we have body mounted cameras and i see people walking around with them on their chest. if i am training an officer i'm talking to you and i'm going to keep my gun side away from you where's my camera where is my camera pointed? it's pointed there and i'm talking to you here so i'm getting a recording of that

screen while my decision-making is based on your reactions. so we have to not only have this technology but we need to require the officers to wear them headmounted so that the camera is recording most closely what i'm looking at. that's what we need to have, not only to to the cameras on the officers that require the officers to wear them so that we are recording exactly what that officer is looking at so that the officer has a an opportunity to explain what he or she did and why. those are the critical questions that always have to be answered and then as quickly as possible that information is to be disseminated in the communities of the community can understand what the police do and why they do it. very much like what you talked about in the beginning and with the two gentlemen have talked

about. >> but let's be honest even when the camera is on people would say we have video and there is still a perception between the accepted force and what is not and what information the grand juries are good then and now the prosecutors are connected and how that is given because i think that they would even be debated among the audience right now about was worse used against eric accepted or not editor with the members that would say no it's not and their would-be members that would say it is. there would their would-be citizens that see it doesn't do video was there even when we have the technology there are still perception issues and what is the board to approve excessive force was used and there is a process by which evidence is presented in all of

those are flawed in certain parts of the country that we have to deal with. what i want to do because that could be a discussion the gentlemen that are helping me with the microphones if you would stand at the bottom of the stairwell and if you have a question if you could begin to get in line so we don't have them running around as you all are getting in line to ask your questions i would like to ask the reverend because if there are two sides of this i think that there's issues of training but there's also a community status and so what are we saying to the citizens and what are we saying to young people in particular about how to engage police officers and how to know your rights and how to behave in a way that even if an officer is wrong you can walk away from an

incident without a police officer using force. what are effective ways to communicate to the citizens even in the face of bad law enforcement how to walk away from a situation and in the case of good law enforcement how we are working with them to be more effective. >> the training is definitely necessary at different levels beyond the basic training. i guess you would call them military and you go to the basic and then you are on your way. but i debate the training also has to be community training. that is there are pockets in our community that i think would be open and accessible to understanding some of those dynamics you mentioned. how do you deal with dialogue in with police and trust and how are you sensitive in your day-to-day operation with that

police officer when he pulls you over you talked about ferguson for a moment if my understanding is that the officer told the young man to get on the sidewalk or something and that kind of dialogue if it would have taken place appropriately maybe we wouldn't be talking about ferguson. it's water under the bridge now. but i think the sensitivity training one of the projects we have a curriculum that is well known called thinking for change in how to a change in how to critically think cognitively about what you do and how you do it and in terms of everyday

living. they are wide open. i don't know if you've been prophetic that there's something coming down the pike that's going to bring about the vast change. that struck me for a moment. what does that mean for the community? i understand the need for the law enforcement for the attorney general and the like that we are going to have some sweeping changes but what does that mean to the community. how do we ensure that there is leadership built up and trained and ready to go and here are ways we can build better relationships.

even at high schools and elementary schools. it's to talk about the coalitions to reduce violence and how that is connected in the police department. there've been policing dollars in the federal level for quite sometime but there has to be a will among the leadership at the local level to make that work. i want to make sure that we get to the questions and so as we do that there are rules. the first is asked a question. the second is ask a question and the third rule is asked a question. we all know that everybody that came into the room is brilliant, so you have to prove it. you have 30 seconds to set up your question at which time if you can direct it to one of the

panelists that would be fantastic so we can get through as many as possible. >> it is proof that you talk 30% longer than you would if you have the microphone in your hand. >> we could take the issue of the militarization of the police force and the resource communities that are underserved there's money for the police but there is no education for jobs in for community development. >> how do we deal with, number one, the question a lot of those materials come from the federal

government were. how do we balance those resources coming the other resources not coming. >> i think that is a question beyond the chiefs because that is surplus military equipment that we didn't buy into the other thing is every police department doesn't have this military equipment by the way. but agencies that do have it, they've been given part of what you're going to see happen, part of this change that you're going to see happen is that there's going to be accountability. the president has already talked about this. so it isn't going to be just shipped out to you from the department of defense. it has to go through a process. you have to show the training and you cannot use it for what we saw in the ferguson. that won't be allowed.

but i think we are going to see some sweeping changes but that is nothing but across the country it is intended to do. that is just equipment that has been given to them if they choose to have it and i think the way that has been done in the past is wrong you can just say give it to a police agency and they do whatever they want to do without it, with policies being written when you utilize this equipment. >> you talk about that not being able to have been anywhere them anymore but there is no policy in place right now. police departments will be held accountable using the equivalent >> there is nothing in place right now that's correct. but if any -- if there's a police agency out there right now that has the equipment the way they did in ferguson i think

-- there may be some who will do that. >> that you and i both know insein is a perception in that there are police departments that can justify the use of that equipment based on situations that are happening so what currently is the witness or is it just a based upon department by department would situation has to exist for that equipment could be used? >> police agencies are ruled by local government and therefore they are individualized. i think it is in the deployment of this kind of deployment that officers would have the equipment and i think cedric would agree with me they have the equipment for extraordinary situations. we have a sniper someplace

hurting people and we need to get close to that person and enter the building and get in there and naturalized the threat so that our community is safe again these are the kind of situations that we visualize and i don't believe that if they were intended for everyday use and i think that they don't use it for every day. everyday. >> and the misstep on the government to not have more stringent guidelines and say here is specifically -- you are handing out heavy weapons. >> something should have been done but it wasn't in the situation you have to have common sense and let's face it they need to make these decisions for agencies of the agency isn't allowing the community to help them make that decision we are operating in a vacuum and they will probably be the next agency.

>> my question is why do i look threatening just as i'm standing here leaning on something? i had the occasion to have my dispatcher call the police as i noticed a break-in they noticed a break-in at 3 a.m. at a gas station. the police showed up and asked me to wait for them. i'm standing just like i am right now and the officer that showed up got his shotgun out and leveled it at me. had i moved i'm not so sure that i could tell you the story. they taught me not to point a gun at somebody unless you were going to shoot at them. i would like to know my question is why don't police receive the training quick >> i can't tell you they don't receive the training and i can't speak to the officer why he or she performs as they did that

night. it doesn't sound like a reasonable response but i don't know what information the officer had to make that decision. i would offer you this if it ever happens again and you do have the courage to call the police again here's where i'm standing and i'm going to keep the phone open. please tell whoever is responding i'm not the perpetrator but it's difficult and people ask this all the time of the police chiefs. i had this happen why did it happen. i can only ask the officer asked the officer what he or she was thinking at the time and they may have a rational reasonable response but then again they might not. i doubt that they could ever have a response reasonable enough to satisfy you. if it were me in a position i guarantee you.

>> did you report the officer? spinnaker i did not. i was happy to be alive. i'll be honest. if i'm white i would do a lot more reporting. just being honest dealing with the 800-pound gorilla in the room. i know that there were a lot of black men if they were white and the police treated them they would get a badge number a lot quicker than if they were african-american. as a citizen what are our rights and responsibilities as it relates to how we are treated by the police and if we are treated unfairly, but it's is our option and how is that viewed the next >> agency specific a progressive agency will have the opportunity

for you to make a complaint about any police officer at any time 24 hours a day, seven days a week and, 365 days a year you can make it autonomously in person through a third person come online, over the phone, however you want to do it and that agency if it is a responsible agency will thoroughly investigate the incident and get back to you with at least an explanation for what the officer said he or she did and why they did it. it might not satisfy you but if they are very good and they will explain to you here are the circumstances come here's the training and here's why we do what you do i hope you understand, some agencies won't do that. i was at a conference in texas but an agency and their use of force policy, the use of force policy for guns was never take me out in anger to never put me

away in shame. this was less than 20 years ago. never take me out in anger or put me away in shame. how do you make a complaint in that agency, make one if you think you can. so there's an entire spectrum of responses to citizens. i would say one is horribly wrong and not progressive and the other one is what we should expect from our agencies and demand from police agencies, no two ways about it we have to demand accountability and oversight of our police officers and our police agencies not to demean the officers officers or agencies or demonize were agencies or demonize them in any way, shape or form but we should be able to say whether we are doing a good job without a job and we should be able to get verification from the communities and if we can't, something isn't going well.

>> we have about 15 minutes unless someone tells me otherwise so i want to make sure we get to as many questions as possible. what i would like to do is if we can get free questions immediately we will get the panel to answer those and then we will try to get to the last three which obviously means if you are not in line, please don't get in line. yes sir. ..

>> anyone can answer. he talked about mistrust in the police, especially in the african-american community. so what do you think is a community you would need to see from law-enforcement on a day-to-day basis to rebuild that trust in law enforcement among members of the community? >> thank you. three questions. each of you take one and a free place you can come you mention some of those things. talk a little bit more about what you'd like to see vermont force-fed and the other two questions in some cases were dovetail. obviously we talk about the percentage of african-american officers shooting non-african-american and that speaks to the percentage. we've got fewer african-american

officers, so that goes to the first question. if you ought to deal with pipelined, i would love for you to hear about what are some programs to target the development of officers from communities of color, whether black, latino, asian or officers that represent a smaller percentage of various forces. are there programs or pipelines working. reverend, if you ask that and then mr. alexander or stryker, take the other two questions. >> yeah, i think i heard him say we build trust. we have to first build trust. we cannot rebuild but not as been built. i am not sure where you're coming from that on that. i just think the consciousness across the community has to be allocated from leadership and not just governmental, political law-enforcement leadership. leadership across the board. for his tints, in my community,

some of my plan -- not me personally, but the colleagues i work with is to bring the white is this community closer to the black business community, white churches closer to black churches. and in a sense the collaborative efforts to begin project to dialogue across the board with tears of leaders. young people have to begin to see leaders who are credible coming together, not just ceremoniously. not just to say we had a great conversation and we join hands, but to really have serious, short and long-term goals about transforming the village. bob franklin, former president of morehouse college wrote the book crises in the village.

you said ferguson, if you will, cedric, represents a unique situation in terms of trust or mistrust in the criminal justice system. i would take that further to say that is not unique to ferguson. when you look at mass incarceration across america and the like, mistrust of the criminal justice system and mistrust of police's nationwide. ferguson happens to be the metaphor right now. to answer your question, it is not an easy tape. it is going to take some serious, serious planning, dialogue game. implementing initiatives in the long and short term that turned this around at every level. there must be leadership at the top, leadership at the bottom coming together and ensuring we not only dialogue, but that we come up with creative long and

short-term plans. >> mr. alexander, if you take a part of the question, which i thought was interesting is philosophically should we start looking not however crew for police officers were not necessarily a career decision. in some cases we look at education and teachers. but is that he thought process in certain communities? what does that look like? >> there are less and less career police officers joining the force today. what we have learned is the millennial population, in particular, and i see everyday detail people coming on at 21, 22 years of age, they may not stage but three, four, five years and they are moving on. they are not during the 25 and 30 years as their parents and others have done. these kids come and stay for a short period of time and move on to something else. i see that every day in and

around the atlanta community. so that is happening on its own. in terms of here again the recruitment, yes, we have to recruit better. but remember about every thousand young people or persons, not necessarily 21 because there is no age limit, but for 1000 people that may apply to be police officers, we may end up with 30 or 40 or 50 or 60 out of that group and we trainman. but i think our training modules have to change in terms of how we trained police officers. because there is much to be done in the area around communication, around cultural competence and around confronting and facing our own biases and knowing what they are

because we all have them. regardless of whether officers of black and white, what we want at the end of the day is a good public servant who will come out and serve and protect the community at large. we as community members have to support them as well, too. >> chief stryker, let me have you come in and give closing up on his questions. the other question asked is about african-american officers. part of the reasoning i hear regularly is about fewer african-american applies to be police officers. few were make it through the process. in many cases, there are young people in the communities that make themselves ineligible to go to the academy as a result of things that happen to them previously and their life. our departments beginning to do a better job of creating pipelines? talking to young people about being in line for us men at early ages? looking at some of the schools

that are focusing on one forstmann, whether to be a lawyer or a law-enforcement officer. what are the ways you are finding effective ways to fill the pipeline that we are talking about so we can see increased numbers of latino, asian, african-american officers in certain communities. >> i think some agencies are. one of the disconnects in policing is the decision-making in policing basically comes with your tenure. as if he's got several years oncoming you are considered a veteran officer come you make decisions about how the agency runs. if you have not been there for a couple of years come up we will tell you how it is done here. unfortunately, there is a disconnect, a generational disconnect in policing. there are probably people like myself who start to talk about technology. i think it is a wonderful thing, but i am scared to death of it.

i have five grandchildren who grabs my iphone and can functionally operated. three of them are three years old. they can function and do things with it that i didn't know what to do. so there is a clue right there for us. that is part of how we are functioning. we are just nasty agencies lose things entre nous things like facebook, twitter, those things that appeal to the masses. again, how do we project police departments? would you like to be a police officer? what is a police officer? do we tell people there are literally dozens if not hundreds of different jobs you can do inside of a police department? do you want to be a forensic detective? would you like to be someone who becomes, let me think of this term, i can't even think of it. anyway, the person who can take different types of images and recording and put those altogether and present to you a picture of what occurred is on

recording audio and visual. i forget the name of that position, but all of these different things can be done, including just being a police officer. the real reason is historically in every single police agency across this country, your best recruiting trail calisto employs themselves. they say it allocate name cedric alexander who lives down the street. he is neighbors my mother, whatever. let's recruit this kid. he would be a good cop. i've got a daughter, uncle, aunt. most of that comes up inside the agency. historically, police agencies have been white. but starting in 1971. most recruit classes were 15 mike tyson two black eyes. one would pass, the other would fail. we would have 51 people come out. if you're recruiting is coming from inside the agency, your best recruiting is coming from inside and you are hiring 50

white guys and one black guy, what were your recruiting continue to be quiet to be? so if agencies progress than we do become more open, our agency is about 38% african-american, about 25% female and the rest are white guys, it is going to change the way we recruit because that internal recruiting mechanism we use is going to reach out to be much more diverse community. that is their own community. that is what i think the best method for us moving forward is. >> thank you. if you can very quickly ask your question and then we are going to outlaw our panelists are closing thoughts. >> this question is for mr. alexander or cheese streicher. is there anything in place going back to the training you were talking about that routinely port annually tested

psychologically or within the stress factor to determine if they have anything going on at home or bringing problems to work or if they have been asked military and they may have a relapse of suppressed things they have been holding back that they want to respond to on that particular call come in dealing with that victim, said victim, said fact or the citizen if you will. is there any kind of thing in place that is testing them for stress and psychological things? >> yes, sir. >> since the incident that happened like this, the entire nation gets involved. i am wondering if it would be feasible, since police officers across the country have such extreme authority and the power, would it be feasible to have dialogue about having a federal regulations that govern all police departments across the

nation, which would have uniform code. >> yes, sir. >> i spent the last 10 years working in education. can you point to specific examples of community engagement or school engagement opportunities to police departments have taken into their engagement strategy as they progress? initiatives reaching out to black males or the entire schools? >> check out the okay program. >> people talk about examples that have worked. >> we've only got three questions in 90 seconds each. i am trying to help get your question answered. there is a program called the okay program that is about a 15-year-old program where officers come out with a traditional law enforcement role and serve between groups of young people in certain communities inside and outside of the schools. it is run by a brother by the name of donald northcross.

it is all former and current law-enforcement and the young people that have gone through the program, all of the young people that have gone through the program for the last 15 years, all of them have graduated from high school. 80% have gone on to college and none have been murdered. so it is one example of a program and at least 13 or 14 cities over a 15 year period that you can take a look at as one of the models that doesn't incredible job of connect and law-enforcement, young people in a vault where they are so police officers, but there will is very much different than what it would normally be, helping create broader relationships. it is called the okay program. yes, sir. >> let me clear up something real quickly. not a word has been mentioned about the civil rights division of doj. i spent 39 years in the fbi. i ran the fbi civilize program. this criminal section of the

civil rights division will look at every single case that comes up that meet certain basic requirements such as in ferguson or the rodney king case. people are writing based on the presumption that justice has not been served. it is not over yet. people have to understand that. my question to the leaders of these communities, have there been coalitions of leaderships, whether it is ferguson, cincinnati or wherever, to dispel the misperceptions on the part of the people that has caused the riots. it has happened in ferguson, but they've done the truth and let people know what is going on. all right. >> great last question that could start another two-hour

conversation. [laughter] i have never moderated a panel then three more prolific people, as your closing remarks. and i will be timing you. and answer any one of the four questions or anything that is not been said. normally i would make the reverend go last, be you are not the most long-winded on the panel. so i will start with cheese streicher. >> we've started something tonight that is a very dynamic conversation. who would have ever thought that the foundation that built the martin luther king memorial and the national law enforcement officer organization would come together on an issue that is as jc and challenging as race in

america, especially where race affects policing and communities across america. this is something that islam needed to be done. i speak from a tremendous amount of experience, having been one of the last major city to host a race riots in america if that's what you want your legacy to be. that is not a good legacy to have. this last gentleman that just so clear from the fbi was right in what he talked about here. is there a coalition of people? this is what we talked about earlier. how good our relationships between police agency, local agency and communities themselves. are they superficial or are they true relationships that i can pick up a sony make a call and say something occurred. here is what i can tell you at this point. i'm going to meet with you in 30 minutes, one hour, whatever it is. i need your help get information into the community. no one can do that sitting

inside of a pickle jar or isolating themselves until something bad happens. either way, now i need your help. it doesn't work that way. relationships have to be existing. they have to be powerful relationships and trusting relationships and they cannot be there a temporary basis. relationships have to be worked on constantly. each and every day to the point where you become, happy and they see it is time to give up your seat and put somebody in there who truly has invested in that community and wants to see that community get better. >> thank you yet almost two minutes exactly. mr. alexander. >> you know, when i think about this whole thing, and i'm going to be really short here, i am optimistic that we as a nation are going to find solutions to much of what we talked about tonight. i truly believe that.

i truly believe that the health of our president and attorney general who has made a commitment. i was in the room with attorney general holder last night in atlanta and he has a real commitment and has been passed by the president to do some things, to help change this whole narrative around police community relationships in this country. here is from a more global purse back to an bad days, all of us in this room, not just believe, not just criminal justice, but whether the private side of industry, government and education, at the end of the day we are all american citizens at risk and we are all at threat. from a global, we are not going to be continuing to be a strong nation as long as we stay divided because we have elements out there, i.e. isil that is

infiltrating and looking for witnesses. they recruit them in their recruitment, we all become out risk. so as a nation, from a global perspective, from the nation, we have to fix their own social problems here and we know they are not fixed overnight. what we do know is if we are working together, it will push back those who will threaten the integrity of this nation and not for me is the bigger issue out of all of this because we have been raffling with race from the beginning of this country and we are still wrestling with it because of all of this we are talking about tonight is raised. we are not going to fix it in some short period of time. if we begin to work as a country together, regardless of what side of the aisle you sit on, regardless of what your race may happen to be, but we have to fix

this together because if we don't, we will weaken ourselves as a nation and that is just something we are not going to be able to do in order to be a strong united states of america. >> thank you so much. reverend. >> amen. he said he wasn't going to be long. that was two minutes and 30 seconds. [laughter] you've always got to worry when someone says this will be sure. >> was hoping he would be long. since i was last i was going to take a tax and i still take one in my closing remarks. i won't have three closings like most pastors. but i will say this, that without a vision, people perish. that is scripture, proverbs 29: 18. unless we have visionary leadership, not only in the moment as you mentioned, chief,

but in this moment that i believe is occurring, without visionary leadership, we will continue to see our villages and crises. i represent one of the institutions in every community that is the local church. and by the way, just called it the training center. it is actually a nondenominational church in the heart of new orleans. at the end of the day, the faith community, the business community, the governmental community, every day people, there has to be the connectedness that cedric talked about, the coalition building that somebody else mentioned. but in this movement, there must be takeaways. we can't just a dialogue and walk away and say okay, we had a

great evening and washington d.c. i would hope even from this process that notes were taken and we can begin to talk about how we build upon the takeaways, even from this very purposeful and tension all discussion. otherwise we are just going through the motions. we just go through the processes of coming together. although this is an aggregate of people, he can become more than an aggregate if we would put it in writing and declared in new orleans in cincinnati, all across this country we would have more discussions like this that are purposeful, but again, we walk away with our solutions and they keep going back to short-term, long-term. this won't happen overnight. but there are some things that can be immediately done in every community with great leadership, visionary leadership, inquiring

of the lord as i would put in my vernacular and i believe it doesn't take everybody doing it. as i said, early in the conversation, there are people on the ground, people everyday who have voices that are never heard. if we can begin to process ways by which we hear the voices of more of our young people who are not just protesting, that there aren't equal number of them sitting up home with ideas, how do we coalesce all of that to begin to say in every community, you know, every neighborhood, we have come up with solutions, action oriented solutions where we have conceptualized actionable solutions for every neighborhood to turn itself around. just on the one issue out doping

trust. building trust between police and everyday citizens. so in new orleans, that trust is already better in some parts of our city. in other parts of our city, it has never been there and that is what often time we call it the tale of two cities. i believe there is a unity that can come about. we don't lack resources in america. we lack togetherness. my time is up. thank you. [applause] >> a good preacher knows what to amen means. i think there may be some final remarks, but i am appreciative of the best moderator. there was no way to cover all of the things that needed to be covered. but i think the conversation was a good one. i know that one of the things mentioned was the young people. the next time there is a panel

like this, i hope we have a young person on the panel. if there is an answer to the things that ails us, it's coming from the minds and hearts of young people. so often they are the brunt of what is being dealt with and we saw the nice thing to be involved in the solution process. one of my mentors in the house, dr. ben, dr. ben mohammed, i know him as dr. ben who personified young people at a time who understood that no matter what, they had to move and act in a way they felt was necessary and i think he and others work with young people all over this country that even when they are angry, give us insight on some of the direction we need to take. so as we are talking about community policing, many of those young people are the ones being the least. i hope as we talk about

solutions, one of those solutions is ensuring we don't ever have a conversation of any kind without young people been at the table, in the room and part of the solution. if we do, we continue to talk about them as opposed to continue to talk with them. i hope we take that as one of the solutions. thank you, gentlemen, so much for your insight. for your experience. [laughter] and i would like to see thank you to both of the organizations that have been involved to come together to make this panel a reality, the memorial foundation as well as the lon forstmann museum, law enforcement museum. it is foundation. i just wanted to put foundation because i was going to say give them money. [laughter] >> i thought you would agree with that. but these organizations do need to be supportive and i

appreciate the fact they have come together because they were so many people that want to have this discussion, but don't want to bring people together and aren't normally involved in the discussion. we should continue to support that and hopefully we can make this a digital go on the road and be involved in part of the discussion that has solutions all over the place. thank you for allowing me to be your moderator and have a fantastic evening. [applause] >> let me just close by saying how proud i am that we were able to partner tonight with the national law enforcement officers memorial fund, which the law enforcement museum is a part of and with the memorial foundation, the group that built the martin luther king jr. memorial and what a wonderful memorial and tribute to a great man that is. what i loved about this evening as we are in a unique decision at the memorial fund to bring together long for senate leaders. when we asked people like chief

streicher and dr. alexander to come and have a discussion on an issue that is relevant today, they dropped what they were doing and they were here. just as harry, you were so kind to give us reverend watson and you have so many great leaders in your organizations. if we can simply partner up with the great people in law enforcement that i have had the privilege of meeting the last 30 years, these are men and women that want to help people and bring communities together and given the chance, they will do that. but we've got to have conversations like this. i love the idea spoken here tonight. the philosophies were all seemingly on the same page. as the reverend so eloquently said, we've got to continue this discussion. it's got to be more the conversation. it's got to be setting goals and working towards those goals and making sure we have the right leaders to do so. between our two organizations,

we can make that happen. thank you all for being here. jeff, fabulous job. have a good evening, ladies and gentlemen. [applause] [inaudible conversations] ..

senator john mccain, the likely new chairman of the armed services committee who will hold the confirmation hearing said in a statement -- and the outgoing armed service committee chair, senator carl levin released this statement -- >> we've been asking you to do what you think of the nomination. more than 120 so far have left your thoughts on facebook. he wa was the only one who would accept the job to avoid else said no. lend a post doesn't make any difference -- he will be gone unless he is a yes man. you can join the conversation at facebook.com/cspan.

>> here are some the programs you'll find this weekend on the c-span that works.

>> again coming up in just under 15 minutes, a forum on korea at the wilson center and/or live coverage gets underway, a portion of today's "washington journal." >> and on your screen is maya schenwar, the editor in chief of the new site called truthout.org and she's the author of this new book, "locked down, locked out: why prison doesn't work." who is kayla? >> guest: kaylee is my sister who's actually been incarcerated

on and off for the last nine years. >> host: why? >> guest: there have been a number of reasons but the overriding element is that she is a drug addict. she's been addicted to heroin and has committed a variety of very small crimes as a result. >> host: was that tough to write about in your book? >> guest: it was horrifying. actually at the beginning i was thinking there must be a way to write this book without incorporating my personal story. and i had a series of nights were i woke up in the middle of the night and thought, i have to write, and everything coming out was personal. and that goes beyond my sister actually. i have had a number of phone calls -- penpals in prison over the years, and my correspondence with them has become friendship. because of that their stories come through in the book as

well. >> host: what is her prison experience and what is your experiencexperienc e been visiting her? >> guest: her present expense i think the defining factor has been isolation and separation, and they have created a life for her where her main skill set is existing within present. and i think that's the case, especially for a lot of young offenders who go in. they become accustomed to juvenile detention and then that's the life they graduate to. that's been the court for her. in terms of my family, we've also i think become accustomed to this life of visiting come of constantly waiting for a phone call come of going into prison and often being treated kind of like prisoners ourselves. and every communication we've had with her during the time

she's been incarcerated has been monitored and surveilled. that's the way your relationship over the years when have a family member and incarcerated. >> host: you talk about the fact as a phone murder you've been treated as a priest or sometimes. what do you mean? >> guest: i think the experience of going into a prison is very strange because it's something that for most people you've only seen on tv. this kind of absorbed these pop-culture element and you think somehow for your family member it will be different. going into the prison there's a very strong sense of anxiety as soon as you walk in the door, knowing that the people inside can't get out. that human beings are being caged. that sounds dramatic but that's just a straightforward the case. so as a phone number you feel that identification with the person you love behind bars. be on that you are in face of

searches often. your health often in waiting rooms without a bathroom, without access to food. there are all these procedures had to go through throughout the time of visiting every similar to people behind bars, including the way that you're able to interact within. sometimes h you can't even give him a hug. often your behind a glass window and you can't reach out and touch them. >> host: in your book, "locked down, locked out," prison is caring society apart. >> guest: so the way that he mean that is not really metaphorical. and i try in the book to kind of come back to what are the basics that make us human and make us whole and make us able to live together. at a lot of them touching on is the family. from the way the prison tears families apart and that that

extends to the best of society but in some cases it's very, very concrete. most of the people being taken out of their families are man when they are not, they're usually the primary wage honor in a family. so they are -- to our fast financial obligations for families, most of which are poor. another concrete a fact is on children. many of the children are taken out of the context of their family when a family member is incarcerated. they go into foster care or they go into kinship care with a family member they don't know well. and foster care is actually a major pipeline to prison in and of itself. most of the people in prison has been in the custody of child protective services. so it's just perpetuating the cycle of. >> host: we are going to put the numbers up on the screen, divided by political affiliations. you will see those numbers.

(202)748-8001, republicans. 7,488,000, democrats and (202)748-8002 for independence. but our fourth line this morning for maya schenwar is set aside for those of you who have had experience with our prison system. you penny pritzker community family member in prison. you been a guard in a prison or are an active member of a presenting. so go ahead and i'll in. we want to hear your stories as well as we talk with maya schenwar. we put that lineup because when you read some of the stats, this is from the sentencing project, that incarceration in the u.s., 1.5 many people are currently incarcerated in the u.s., or around that number.

this is from 2012. but one out of every 108 adults has been in prison or jail in the united states. 93% male, 7% female. and in the prison system itself, 38% black, 35% white, 21% hispanic. 38% black, blacks make up 13% of the total population. you describe itself as a prison abolitionist. what does that mean? what would you like to see happen? >> guest: i think it means that everyone calling the it was going to yell at me. but also what it means is in many ways, this system is not working. it's not working for any of us. and it's not protecting public safety, which is its stated goal. most people go to prison our rearrested within three years.

so this is not a correctional system. this is not something where people go in and then are less likely to do the things that put them in there. that's a system where people come out and have many fewer opportunities to do the things that will actually help them move forward and change their lives, in terms of jobs, in terms of housing, especially for people of color. i think also the fact that prison is traumatizing and teaches a criminal skill set, in many ways, fosters this kind of atmosphere within the prison. and then a mentality coming out that it is impossible to move forward. so that's what these conditions perpetually. and then also, and this is the main thing i talk to put in the book, is that prison breaks down human bonds. those human bonds are the main

motivators for people to change their lives. >> host: maya schenwar, is kayla still imprisoned at a? >> guest: no. fortunately, she's out. for now we have a happy ending, and this last time she was incarcerated, actually she had a baby kind bars. so now she's out. she's able to be with her daughter. so that's a positive thing for everyone. >> host: did kayla in her different times in prison, did she ever deserve to be imprisoned come in your of you? >> guest: well, i think that the word deserves for me isn't quite useful. it's more a question of whether prison was hopeful for her and whether prison was helpful for society. did prison to make it less likely that she was going to steal perfume from the drugstore? and the answer is no. actually she went to prison and

she learned more skills for committing crimes or where to get drugs. she came out, immediately started using those drugs again. and it kind of got her start in the cycle where she thought that the only thing that she could do was to be imprisoned, that that was what she could be successful at. so i think in terms of its effect on public safety and its effect on her life and our family, it definitely was a net negative. >> host: how many prisons, what should prison be used for, if at all come in your of you? >> guest: in my view, eventually society is going to move towards an alternative and executes us safe and that prevents violence and that fosters healing for victims. i think that in the current situation, the best thing that we can actually think about is

how can we prevent violence without using prison to the extent that we're using it. and actually to me, the most hopeful developments are happening in states with really large reductions in crime, like new york and california, over the past 10 years. they have seen amazing drops in crime using less prison. they are prison rates have gone down substantially. in new york actually a reduced incarceration by 26% over the past 10 years, and their crime rates dropped more than the rest of the country. california we saw something similar. so i think that figuring out ways to either divert people from prison or figure out how we can reinvest the funding that goes into prison into things like early childhood education, housing, things that actually forestall people doing some of the things that send them to

prison post back what was the reason for the success in new york and california? >> guest: well, i think that it's complicated, but in new york a lot of it was judicial. a lot of it was a shift in the judicial culture and policies that moved towards making decisions do not send people to prison, particularly you've. -- youth. they were sent into alternative programs, particularly treatment. and i think i even have some issues with some of the treatment strategies that are used. a lot of them look like prison, like they are locking people up. and i think it's almost, i mean, sometimes i look at my perspective and if it has almost conservative because i'm thinking, wow, they're spending so much money continuing to lock people up except giving them a little bit more treatment. but some of the strategies being used have been very effective in

facilitating people turning their lives around, helping them recover and really move toward a path where they're not committing future crimes. >> host: has kayla every cotton help for her drug problem? issue sober to a? >> guest: she is sober right now. and i think -- and issue sober right now? -- for some reason it doesn't get talked about when it comes to sentencing or prison. april recover when they want to recover, when they are motivated to recover. people have to choose treatment. and would you put a person in a situation where they feel useless or worthless or feel like they are punished and that's their fate, then they are less likely to choose treatment. and what really fostered her recovery was feeling like she had something to live for. in her case that was her baby. so yes, she is on her way out

host the maya schenwar is against. i apologize to let me punch that number so we can hear from jessica in la porte, indiana. jessica, you're on the "washington post." >> caller: thank you for having me. i just want to thank you for writing the book that i also want to address what you said earlier in the program about when you family members that are incarcerated -- >> i am christian austin, i direct the history and public policy program at the center which includes our north korea documentation project that we are very proud of and has been at the heart of much of the korea programming that we have been doing. we are delighted, i'm delighted now to welcome you to the panel on marketization, the impact of the korean wave in north korea

as the first panel of our 2014 ifes-wwics washington form. let me just before i turn the mic over to the chair of this session, ambassador sun, say how deeply grateful we are to the university and institute for far eastern studies as well as the university of north korean studies for the partnership that we have had for now 80 years. we started this in 2006 on a very small places, and this has grown into really a flourishing partnership on the history of our relationship, but also well beyond that on sort of the relevance of the materials and the history that we have been uncovering. i think it's one of the things

that sets the wilson center's korea center a part, is that we have had for these many years a steadfast partner in kyungnam university. we are consulting on really a weekly basis with our partners on activities come on conferences and publications. and i hope many of you will take attention of some of these materials that are on the table outside. really at the heart of this relationship has been ambassador joun-yung sun who really inspired this partnership, inspired some of our most important activities including a set of critical oral history conferences and was organized over the years on the u.s.-korea relationship. those materials are available and we are just about to publish the next volume in the series.

ambassador sun is a chair professor at the university of north korean studies, and also currently a vice president and ceo of united nations association for the republic of korea. he serves as vice minister of foreign affairs and trade, deputy prime minister for trade and at south korea's ambassador to united nations, switzerland and czechoslovakia in the cold war days. is a pleasure to welcome him to the center, back to the center as the centers, ma one of the centers global fellows and a friend, dear friend of ours here and part of the wilson center found. so ambassador sun, you have the floor.

>> thank you very much, christian. it's an honor for me to preside over this important session of marketization come social change, and the impact of the korean wave in north korea. many changes are taking place in north korea in many areas, both positive and negative ways. today we will do for our discussions from the usual military and security, and even human rights aspect of the north korean issue. instead will concentrate on the social aspect of north korean issue. in the absence of the rationing

system which has collapsed, i think in early 2000s, the marketplaces have proliferated as the place for actions of producers and merchandisers and also for the interaction of the north korean people in information exchanges and knowledge exchanges, international currency exchange. actually the north korean regiment seems to be in a catch-22 situation, in terms of controlling the marketization which is now spreading, extending so rapidly.

and then in allowing as its marketplaces which has become the lifeline of north korean people. another social phenomenon is that north korean people nowadays having more and more access to south korea's pop-culture, and even news cash by dvd, radio and television, and even usb, even of the threat of being caught and punished. put 2.4 million units of mobile phones have been reportedly supplied to the north korean people, and the number will continue to increase. so at this session we will

examine, examine how these social phenomenon will affect the political and social transformation of north korean people. one of the questions before us is whether the these survivor of the north korean regiment would be competitive with the unstoppable, inevitable marketization of north korea. so now we have three distinguished speakers. doctor choi jinwook, president of the korean institute for national unification, and doctor hyeong-jung park senior research fellow at the center for north

korean studies of kinu and doctor gwi-nam noh based in china at the moment, director of the northeast asian micro-social institute. these three speakers, i refer you to the bio documents. so i suggest that each speaker will have up to 20 nights so that -- 20 minutes so we can have some time for useful discussions, interactions, between podium and the audience. so having said these, now i would like to invite dr. jinwook. >> thank you, mr. ambassador. i'm glad to be here again after

this building. it is my third time to be in the room, and i'm very honored to discuss marketization, north korea with these scholars. nowadays the marketization is one of the key words to describe the situation, and it used to be, we used to discuss, maybe a decade ago and now we change a topic from reform to marketization. so it is much less controversi controversial. it is very controversial but is much less controversial than we used to discuss. today, i would like to discuss three major topics. the critical review of the marketization of korea and its impact or its social and its

policy implications. let me start with overview of marketization. marketization can be divided into three stages. the first stage is from mid 1990s to 2000 do. -- 2002. -- [inaudible] workers barely sustain themselves by working in markets. this is the interstitial marketization was not intended or recommended by the regime. this is only seven or eight years. the second stage was from 2002 2002-2010. this can be told marketization by reform. north korea decided to bring marketization into existence or into institutions. that was in 2002. the so-called july 4 management

agreement measure was to justify and endorse what has already taken place in north korea. north korea tried to have more competition and was decentralized for policymaking process by allowing the northeast more power for separate products and to decide prices. so in this period of time there have been ups and downs in marketization. nuclear has opened the market, market economy to marketization -- stomach in north korea, stability is was the most important concern, and north korea sometimes it suppressed the marketization. in 2009 was a straightforward to

marketization. the third stage was from 2009 and till now. the previous time can be told marketization by -- stomach. it ended a new phase in 2010 and the kim jong-un regime is taking advantage of marketization. this was affected by two factors. a growing portion of the new form of market and the shortage of kurds by the state. the economy has grown during the last 10 or -- one or two decades and account for up to 50% of north korea's productivity's. and in former household income, accounts for up to 75% of the household income. so this was tremendous increase between the last 50, 60 years. ..

by every possible means for example [inaudible] exporting and above all

construction particularly apartment buildings have special implications. people in the countries like korea tend to have high rise and it is in the apartment [inaudible] carrying out the construction especially of apartment buildings is an excellent way of ensuring under the circumstances where however [inaudible] let me move to the social impact. there are three aspects in the

city spaces. they have caused it to change and in the past for the cities the decision-making is now influenced by the preference for example they can choose the apartments and so on and of those apartments will upgrade and they can be over $100,000 to $40,000 in other cities.

so the price continues to be rising. in other words, the housing patterns and of the accessibility. youth have grown up in the period appearance of the younger generation are working in the market system rather than the system so this young generation they after school have much more of an experience and they gather in the market where their parents are working and they can exchange information from outside and have much more access to the outside world so

they have much less related because they are not trained in the organization and so they have different perceptions and ideas to the region and the outside world. it is very flexible but over the social it is much tighter than the previous government. so, we can maybe understand that

but it is much more flexible. let me move on to the political impact. this has very important implications. a traditionally we stay in one position for a long time and have said that they should stay in one position particularly in the party committee. and it was more than 50 years under kim jong-il and he stays in the same position for 15 years. however. it isn't the case anymore under the regime.

some people say this is the sign of the region and some people say that it is the sign of the strength of the region because the political elite means that they have economic interest by moving the economic interest of the president. so the most have economic connections and they can provide the support that this kind of

behavior and what provide a license and by using this power we can support the control to the power elite. so, this can provide more room to separate the power elite. the second implication is that policies are simultaneous in the

nuclear weapons and improving the dalia lives of ordinary people. my market cannot expand without people and emphasize to improve. it may contribute to the consideration of the power based by promoting to the regime. this often divided into tierney -- he was only focused on the power elite and the qualitative life that is emphasizing the ordinary people and he says that

i'm taking care of the ordinary people but this has important implications because he doesn't have his own power race when he becomes the leader so he has to take care of his own people and all he needs to do is dismantle the current power structure so this is a very important political meeting but also the

economic power and pressure so maybe his own companies and so on. so kim jong-il enjoyed a lot of associates to be distributed in many leaders so this is important. >> i think that he can take very aggressive policies because he has nuclear power. so it is up to the nuclear power

and that is he can push the market further its proceeds and makes the progress [inaudible] but i think that it is the opposite because as long as they have nuclear weapons can't be our constant in the marketization but if they don't have a nuclear weapon they might be much less constant in the market. so this is ironic.

so these two policies can go in the same dreck should. marketization is one of the major factors in the maker of the political system that we have seen in this kind of situation. nearby in the advances in the marketization they prevent the import comes of them is a close connection is put to the power and it can be an instability. however, the power organization in the party and military they

are fighting over economic interest which is often a more serious level. the people at the upper level lose their positions but they didn't challenge more seriously. but at a lower level, people express the constraints of gunfire because if they lose their political company maybe they risk their life. there is a compatibility in the market industry. it seems to strengthen over

however it is not supported by the institution. the regime is expected to expand the market and continuously has potential side effects however the markets cannot continue so now it is too early to make a conclusion because it goes on but it can expand. the market can go on but at a certain point in time it may

move so it depends on how the policy will be. the economic policy might be successful and if they can keep going but if they fail it may collapse. thank you. >> thank you. [applause] >> now i invite the next speaker [inaudible]

>> translator: this is a simplified version of what is taking place in north korea. before you understand barth korea eve first have to realize what the economy means, how it was before. there is a characterization as follows. let's start off with the market economy that we know of and then also look at capitalism and then later to the socialist command economy and what we have in north korea is a mixture of the different economies. the market economy, capitalism and a socialist command economy is. so this is something that the americans have not seen before and so it is in our nation of

all of the three different economies. you can see how this can be complicated. [inaudible] we are not getting anything on the devices. >> translator: property rights in the country. in north korea and also the economic activities because there is no market for labor.

[inaudible] also there's a production in north korea which is no more socialist economy. it's officially abolished in the state sector but there is no more planned economy. it's different. it has a huge difference. in the countries in any developing country's yes we misunderstand this point. i use the term capitalism.

there were opportunities usually when we understand the market economy we think about the competitive capitalism. in the capitalism. the productivity and innovation. it must be increasing the probability. in this economy you must invest and political connections to survive and in the case there is one by the police station. this company owns huge profits.

how they have gained profits it's very important. they go through the station in short summit must be distributed it must be cut. so there is only one detector. it prospers. so the political capitalism has

more power and if you are an important organization survivor then you can get more opportunities and more licenses for profit. and in north korea does the party in a market transaction but i will talk about commercialism from above. the market was given by kim jong-il. how? he has been the most important driver of the commercial activities since the 1970s.

how? only the more powerful when someone is more powerful to take part in the commercial activities because in the system to take part in the commercial activities you must have political power to take part in the commercial activities and only kim jong-il could have the privilege to take part in the commercial activities. how? by the party in the 1970s kim

jong-il was a successor and we must show the ability he can give presents to the people so visibility is a designated successor to his company and the population in general. and you know that he also debated the students in north korea. he showed his ability. depending on the economy -- in

the 1970s, kim jong-il established 39 and used the party organization to mobilize people. only kim jong-il could do this because he was the most powerful and he could only take back in this area. and the party organization to mobilize people and gather etc..

in the 1980s, they took the commercial activities and here you see the house, the public security, the profession of the state security, the most important organization for the survival takes part in the commercial at these. how? usually one of them write a position to the work without the board to generate money. the youth organization because they rely on the foreign

currency and the huge construction [inaudible] [inaudible] in the commercial activities in the 1990s all public organizations took part in the commercial activities. in the early 1990s, he must

own [inaudible] the house doesn't get started to get the prosecution work and i got no more budget from the state. so they get their own expenditure in the sense for the activities. almost all of the political organizations established by companies.

there is a hierarchy. the conflict on the lieutenant is the commander that distributes the trade licenses to the regime organizations and the trade companies are run by the major agencies and the political business as in the revenue. in the 1990s the military got the most, the biggest part is from kim jong-il because in the

1990s, the military is the most important organization. so, kim jong-il did trade licenses according to the importance of each organization for the survivor. in that meeting in the organizations of the armed forces and of the general departments each organization has its own companies that are very strong common part of the publication. in the middle there are several organization departments and each department establishes its own trading companies and there

are many activities in the trading companies. for each trade company because the most important outcome is [inaudible] they are local offices. local offices collect transport come export, production, distribution, mobilizing and a private enterprise which is a combination of public and private.