peter: judge frederic block of the eastern district of new york is the author of this book, "a second chance: a federal judge decides who deserves it." judge, justin volt, burkett, jo smith, anthony russo, anthony

gas pipe passed so, what do these men have in common? judge block: the first thing is they are all in my book but they really are examples of those who now have the opportunity to make an application to district judges throughout the united states because congress in 2018 enacted an incredible piece of bipartisan legislation called first step act. in that law, it gave all those folks plus everybody who is incarcerated the opportunity to make an application to district court justice such as myself to -- judges to reduce jail time or to be let out of jail. so it has changed the sentencing landscape in the united states of america.

and because of that, i have received many of these applications from people who have been incarcerated for many years and i had to make a decision under this new law whether or not i should reduce their jail time or let them out of jail. they were all long-term prisoners, some therefore 20 years, 30 years, and they each made a petition to be let out of jail or reduce jail time so i selected four or six of them for the book because i thought they each would be representative of the dramatic aspects of this new statute and how a judge goes about to decide who shall stay in jail and who shall no longer be in jail. so peter, as a generalization i can begin the conversation by hopefully explaining that all of this really comes from this incredible power that was granted by congress in this major bipartisan piece of

legislation in 2018 and we have been inundated throughout the country with applications directly from inmates to reduce their sentence. it is called compassionate release motions. i get them every week. so i thought that this would be a good way for me to really speak out in the book i had written by using these six examples of money that i have as a very good way of really talking about the dynamics of the new law and dynamics of how judges now can take a second look at sentences that were previously opposed, many times years ago, and recalibrate the sentence or let people out of jail. so that basically is the generalization of how this all came to pass on how i got the idea for the book. peter: did all six of the men appear before you when they were being criminally convicted? judge block: no, because they

had been in jail for a long time and they were sentenced by other judges, predecessors of mine, some of whom are not alive. in respect to a couple of them, they were sentenced by me. in particular good old gas pipe case so was sentenced by me many years ago and he made a petition to let him die at home because he was basically terminally ill and i had to decide whether to let him drive in -- die in jail, he had been sentenced for life, or let him die at home. he might have forgotten that when i sentenced him years ago, there was a death threat he imposed upon my life. the marshals and fbi investigated it and obviously it never came to fruition but he might have forgotten all about that. in any event, that was one where

i sentenced him to life. peter: let's walk through the crimes of the six we are talking about in the book, beginning with justin volt. judge block: he was sentenced by my predecessor, a great judge. i guess it goes back to thereabouts, -- they are around 1999, and it was a really high profile situation because it basically warns the movement of black lives matter's, he was a police officer who accosted a man nameabr, and he ultimately, believe it or not, was charged with assaulting him because he shelved a goosestick

up his rectum. that was of national significance and it was the first time that a police officer was ever indicted, convicted, and sentenced to a long time in jail for police brutality. ves matter and it was chapter number one because volpe has now asked me to let him out of jail. he had been in jail for 21 months and another five years to go under the sentence of this is a classic example of what this new law is all about, allowing people like volpe to petition district court judges to let them out of jail. peter: and the second case was sure when bucket, convicted under the racketeering rico act in 1990. what was his case about? judge block: he was a young man,

18 or 19, part of a gang of people who were just making a lot of money off of drugs and they had a large network and he was just a young kid working for this organization but nonetheless, he was charged with being complicit in a murder of somebody and he was sentenced to jail for life also. that was chapter two. and it represented, unlike the volpe case, somebody who was a young fellow who was caught up in this big gang who was really victimizing people and it was all drug related so that was basically the basis of the second chapter on why i chose him, i thought it would be representative of ricoh indictments. peter: joe smith. child's poor and and you use an acronym. -- child porn and you use an acronym. judge block: joe smith.

you have to respect people's privacy so i use an acronym in his case was not unlike the other cases publicize. this was a child pornography case. it is such an interesting subject because they have man to me -- mandatory minimums, five years, 10, 15. and he was charged with a five-year mandatory minimum and i sentenced him to the five year mandatory minimum and then he made an application for me to reduce the sentence. that was a good example of a different type of criminal behavior which comes under the umbrella of all of these people who are incarcerated who petition for release. the next one, i think is a mafioso case, if i remember right. peter: that is correct.

anthony russo, also convicted under ricoh. by the way, what exactly is ricoh? judge block: congress years ago passed to the racketeer corruption act called ricoh and it was designed to really deal with the mafia. the whole idea of ricoh, it allowed anybody who was part of an organization to be prosecuted for all of the misdeeds of the organization so the leader of, for example, the gambino family, colombo family, were subject of lots of prosecutions, even though they may not have personally murdered somebody or been personally involved in the nefarious deeds of the organizations, they were held under ricoh to be equally responsible because they were the leader and therefore as a result, they are responsible for

all the misdeeds of the people in the enterprise, so to speak. that is what ricoh is about. and it really was the statute that basically has destroyed the effective operation of the mafia. it was designed to do that. the major case, of course, was the john gotti case but russo was the captain of maybe the colombo family, gambino, i get the names mixed up sometimes. he was sentenced to life because he was held responsible for all the misdeeds of the members of his criminal enterprise. so that really was the first big mafioso case i got in terms of trying to let somebody out of jail. you may or may not remember where the public might not remember but in 1990, they had

these wars amongst the five families and there was a time when people were being gunned down in the streets, paul castellano was one of them, the head of the gambino family at the time, and russo was part of that. this was the colombo wars, up gambino wars that were going on in the 1990's. he was put in jail for the rest of his life. peter: victorio a was part of that lou casey family. judge block: i get the five families mixed up. but he was also, like rousseau, was the head of one of the families. russo i think was the captain, the captain of one of the families. they were both big time mafioso people, responsible in jail because of the fact that they

were the leaders of all the horrible things that were happening in the mafioso world. we still have mafioso, but it is much diminished them it was in those days and i think ricoh had a lot to do with cutting the legs out of the effectiveness of the mafia. they are still in business but they are not killing people these days, it is smalltime stuff. and the last chapter is my favorite, anthony gas pipe casso . he was part of a cooperation agreement the government and entered with a lot of people and the famous one was sammy the bowl -- bull gravano. and he was the one who turned against john gotti and is responsible for john gotti being convicted and testified against him and casso was the backup,

the government also gave the cooperation deal so he would be available to testify against gotti if needed. it turned out that the government never needed casso because sammy did the job. not only that, so they cut him free for the cooperation agreement and he did not like that and they are going to claim that he really was not cooperating properly and therefore the government was not bound. that is the whole purpose of the agreement, the judge then has the discretion to sentence someone much more leniently because of their cooperation so casso was cut loose by the government and he complained about it in the case went through the court system and the appellate court and i sentenced him for life because as part of his cooperation agreement, he had to confess to all the crimes

he committed and he appeared before me and actually admitted to killing 18 people or being responsible for the killing of 18 people and that means he had to go to jail for sure for life. and if the cooperation agreement was not going to be applicable, and i held that the government was not bound by it anymore, so i sentenced him to life. he did not take kindly to that so he threatened to kill me after that. it was the first death threat i ever got. peter: in your court, u.s. district court of eastern district of new york is known as the mafia court. why is that? judge block: because, you know, we have jurisdiction over most of these cases. most of these folks were sort of born and raised in howard beach, part of queens, part of the eastern district of new york district -- distribution and a lot of them live in staten

island and the murders and criminal activities came about in brooklyn, mostly, in the eastern district of new york and i think the bodies were buried here so we have jurisdiction over most of the mafia cases because of their connection they have to their residences and living patterns in the eastern district of new york, which consists of brooklyn, staten island, queens, and two long island counties suffolk and nassau county. so it's divided into 94 districts and it is basically a population oriented dynamic. in new york we have four of the 96 district court's. we have the eastern district, which i just mentioned, the southern district is manhattan,

westchester, some of the upstate counties near westchester, between the eastern and southern districts, that is where most of the action happens, between brooklyn, manhattan, thereabouts. the other two districts are upstate. the northern district covers albany, utica, up to canada and then buffalo, rochester. that basically is how the state of new york is divided in terms of the federal districts. i think there are 94 federal districts, not 96. we have four of them. so eastern district and southern district, basically those in the united states are the primary courts which handle a lot of high-profile cases because it is

new york and it basically is a rough education about how the federal courts go about doing their business. peter: when you are watching a relatively modern series like the sopranos, are you seeing reality? judge block: actually, i had a major mafioso case, the peter gotti prosecution after his brother john died in prison, somebody had to take over the family, they gambino family. and peter, he was not really caught up in that world like his brother was and some other members of the family but he was the uncle and they made him the head of the family, to keep it in the family, i guess. so then the government prosecuted peter in this wide sweeping indictment several years ago together with 15 other people to try to clean up the waterfront and get to the

underbelly of the gambino operations. so peter was the primary defendant in that case together with many others. during the trial and i write about it in the book, also, something i will never forget, it was really high drama, really made for hollywood and it was like hollywood, the soprano people would come to court and check out what was going on, i think they used a lot of the material from the peter gotti trial in their tv show. i think victoria gotti came to court frequently, she wrote a book, if i remember, about all of this which is a best seller. and then we had stephen siegel was -- seagal was part of that prosecution, he was part of the extortion and there was one count against gotti and the gang

claiming they extorted peter stegall -- stephen stegall and he testified in court. when he testified in court, it was really like being in hollywood. they all came to hear him testify. so it was kind of a dramatic trial and is an example of the extension of the john gotti trial and basically the convictions in that case really served pretty much of a deathknell to the mafioso, as it was known in those days. peter: what were you doing prior to 1994 when you were nominated by bill clinton to be a district judge? judge block: i was practicing law in suffolk county. the ed ny includes suffolk county. the primary geographical aspect of the ed ny is brooklyn but

nonetheless, suffolk and nassau are part of the ed ny so i was practicing law way out east in suffolk county. i can go into at all,ut ultimately i was tappedy senator moynihan, the senators recommend the judges to the president so it really comes from senatorial recommendations, with few exceptions spirit so moynihan in those days -- with few exceptions. so moynihan in those days was highly regarded as a u.s. senator. he was a democrat in maine but in reality, he was just one of the great statesman of our times and he works with republicans, democrats, conservatives, you name it. highly regarded. and he recommended me to the

president at that time, clinton. so basically i/o the judge so basically -- so basically i owe my judgeship to senator moynihan. i had a young jr. associate at the time and i would fit the conventional mold of federal court judges. they are usually members of big firms, they usually are high profile prosecutors. most of the judges at the time when i was tapped had been assistant u.s. attorney's in the ed ny or some of them were and if i remember correctly when i came on board there were 12 district court judges for the ed ny and out of the 12, 10 came from the office, meaning the u.s. attorney's office.

so i was kind of a fish out of water because i did not come from the office and i was not a big time lawyer, i just had a small practice in suffolk county. peter: in your career, you have only heard federal cases given that you are a federal judge. but what identifies a federal case? judge block: that's a great question, peter, because i am motivated and in the process of writing another book at my tender age and it really is designed to deal with the fact that we have such an uneducated public when it comes to really understanding the federal judiciary. what federal judges do, what is the difference between the state case and federal case, the difference between a state judge and federal judge so i am writing all these questions down and giving the answers and i hope the book is going to be

distributed, i hope it gets published, to all the students, senior high school students because we sorely need a better civic education. so you ask a question that is right on the button and that is the reason why i feel it is so important to try to educate the public about things which they ought to know about as citizens. i think we do not do a good enough job with that because most of the judges are a little bit apprehensive about speaking out but there are two schools of thought about that. one is that judges have almost a moral responsibility to share the knowledge which they have acquired over the years with the public instead of just keeping it to themselves. i subscribed to that and that is why i write books and i am talking to you today, because i think it speaks well for the federal judiciary if the -- if

the judges take off their robes and tried to interact and meet the public and relate to the public one on one, which i think i am doing today. peter: in the short term, can you identify what a federal case is for the purpose of this program? judge block: i am losing track, right? basically, the federal cases are those which are intrastate in nature, in other words, they cover more than one state. they cover the country. so if you have congress enacting a criminal law, that would be a federal case because congress is enacting that law and it applies throughout the country. a good example of that would be terrorist cases. we have statutes governing sentencing for terrorist related crimes. those are intrastate crimes, they cover the country so they are federal crimes.

state crimes, for example, are those that are confined to what has happened within the state. the public is often confused about it because you get a murder case, and sometimes you will see a murder case being prosecuted in federal court, sometimes a murder case is being prosecuted in state court. you have luigi mangione me who is being prosecuted now in the state courts of the state of new york, not the federal court, because he is being treated as having committed a state crime in new york state, albeit a murder, it was done in new york state, there is no federal hope to it, so to speak. contrariwise, you have murder cases involving mafioso, there is a federal help because they are considered to be of a national character and therefore there is federal jurisdiction. this is the subject of law

school course, i could go on for weeks and weeks about it but that is the thumbnail idea. there are a lot of nuance. bottom line, if it is within the state, it's a state prosecution. if it has a federal hooked to it and goes beyond to the state, it is a federal prosecution. peter: over the years, how have cases been assigned to you? do you have a specialty or is it random? judge block: it's random, basically. if you come to my courthouse and you start a lawsuit, it will go to the clerk's office, you can do it online now with the technology we have. you used to have to come to the district clerk's office. you file your case, you start your lawsuit and then it will be randomly assigned to one of the judges of the court's. in brooklyn, i think now we have 23, i am one of 23 so i could be

a sign that case or any of the other 22 could be assigned to the case, it really is a random process. there are some exceptions to that, but generally, it is a random process. peter: as a federaludge, judge frederic block had to be approved by the senate. in your book, "a second chance" you know that out of 1.9 one million people incarcerated in the united states, 200,000, 10%, are federal prisoners and they are the ones we are dealing with in our discussion today. correct? judge block: that is correct. because the first act is a federal statute that congress enacted. we can talk more about that, but it only applies to the federal prisoners. they are about 10% of the total jail population. 90% come from the states.

on the first step act does not really applied to the states. i can only deal with those who are federal inmates. you probably realize there was a real need for us to have this power, judges throughout the state should have that power so people who are incarcerated in new york state, for example, would have access to make an application to a state judge to also give them the same compassionate release consideration that we now are mandated to give at the federal level. so i feel really passionate about it, because the public is not totally aware of all of these things, but they need to really deal with -- the need to do with our mass incarceration problem is profound and that basically is the reason why congress, to its credit, acted. and they really acted. 88 i believe of the senators voted for it, republican, conservative, right across the

ideological line. same thing in the house there are 30050i think congress people voted for it and to his credit, president trump signed it at that time. so important that we really try to extend this to the states because our mass incarceration problem is an embarrassment. i don't like to toss out too many statistics because it could be boring and it can defeat what you're trying to accomplish but certainly when i found out that 4% of the population we have in the united states, 4% of the worlds population, 22% of its prisoners. no other country has anything close to that. so we really put people in jail. and we really recognize that we have to do something about it. because it really is an embarrassment that we jail

people so much more than any other country in the world. that was really the catalyst why everybody, republican, liberal, you name it, banded together to really address the mass incarceration problem. it erases -- and it raises the profound issue of, why do we put so many people in jail, who are these people? so i give congress a lot of credit for doing that and president trump at that time did step up to the plate and sign the first step act. peter: you mentioned that in the book, 4% of the world population is in the u.s. and 22% of its prisoners are in the u.s., 1.9 million currently incarcerad. 50% re-incarcerated after release. 79 million people in the u.s. have a criminal record. and it is a bout a $80 billion annual cost for incarceration.

those facts come from the sentencing project, harvard political review, and prison policy initiatives. when you hear all of that in one swoop, what does it tell you? judge block: it tells me we are in sorely need of sentencing reform. the first step act is called the first step act and congress understood it was the beginning, it kicked off the football and finally people recognize regardless of emotionality which governs our reactions and life, that it was necessary for us to do something concrete. the first step act, judge gorsuch wrote about it, is said to be the most significant piece

of legislation of the century. i can talk more about it but i will try to be as focused as i can to answer your questions precisely. peter: talking about legislation in general, how much leeway does a judge how when it comes to sentencing? judge block: [laughter] sentencing of course is really the most profound part of a district court judge's responsibility because we have a lot of discretion. there are outside limits to it, yes, but within the parameters of what we can do, we can render a lot of different types of sentences and they vary throughout the country because demographics are different, cultures are different,

sentences are different. but the district court judge has this awesome responsibility to decide whether to deprive someone of his or her liberty, and for how long. the appellate courts do not have that responsibility, we have to make the decision. yes, the appellate court can look but they do not have the discretion, they are just going to be concerned about the fact that we did not go off the rails, so to speak but basically it is the most profound aspect of the district court judges job, in my opinion. we have jurisdiction over criminal cases and civil cases. we have in the federal courts jurisdiction of over almost everything except maybe domestic relations. so the ability to exercise our discretion is really the centerpiece of the responsibilities of a district court judge. peter: in your book you talk

about the sentencing commission, bureau of prisons, three strikes, parole, probation, community confinement, compassionate release. what kinds of restrictions do you have when it comes to sentencing? if a jury find somebody guilty, can you give them a day, or do you have to give them 25 years? you know what i mean by that question. judge block: well, we might need another hour to talk about this. [laughter] we have guidelines. there are statutes. basically i think we should probably realize there is something called a sentencing commission that congress established and they are responsible for parameters to guide district judges to exercise broad discretion. so we do have guidelines. and it is broken down into

different degrees. each crime has a particular number. and if a person is a repeat offender, there is a different number for that person. so you look at these guidelines and you get a sense of a range of what the sentencing commission thinks would be an appropriate range to sentence somebody for a given crime. it can be extortion, where guidelines or may be between 26 and 38 months. for murder is going to be a lifetime guideline sentence, and variations in terms of nature of the crime, if it is a robbery, but we do have some sentencing guidelines to give us some idea of what consistency throughout the country ought to be about so we pay attention to those guidelines but ultimately, we are charged with the

responsibility to look at each person as an individual and to really assess the nature of the crime and balance out the nature of the crime with the personal characteristics of the defendant. so it is a balancing act. so obviously the nature of the crime could be murder, you understand, there it is. but what about the defendant? you look at the upbringing, whether or not he is 15, 30 years old. you look at all of the human dynamics and aspects of that person's life and you balance it all out so in that sentencing range, or maybe even below that range, would be a fair sentence in each particular case. obviously it is the most challenging dine, you can it can possibly have as a human being to pass judgment on another human being. peter: three strikes.

is that still the law of the land in any way? judge block: each state has its own laws. because the crime committed within the state is subject to state law. then you have national laws, federal laws. three strikes was the law at the time that i sentenced walter johnson, we can talk about that later. and i had to apply that law as mandatory that if somebody committed, and this was their third felony. even if it was not an extreme felony, even if it was just picking up a person's pocketbook up off the street was a felony, if you had three of those, it was mandatory light and you had no discretion as a judge, you had to impose a mandatory lifetime sentence under these three strike dynamics.

the case that went to the supreme court on that came from california where the person had to be sentenced under the three strike law in that state to life, even though the third felony was stealing somebody's golf club. that went to the supreme court and the supreme court upheld the law as the proper law, not violate not -- not in violation of the constitution. since then there has been a seachange throughout the country and in new york that had its own three strike law where we are not doing that anymore. you will find that even if it is technically on the books that you are not going to have three strikes be imposed, if somebody committed three very violent felonies, of course that would be a factor but it is not mandatory anymore, and that -- not implied in new york state anymore that simply if someone has three felony convictions, regardless of the nature of

conviction, that they had to be put in jail for life. so i had to sentence walter johnson 28 years ago to life because, at that time, the three strikes law was enforced in new york and i had no choice but to do that. today we do not do that anymore, there has been a change. so one of the important things about this whole concept of giving people a second chance is to realize that in the passage of time, things do not stay static. laws change. a perfect example of that is that three strikes law. so we person sentenced today would not be sentenced under the three strikes law in new york state and i don't think in any other state right now. peter: what do you think of so-called mandatory minimum sentences that are essentially legislated sentences? judge block: congress has the

power, really, over all the district court judges, all the judges. they create our budget, they decide what crime should be prosecuted, they decide what the sentences should be, in many cases. and congress has created what they call mandatory minimums for certain crimes. and when congress creates a mandatory minimum, the judge has no discretion but to apply the mandatory minimum. the judge has discretion to go above, but at the very least has to apply the mandatory minimum. the areas where congress has acted throughout the years, it could provide for mandatory minimums in every case and essentially congress would be the judges, you would not need district court judges anymore. but they have called out areas mostly in child pornography

cases and drug cases. and those have been, over the years, the basic areas where congress has decided to impose mandatory minimums. child pornography is obviously an emotional situation, it is politically charged, and congress has created a host of mandatory minimums in a child pornography case. if you receive child pornography, you could have a 15 year minimum, if you create or promote, or in extreme possession, even then there is no wiggle room on the part of the judges but to impose the mandatory minimums. so we do not like that, not because we are in favor of child pornography, but really the discretion as to sentencing

should be deposited -- depository of the responsibility of the judge. each case as an individual but congress has created a blanket mandatory minimum in child pornography cases because it almost falls into one of these defined categories. so when i sentenced so much with 15 year mandatory minimum, even though i might think that is excessive, i have no discretion. and i tell the defendant, i am just the messenger right now, i cannot do anything but to apply the law. by the way, there are times where i have sentenced people to more than the mandatory minimum if the case warranted it. but i think i and most of my colleagues do not like the fact that congress decides what the sentence should be on the judge has no discretion in those cases. peter: when we began the

conversation, we talked about the crimes of six individuals featured in your book, "a second chance: a federal judge decides who deserves it." now we are going to look at the second chances of the six men. let'seginith justin volpe. what happened when came to rease?th a compassionate judge block: he had been in jail for 21 years and he made the application to be let out of jail. he did not have a lawyer represent him. he did it on his own. he called it pro se, you are not necessarily tied to a lawyer -- two entitled to a lawyer to make these applications. you are tired to a lawyer -- you are entitled to a lawyer but not for this so he did on his own and the government opposed him and it really is a human dimension because the government lawyer was a former law clerk of

mine 50 years before and she really wrote a very compelling submission to me as to why he should be kept in jail, even though he only had four or five years to go and i was sort of swayed by her argument and i did not grant him release. he was released by the bureau of prisons one or two years later and is now a free man. it was a question of 21 years, 25 years, but i was swayed by my former law clerk's wonderful submission. if the law clerk had been with me one or two years before, i would've disqualified myself but

it was 15 years prior. then i had some second thoughts about it. and i was really wondering and i reflected upon the fact of whether i really was not as objective as i should have been or could have been. i tried to humanize, we make mistakes, we have second thoughts and that is why the concept of a second chance is so important, because second thoughts are so important so the statute we now have gives us an opportunity to do that and i have done that in a number of cases and we have thousands of them throughout the country where district court judges are granting compassionate release. so that was volpe case. on second thought, i possibly would have said maybe we should assign a lawyer here and i wonder today if i would have made the same decision so i talk about that. peter: you mention the role of

the bureau of prisons. can the bureau of prisons release people? judge block: before the first step --, -- before the first step act, the bureau of prisons had the power to reduce someone sentence or set them free but it was rarely exercised. they didn't -- they did it if someone was dying or it was a medical emergency but the rarely exercised that power. they would make an application and a final decision and i think statistics over the years they admitted may be one or two dozen cases a year and that is why congress acted so that the defendant would not have to be subject to the bureau of prisons decision but also could have direct access to the judge and

it made all the difference in the world. peter: out of the six cases, what is one where you granted compassionate release due to the first step act? judge block: now you're letting another one out of the bag. i granted compassionate release to burkett because of his youth and he went to trial and got convicted but the leader of the gang cut a deal and was out of jail after 20 years on this kid who was a juvenile when he was caught up in this nefarious world was in jail for life and i did not think that was right. the other thing is that i do not grant compassionate release motions willy-nilly, they have to prove to me that they have really been reformed to during incarceration, that they can --

they have engaged in significant rehabilitation. we do not just pardon people willy-nilly and let them out on the streets. we are very careful who we give this special relief to. they really have to show that they have rehabilitated themselves and been good prisoners, so to speak. that is really what i look at. if somebody has not behave themselves in jail, i am not going to grant compassionate release. so the recidivists raised -- rate is basically nothing because we are so careful about who we let out of jail. it's not a recidivism problem. the problem worries, -- the public worries, if you let somebody out of jail, they are going to commit a another crime. that is not the case.

it is negligible comply -- compared to the high recidivism we have when people just get out of jail when they are being charged with a crime and have served their time. so those are two examples, you made me spill the beans on two of my six cases and the rest of them, maybe they can read it to find out. peter: judge, that's the compromise. we will not read the other ones. these are the six cases. they are revealed in the book, "a second chance" what does the term sit up on non-mean? judge block: it just means you need to itself. peter: do you feel as a judge

that you get to know the defendants at all during the trial? judge block: yes. at sentencing, i have a responsibility to really get to know that person. because no two humans are alike, they have different backgrounds and there are a bunch of different variables so we really educate ourselves. we get reports from the probation department, i talked to them and we listen to the lawyers and we have letters submitted to us from all sorts of parties. i try my best to get a consensus of who that human being is. i try not to treat one human the same as another, i try to engage in meaningful discussions during sentencing and try to familiarize with who they are as best i can. since we are running out of time, i just want to say, the six cases i use, they are just representative to try to explain what this whole discretion is

all about. they each gave different dynamics to give the reader an opportunity to understand why people are being let out of jail . it is not really the only cases, i had many cases. in the united states so far, 5300 of these compassionate release motions have been granted by district court judges and they are all very carefully, it carefully crafted and recidivism is zero. to the public need not be concerned about that. the problem is not the people that we let out of jail, it's more about the people we do not put in jail. the public need not fear about the people who are getting out of jail because of the first step act. i do not think there is a recidivism problem and all of that. i have gone beyond what you have asked me but i am just making it clear to whoever will be

listening to this that we are dealing with a basic rudimentary concept that people change, life changes, law changes. i think federal judges, because of the statute, are given the responsibility, a great responsibility, to take a second look at what they may have done at the past -- in the past and to see whether or not, and to see if people have evolved, if they deserve a second chance. that is basically the substance of why i am writing about this and talking about it. those six chapters are just examples to give a reader a feel for it and at times the drama to it to make it more readable. peter: how often is a judge do you have second thoughts about a sentencing? judge block: i try not to do that. because if i have a doubt, i will give the defendant the

benefit of the doubt. so that i can sleep well at night. i think if the judge has the doubt, the judge has a responsibility to be less harsh in the sentence rather than more harsh. so i am ok with that. do i have second thoughts come over 30 years, i had second thoughts with the volpe case but basically i am ok because i really, really believe that if there is a doubt in my mind, i should resolve that doubt in favor of the defendant, not the government. peter: has this been enacted yet at the first level in any state, the first step act? judge block: there is some movement in the states. we have a long way to go and much of my book cries out for the need for the states to get

up to speed. new york state is a perfect example. they have a piece of legislation called the second looked act that has been put out for the last two or three terms, the governor has not signed up -- signed off on it, it has enormous bipartisan support and it ought to be done and there is a great effort being made to hopefully this legislative session to get the second look act enacted in new york. it basically tracks the federal first step act but gives people who were in jail like the prison journalist john lennon who i write about the opportunity to be released from jail, deservedly so, instead of having the reach of the application of the law and we have to enact that law in the state. the sources -- district of columbia has done some and there's some movement in some of the states, i think colorado has done something, pennsylvania,

but there was a long way to go. i write about arizona, sorely in need of change, i write about the stephen may case and how horrendous it is and he is in jail for life and he certainly deserves a second chance so the states have to really get up to speed here. i hope during the rest of my life, may be the another few years, that i will be able to make some impact through my book and speaking and talking now on c-span that we need to really get the whole country up to speed. what is interesting also is that for example one of the blurbs in the back of my book, i have hakeem jeffries, but also have [indiscernible] norquist, i want to balance this out, i don't want this book to be looked at as liberal or conservative, but rather that it motivates people to think about what we are all about. he supports this because we have this enormous economic burden,

$80 billion a year to support the prison system. so he gave me a nice blurb on spoke about the fact that this is -- we waste a lot of money and we really should take a hard look at if we are doing the right thing from all perspectives. peter: "a second chance: a federal judge decides who deserves it." judge frederic block of the eastern district of new york's fourth book. a fifth book is coming, on the judicial system. thank you for spending one hour with us on c-span. judge block: thank you for having me. i hope this was effective. ♪ >> all q&a programs are available on our website, or as a podcast on c-span now.

dr. ewing it is an honor to be