tubman. this, this book was written in 1866. the special thing about this book is that harriet tubman made her mark on there and that's really the most famous autograph, if you want to call it that, of what we have here in the library and she couldn't read or write so she left her mark, the sign of the cross. >> watch for book tv july 7th and 8th on c-span2 and 3. >> i could have told you at the beginning of this year that here's how it would run. there would be a republican primary and the republicans would look enfeebled and there would be a nominee and republicans would then rally around that nominee and the true

nature of the race would reveal itself, which is that it was going to be close. i would have told you that the media would eat that up and then say romney is surging. obama is flagging. this is a race. you know, that is -- i tell you what the next phase is going to be. the next phase is going to be the media is going to become more alert to the fact that governor romney has been completely evasive about his positions and has been all over the lot on many of them and has tried to play a game of hide-and-seek with the american people and i think that the news media will be challenged to challenge him to be more forthcoming and then the story is going to be that for a while. this is the nature of this business. >> look behind the presidential election process when you want online with c-span's road to the white house and c-span video library. >> the new york university law school recently held a panel discussion on racial profiling and the criminal justice system.

panel members included camden, new jersey, chief of police and the university law professor and yale university law professor tom tyler. panelists also discussed the trayvon martin shooting and proposed legislation by congress prohibiting racial profiling. it's an hour and a half. >> welcome you to the center on administration of criminal law's fourth annual major conference. a new frontiers in race and criminal justice. for those of you who are veterans of these conferences, you know what important issues they tackle and what great panelists they get and actually very recently nyu press published the proceedings of the first conference published last year on prosecutors in the boardroom using criminal law to

regulate corporate conduct. i know that was very influential set of papers and very influential volume. i would like to thank the centers faculty director, my wonderful colleague who is a professor of regulatory law and policy and she will speak in a few minutes and tell you all of the important stuff that you should know about the conference. i'm just a filler to make sure that everyone sits down before rachel talks. and then you also will hear from rachel in the third panel on race sentencing and the problem of mass incarceration. rachel is one of our leading criminal law scholars. she's written some of the most important work on sentencing over the last ten years. and has also cast herself basically started this new academic field of looking at criminal law as part of the system of administrative law and

regulation. and that has been an extremely powerful paradigm and rachel's work has been enormously recognized for its path breaking nature. she runs the center and the center has done extremely significant things including has written some very important briefs recently. mo both on the side and government and defendants who have been cited and quoted extensively by our appellate court including the supreme court of the united states recently. i'm really grateful for all of the scholars and practitioners who are here today and to our keynote speaker who is the author of the new mass incarceration in the age of color blindness. so it's a great privilege for a law school to host these annual

conferences and to have all of you here today. now that it looks like everyone is seated, it looks like an appropriate time to turn things over to our leader. thank you. [ applause ] >> thanks so much. thank you all for coming today to our fourth annual conference. our center is an organization that is dedicated to promoting good government practices in criminal justice. and we do that in a variety of ways. we participate in litigation. we engage in public policy outreach. we produce scholarship and we hold events like the one that we're holding today in the hope of getting a conversation started on an important issue. and we hope that these efforts will help change the law in a positive direction. now, you can read more about us on our website but i have to make a couple pitches while you are here and a captive audience. a couple recent things that we're working on. one, we filed briefs on a case being argued at the supreme court today on how to treat the

ratio between crack and powder cocaine. the cases that are in the pipeline after congress passed the fair sentencing reform act. we filed a brief explaining that when the initial 100 to 1 ratio was passed, no one gave that considered reflection and we hope that helps the court analyze how to treat those cases in the pipeline. we also filed a brief cited by the supreme court and relied upon extensively in the two recent cases dealing with ineffective assistance of counsel at the plea bargaining stage. the court held because you get a fair trial, if you had an effective assistance of counsel at the plea bargaining stage the fair trial doesn't remedy the defect. in terms of policy outreach, we're currently working on a report right now that highlights the best practices in prosecutor's offices for dealing with wrongful convictions. we're highlighting conviction integrity programs that work and work effectively. i hope you will look for that report come early fall. and we hope that today's

conference will lead to positive changes as well. so before setting the stage for today's events, i want to thank a few people. i want to thank dean for his support of our center. the ford foundation also for its generous support of our activities in particular today's conference. we are grateful. the public welfare foundation is supporting our conviction integrity project and so we think them and also the manhattan district attorney's office for partnering with us on that. i would like to thank the former executive director of the center who is now in private practice but who was instrumental in planning today's events and invited all of these great panelists that you'll be seeing today. my assistant, laura, who has worked tirelessly to get this entire event running and running smoothly. i owe a huge debt of gratitude to and distinguished group of panelists and presenters, i thank you all so much for the time that you have devoted to give today to this effort and all of you for coming.

so c-span is here. i want to tell you that so you can be excited by it but if you choose to ask a question you are thereby consenting to have c-span air you on television asking that question so you are aware of that. you can decide if that's affects your ability or desire to ask that question. in terms of today's events, i have had several people say to me recently what great timing for you that trayvon martin story is taking place right radio now because it's really bringing the issue of race and criminal justice to the attention of the nation. and while i agree that very tragic event has been a wake-up call in terms of talking about race in criminal justice, i have to say it's a bigger mystery to me why we weren't already galvanized to talk about that issue before it happened. for those that rsvp'd before that happened, you had an

interest that predated the issue. the reason i think it's important to think about in a much broader scale than that one incident is just statistics alone should really call attention to what we're talking about. we'll hear about more of them as the day unfolds. i'll just give you a few. so there's more than 2.3 million people who are incarcerated. over 7 million under the supervision of the criminal justice system. of those people who are incarcerated more than 60% of them are racial or ethnic minorities. one in every ten black men in their 30s is in prison or jail every day. two 30s of the people who are in prison for drug offenses are people of color. and those statistics, not just the incident one antidote that captures the nation's attention, it's mass statistics that we'll be talking about today and how the different institutions of government lead to those statistics, what they can do about it, how we want to think about it. we call this new frontiers to discuss racial imbalance in the united states because the hope

is we'll talk to you today about the best research that's out there and best of what we know and what we can be doing about these problems. and we're going to start that with this first panel on policing and then after lunch we're going to have panels on prosecution and then mass incarceration and sentencing. and then our keynote comes at the end for scheduling reasons. michelle alexander is wonderful to make time for us in light of personal circumstances that made scheduling difficult so she'll close the event at the end of the day. in her book she says it is intended to stimulate a much needed conversation about the role of the criminal justice system in creating a racial hierarchy in the united states. this day is a day where we'll immerse ourselves in that conversation. to get us started is this panel on policing. it will be moderated by david, a professor of law at berkeley. one of the country's leading

experts on policing. he was an assistant u.s. attorney in los angeles. he has served as the special counsel to the independent review panel that was investigating the l.a. police department's rampart division scandal and a brilliant human being. i'm happy he's moderating today's panel. join me in welcoming this panel. i look forward to your discussion. thank you. [ applause ] >> thank you, rachel. thank you all for coming today to join us in discussing these very important questions and issues. we have a wonderful panel here this morning to talk about the issues of race in policing. let me introduce them all briefly and we'll get started with the discussion. to my immediate left is lisa dugard. she works to reduce racial bias in the criminal justice system and focuses on drug arrests.

we have a leading scholar on race in law enforcement and we have a federal prosecutor who is now a law professor at wake forest university and nationally recognized on police accountability. we have police chief in new jersey since 2008 after joining the department in 1994 and received repeated awards for his leadership and to his left is professor tom tyler, professor of law and psychology at yale law school who is world famous for his research on the ways that policing practices and the conduct of other officials help to shape the legitimacy of law and legal institutions. so over the last two months much of the country has been transfixed by the shooting death

of a 17-year-old teenager, trayvon martin, in sanford, florida, who was unarmed and walking back from a convenience store when he was killed. much of the attention to this case has focused on the role of race not just in the shooting but in the police investigation and the initial decision against arresting the shooter, george zimmerman, or charging him with any crime. last week zimmerman was arrested and charged with second-degree murder and the senate judiciary committee is holding hearings on ending racial profiling in america. professor tyler, let me start by asking you as a psychologist and law professor, what do you make by the controversy over the trayvon martin shooting and how does it relate to long stand dig bait about the role of race in policing? >> let me begin by saying that i agree with rachel that we need to put this latest incident in context and that context is a whole series of incidents of this type over the last several

years but really over the entire history of the united states. and this is just one example. it's a good example of the tension over race and policing both in terms of the degree of outcry, the prolonged nature of the public outcry about this latest shooting and also the evidence of a clear difference in the way this shooting is understood in white and minority communities as was true with the gates incident which occurred a while back. when you do public opinion surveys, you discover that the white community and the minority community understand these events in really profoundly different ways. motivation of people involved, their trust in law enforcement. those are really noteworthy far

beyond this most recent event although that's a good example. we ought to ask basically why is there this gap and i think the thing that we should recognize is that we're just looking at the tip of an iceberg. if we look at national level public opinion data in the united states, we see a gap of 20% to 30% in the level of trust and confidence that the white and minority community express in the police. furthermore, we see that this gap has persisted over time. there's no evidence that the gap is closing. in addition, if we look at the entire population of the united states, we see that trust and confidence of the police is not terrible but it's not great either. it's around 50% to 60% of the population expresses confidence

in the police and again that's not increasing. if we look over the last 30 years for example, we see no evidence that trust and confidence in the police nationally is improving. so we might ask the general question why is trust and confidence low? why is it not improving and why is there this large racial gap that leads to the kinds of things that we see when there is an incident of this type where we see vastly different understandings of the events and vastly different levels of confidence in the authorities to deal with whatever is the particular incident. what i would emphasize is that one of the reasons that we see this persistent gap is that we do not see that the strategies, the policies and practices that police are using are focusing on the legitimacy that the police have in the minority community. they're not focused on trust and confidence. if we look at what the police

are using as their framing strategy, there are two concerns that are typically addressed. one concern is lawfulness. the police looking to see if the actions that they're engaged in are consistent with the law. if you go to a police training academy, you see the cadets walking around with big manuals full of laws that they are learning so they can try to make their conduct lawful. and the other is effectiveness. police officers trying to do the things that they think are effective in terms of lowering the rate of crime, pressing violent crime particularly a gun crime and there's less attention to other issues, issues that for example in an early earier era called community policing issues. the interesting thing about lawfulness and effectiveness is

that these are not the issues that we find that people in the public are concerned about when they evaluate the police. when they think about if they trust the police, if they think the police are legitimate force in their community, what the public is concerned about and in particular minority communities is concerned about, is whether they feel the police exercised their authority fairly and whether they make decisions in fair ways, whether they treat people fairly and when there are these incidents, we see that the concern of the community is often framed in terms of these issues of fairness. for example, in the trayvon martin case, an immediate question of consistency of rule application. would this have been handled the same way if the victim had been white and the shooter had been black, for example. is the law being consistently and fairly applied. what we see when we look at discussions with the police about a whole series of issues

in recent years is that they're thinking about these issues from a different point of view. the point of view of lawfulness and effectiveness and not from the point of view of legitimacy. when we talk about racial profiling, there have been endless discussions about when is that legal and is it effective? we talk about the vast program of aggressive street stops here in new york. we have a question on is it lawful and does it really suppress crime and most recently mosque surveillance. we've seen the same thing. how has the government responded to questions about mosque surveillance. really, two things. nypd didn't do anything illegal and section an assertion in this particular case with no evidence behind it that this program of surveillance has prevented terror attacks. so the police are not really talking about the issue of legitimacy in the community as a

factor that they consider in their policies and practices and they're not building legitimacy in the community and we're not seeing community and we're not seeing it rising because legitimacy is so much lower in the minority community, we're likely to see lower levels of trust and confidence in that xhunity and then we see the way that's brought into an understanding of an event like the trayvon martin case. so i would go further and say that actually that the things do undermine legit massy is one, the police deal with the public in terms of legality or effectiveness, they're basically looking at the people they're dealing with on the street as potential criminals and potential systems and they're focusing on suspicion or the application of force or threat of force on those people. communicating suspicion about their character, undermining relationships with people in the community.

focusing, basically on risk and sanction as a definition between the police and the community. so i think the point i would make is that if the police would address issues of legitimacy and the community more effectively by focusing on how the policies and practices shape legitimacy and if they do that they will discover that it's a question of what people perceive to be fair in terms of the exercise of authority and principles of fairness such as allowing people voice and explaining decisions and being respectful of people and their rights. if the police do those things then they really will be addressing the underlying problem that's causing the kind of reactions that we're seeing in incidents like the martin situation. >> lisa dugard, based on your work in seattle does it seem to

you as it seems to professor tyler that the issue of race and policing is an issue of fairness and legitimacy? >> yes. who's next? so just background in the context in which i'm working. i have the privilege and opportunity to work with a police department and two prosecutors' offices which are voluntarily choosing to discontinue techniques that have contributing to delegitimizing law enforcement among poor people and communities of color in seattle and king county. although the seattle police department was the subject of a investigation and subject to a doj consent decree soon, these

measures that i'm going to sketch out in an outline form were instituted by the four minded commanders and this truly was a voluntary shift. and we can talk later about why this came about. so what am i talking about voluntarily surrendering law enforcement. i'll give two examples. first, those of you in new york are familiar with the program, operation clean halls and related tomorrows that enforce the trespass enforcement program basically where police agencies ending into agreements to check and purge public -- privately owned property that's open to the public of people determined by the police not to have

business there. so in an department building it's a kid who proves and the police don't believe he lives there. they've had a similar program for decades. in seattle, trespass is a trance tiff verb. it's something that the police do to people. you've been trespassed. so amazing with what happens to grammar when we do this to people. so, anyway, for decades, the police department have made agreements with private businesses where they become the agent. on their own they couldn't do this, but they become their agent in their view and stand in the shoes of the property owner and they get to determine that someone who is no longer allowed to use this property and then they're banned forra i week, for a month, for a life time. if they come back they're subject to arrest for criminal

trespass. probably more important, many people don't come back they alter the use of their space permanently because they think the police can and do regulate where they can go throughout their city. similar programs have been in place elsewhere in the country, notoriously in since natty and over the ryan neighborhood and, so, recently, this is problematic because this is a state actor, depriving someone of liberty without any kind of process and we could have litigated that and we said that we would litigate that, but if we had, what we would have had is a system where an individual could seek a hearing to determine whether or not they could be banned from the parking lot of the, you know, stop and shop or something like that. people wouldn't use it. they would probably not prevail, but this legal flaw in the

program was a wedge to open the conversation with the leaders. most remarkable is what the department did when we said we want to bring this program down, do you want to talk about things differently? they said yes because there had been a seary was highly publicized videotaped encounters between police officers and young people of color that were just highly embarrassing and department leadership recognized that programs like this were contributing to that and they took the opportunity to say you could remake this program in court, but we want to remake it more broadly, voluntarily as a matter of policy. so it has been completely revamped and now police officers don't decide who can go in the city of seattle and we're not supposed to and implementation of the reform in the street has been spotty, at best, and i think that's a very important question to investigate in any discussion of law enforcement reform and it's translating

command-level decisions and policy changes to the street. the major work has been the major -- partnering with the seattle police department and the king county prosecutor meeting toward unilaterally laying down arms in the war on drugs and although we're still working under a criminalization paradigm, as they said nationally, law enforcement and prosecutors choosing not to file felony charges against people who have committed felony drunk crimes and instead taking those people directly -- directly to gorilla research program where resources are provided to address whatever the underlying issues that led them to sell drugs on a street corner. of course, it's a wage. this is a job that people can do and make money for rent or whatever other obligations they

have when they are not able to access reliable employment in the official labor market. this program is called the law enforcement-assisted diversion program or lead and it came about after years of litigation that we were involved in, challenging selective enforcement in seattle drug arrests. seattle is not only typical of drug enforcement in the united states and it is an extreme outlier in terms of racial disparity and it's the most extreme instance in the country over the last ten years. and when we came from, just to wrap up, in the course of this l litigation and we're going to win preliminary trial level decisions and the prosecutor we'd dismiss charges and we'd start over again and do it again. after a few rounds of that we had a sitdown with the mayor's

office and the police department and the prosecutor with the two-part agenda. part one is are we all on the same page that there's a problem with racial disparity and drug enforcement and the answer was no. there was absolutely no agreement despite the fact that after one court judge said this passed the any idiot test. any idiot can see that anybody charged with a drug crime in king county superior court is black even though it's well established that the large ma r majority of people not just selling drugs, and using drugs are white. at some point in that discussion a guy who i know recognize is visionary and head of the seattle narcotics unit said why not set the question a side and said why aren't we interested about doing something different about drug enforct