watch us in hd and like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. >> a discussion about the impact of a criminal record on someone who is trying to reenter society. and what can be done to help prevent recidivism. collateral consequences as we know are the additional sanctions typically mandated by state statute that attached to criminal conviction that are not part of the direct consequences of the conviction such as incarceration, fines, and/or probation. they are the further civil consequences that are triggered as a consequence of the conviction. in general, all state impose

these consequences. they include but are not limited to loss or restriction of professional licenses, ineligibility for public funds including public welfare benefits, public housing, and student loans, loss of voting rights, ineligibility for jury duty, and a big one in colorado is loss of hunting privileges. and deportation of immigrants. while collateral consequences have always accompanied criminal convictions in the united states, their number in impact expanded dramatically during the 1980s and 1990s. collateral consequences have recently garnered increased attention in if large part because of the record number of individuals now exiting u.s. correctional facilities and returning to communities across the country.

the numerous collateral consequences that attached to convictions are perceived as frustrating reintegration for both individuals and for communities. many maintain that collateral consequences are a barrier to successful re-entry for many offenders. while many nations impose collateral consequences on individuals with criminal records, most such restrictions appear less severe than in the united states. for the most part, courts have held that the failure to advise the definitive potential collateral consequences does not give rise to a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel and that court advisement of collateral consequences is not constitutionally required. only the collateral consequence of deportation has been made an exception to this general rule by the united states supreme court in padilla v commonwealths of kentucky. there are circles of legislate live reducing collateral consequences or providing opportunities for waivers or exemptions from them.

hopefully that will set the stage for what i believe will be a very interesting discussion. we have three distinguished panelists with us today. immediately to my left is esther big letter, the director of cornell university's labor and employment law program. she develops forums and conferences on critical and evolving labor in employment law issues and teaches in both ithica and new york city. a graduate of kornel and george -- cornell and georgetown university law center, ms. big letter began her career a field attorney with the nlrb. she then represented unions in all phases of labor law and represented plaintiffs in title vii litigation. returning to public service she was the deputy director and general counsel of new york city's bureau of labor services which enforced the equal employment opportunity requirementses in city contracting. ms. big letter is a member of the new york city bar

association, labor and employment committee, the american bar association section of labor and employment law, and the new york state bar association labor and employment law section. she was the 2006 recipient of thalition cook and constant cook aaward for commitment to women's issues and for improving the climate for women. thanks for joining us. appreciate it very much. scott burns was the elected prosecutor in iron county, utah, for 16 years before being selected by president george w. bush in 2002 to serve as the deputy drug czar at the white house. upon leaving the white house in 2009, mr. burns was selected as the executive director of the national district attorney's association, and after five years recently relinquished that position to return to his native utah to practice law. mr. burn has received numerous awards and honors for his work as a prosecutor, has been a fierce advocate of victims' rights, and a national spokesperson on behalf of america's 40,000 prosecutors. thanks for joining us. prior to his appointment as alaska's attorney general, michael garrity was a partner in

the anchorage law firm. mr. garrity began working at the firm in 1979 with a practice devoted to litigation and appeals before state and federal courts. he appeared as lead counsel in civil and criminal law matters as well as proceedings before osha, the alaska state commission on human rights, and the u.s. land commission. born and raised in fairbanks, garrity's private practice focused on areas and industries reflecting alaska's growth and history including natural resources, oil and gas, and construction. he's been involved in numerous complex cases including class actions and antitrust. in 2005 he was appointed by the governor to serve alaska as a uniformed law commissioner to the national conference of commissioners on uniformed state laws in 2007 he was honored by his peers when he received the alaska bar association board of governor's professionalism award in recognition of exemplary conduct in his association with the public, his colleagues, and the legal community. in 2011, he was elected to the fellows of the american bar foundation in recognition of outstanding dedication to the welfare of the community, the traditions of the profession, and the advancement of the objectives of the american bar association. general garrity received his undergraduate degree in political science from the university of hawaii. and he graduated with a j.d. cum laude from the university of santa clara.

general garrity and his wife lived in arrange roar for 30 years and have five children. we'll have the same format as the last panel. each panelist will speak for approximately 10 to 15 minutes. then i'll pose some questions and we'll open up to the audience for questions. esta, do you want to begin? >> i will begin. >> good morning, everyone. i can't tell you how thrilled i am to be here, but i do feel a little bit like i'm a duck out of water.

as the only employment lawyer on the panel and perhaps the only labor and employment lawyer in the room, it's a little intimidating. let me say that i grew up in new york city. i now take the subway all by myself at night. [laughter] yes. somebody back there. yes. thank you. i take the subway by myself at night. but i have been the victim of being mugged twice and having my house broken into twice. i live in brooklyn. and i'm always very worried when my sons are out late at night. i come to this subject having been a traditional labor and employment lawyer, but when i moved over to cornell, one of the things that became of interest to me was the use of social science research in if labor and employment law and how the two come together.

how do lawyers use social science research? and how do sociologists, industrial organizational psychologists, use what they see happening in the legal profession for the research that they do? so this is where i come from. when i think about this topic of collateral consequences and recidivism, the first thing i think of is a hydra. this has so many pieces to the puzzle. we certainly have race discrimination. we have fierce. -- fear. we have negligent hiring. we have drug addiction. we have my favorite topic, employment. we have crime. we have public safety. but i look at all of this through the lens as an employment lawyer. and employment what we want to know, is when criminal records are being used as a selection device. does this selection device, is it job related? is it related to the job to be done? and can the employer show a business necessity? so those are the hallmarks of

how i think about this issue. when i think about criminal records, and i've read extensively. i've done many conferences, talked to many scientists who study the issue. it appears that we all begin to think about someone with a criminal record as they're all the same, that somehow the crimes are not different, it's the record and the record only that he with think about. people refrain from engaging in criminal activity as many different reasons as people get into it, perhaps. what we do know is that nearly 2/3 of people released from prison serve for non-property -- excuse me, non-violent offenses, including drugs, 37%, and property, 25%. some people have been clean for 10, 20, and 30 years. and somehow we act when we look at collateral consequences as how long they've been clean is irrelevant.

so that their debt to society has never paid. so a forever rule is in place. i came here to argue that a forever rule is not always appropriate. i'd like to put a face on this for you if you'll give me a few minutes. i bring up the case of darryl langdon. the story was told in the howard law review in 2011. he in 2010 had just been turned down for a job as a boiler room engineer in the chicago public schools. under a state law that said anyone who had a drug conviction could not work in the public school system. he had been convicted in 1985 of a drug conviction for possession of cocaine, a relatively minor amount of cocaine, and he had gotten a court order relieving him of this employment bar but still the chicago public school system refused to hire him. in 1985 he was caught with a half-gram of cocaine and sentenced to six months probation. what was interesting about this is that he worked for the

chicago public school system at the time, didn't lose his job, and in 1988 they sent him to an employee assistance program. it was the turning point in his life. he became a responsible family man, a respected member of the community, and he continued to work for the chicago public school system until 1995 when there was restructuring in the system and he, with many others, were laid off. the next 13 years he worked in his own mortgage business doing real estate until the real estate turndown. and then he decided he obviously needed another job. he got a job in a hospital working as a building engineer. but wanting to make more money and wanting the benefits that the chicago public school system could provide, he reapplied for that job. he had been sober for over two decades. he had raised two sons as a single parent and he had had no further problems with the law. he was interviewed three times. he was honest on his application

about his conviction. they tested him for the skills of being an engineer. and just as he was about to be hired, he was told he was ineligible for employment because of the provision in the illinois school code prohibiting people convicted of a long list of crimes including felony, drug convictions. so it's the langdons of the world that i will tell you i am very, very concerned about. we do know that race plays a role here. the eeoc, when it issued its guidelines on hiring people with criminal records in 2012 -- and if you all know these statistics, i apologize. about one in 17 white men are expected to serve time in prison during their lifetime. one in six hispanic men, and one in three african-american men. african-americans and hispanics are incarcerated at rates disproportion at to their numbers in the population.

in 2010, black men had an imprisonment rate that was nearly seven times higher than white men and almost three times higher than hispanic men. so we have a large population that has a criminal record. we have a population that needs to be served. in my colleagues' and my view employment is one of the most important places where someone can gain a sense of confidence, a sense of responsibility, and can continue on in a law-abiding way. in 2003, diva paga did a study in which she wanted to look at how employers look in hiring someone with a criminal record. she did a very interesting study involving entry-level positions for the job. and i can go into how the study was done later if anybody is interested. but it involved applying for a job and then callbacks. everyone who was in this study was well trained, presented themselves exactly the same way. however, some on their resume said they had a criminal record

and some did not. there were white teams, hispanic teams, and black teams. what she discovered was that a criminal record hurts everyone. 34% of the whites who applied for these entry-level jobs without a criminal record received callbacks but only 17% of whites with a criminal record. a 50% drop in the number of people called back. employers are more likely to call back a white applicant with a criminal record 3.4 times more over a black person with a criminal record, and significantly whites with criminal records were called back more often than african-americans with no criminal record. it's very hard to get a job out there. in general, and certainly if you have a criminal record. prison, we know, is often a revolving door. the pew study indicated that between 43% and 45% almost half returned to prison in the first three years, often technical violations of parole rather than

new crimes. so, if people don't go back what can we do to encourage and increase their employment? people age out of crime. we do know that research shows that there is a decrease of risk for arrests over time depending on the type of crime whether it be property, drugs, or violence. after a while you get too old to do many of the things that are involved in crime. and i have those statistics if anybody's interested. approximately 1.5 million people reside in american prisons and 700,000 are released each year. we talked earlier today about the surge in prison population since 1970, the era of mass incarceration and the war on drugs. over seven million people are part of an overall correctional population. that includes people who are on probation and parole. one in four adults has a criminal record. we now spend, as a country, over $70 billion on incarceration costs, housing, feeding, guarding people who are really

not contributing to our economy. a very recent study of 40 states found that the average yearly cost of incarcerating one person is about $31,000. i will tell you that it's a lot more in new york state. and suggested that if we could reduce the prison population by 1%, 14,000 people, the result to the states would be a saving of $434 million. and i didn't believe the number so i checked the math. just to make sure. so i and my colleagues believe that reintegration into communities as facilitated by employment, people need to have intact families as much as possible. children need to be living with their parents. and employment plays an important role. one study showed that 89% of the people who violate probation or parole are unemployed at the time.

another study showed 58% of reduction in recidivism or re-arrest after someone was employed for 30 days. there's a recent study that was done on a program in new york city c.e.o. that has a comprehensive employment program. they take people right out of prison. they get jobs. and they are also given a

significant amount of training and individual work with them to improve their marketability, to improve their ability to get jobs, to improve their prospects. there was a study done in which there was a control group. one group got the jobs. and all of the training. the other group got access to jobs. and given access to community help but the no the same kind of work that the first group was given. the first group came to the program after being out only three months. it tushed out -- turned out to be that was a very important issue. what they found was after one year there was actually no difference, no difference, which was fascinating, in earnings and employment between the two. but what they did find was a significant decrease in recidivism. people who had been enrolled in having a job and having the extra services given to them, 9 recidivism rate for them went down between 16% and 20%. a huge chunk, i would say.

now let me move to another issue involving employment, and that's background checks. only one minute? background checks, quickly. we know that background checks have become a standard part of what employers use when they hire people. and what we found was that 55%, sherm found it the society of human resources professionals, found, that 55% of employers use background economics because they're afraid of negligent hiring. we did a study two summers ago at cornell in new york city looking at negligent hiring lawsuits from 1990 to 2012 to see if negligent hiring, hiring someone who you should not have hired because the fear is you have not done the kind of study you should have done on them, and then they hurt a third person. they hire a customer or they hire -- they hurt another employee. what we discovered, look being at the likelihood of being sued, the likelihood that criminal records were involved in those lawsuits -- just let me finish this piece. we found only 168 reported cases.

we used lexis verdicts and settlements for this. that we have found 78 cases where the plaintiff won or there was a settlement. from the 168 cases we whittled it down to 78 cases where there was a real case of negligent hiring, not just something one of the lawyers threw up against the wall like spaghetti to see what would stick. so we found 41 cases in all of those years that were true negligent hiring. we then whittle it had down even further to see if it was a primary claim. the primary claim was in 28 cases. 19 plaintiff and nine settlements. we then wanted to know how many of those involved a criminal record. and what we discovered was only 11 out of the 28 involved a criminal record. so employers' fear of being sued for negligent hiring was really -- should not be a great fear, especially when you think about new york which there are so many various employers. there are 5588,115 -- 588,115 reporting employees. so when you look at that number, you see it's negligentible. the last thing as my time up is, is that when we did this study, one of the things we were not able to see is whether, in fact, any of the employers took into account the requirements of our law, we call 23a, which requires an eight-factor analysis if someone has a criminal record and you've done your due diligence. then the criminal record, the presumption, is it will not be admitted into evidence in a negligent hiring lawsuit.

so the 23a factors are very much like the eeoc guidelines which i'm sure we'll talk about later. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, esta. scott, you want to give a little prosecutor's perspective on this issue of collateral consequences? >> thank you. thank you for inviting me. general, always a pleasure when you're here. i don't know if you're a big deal back east, but on the west side of the country he's a big deal. a u.s. attorney.

>> take all the time you want, scott. [laughter] >> i'm pissed that the teleprompters are gone. we were at dinner last night with two of my heroes, william fitzpatrick of syracuse, and dan done donovan of staten island talking about running for office. didn't you run for attorney general? yeah. how did that go? well, i can trace it back to where i lost. it was 1996. and bob dole was running for president. and he came to salt lake city. and i drove up from mayberry, the little town i lived in, mount pilot, and i was standing there. and i was so excited.

i was going to meet bob dole. i found out later he was not doing well. so orrin hatch bailed on him. he was supposed to introduce him. i'm stuck in a vote. and senator bennett, i've got busy with the constituent. i go, great, governor leavitt. three-time governor, secretary of health and human services, big deal, well spoken. they go, he couldn't make it got stuck in traffic in salt lake city he got stuck in traffic? [laughter] so they said, burns, you're running for attorney general, you need to introduce him. i'm like, i'm going to introduce bob dole? there's like 500 people here. i'm like, no -- so i walked up there. i remember, do you have orrin's notes? what should i say? no, this is easy. it's on a teleprompter. just read what orrin was going to say. and said, oh, that's what that is? i watched all of those state of the unions. i thought it was to keep the president from being shot. [laughter] and i always remember as a kid, i could never be president because they do knees long quotes. and abraham lincoln said -- as reposed under a tree in -- i'm like, wow, how did they remember that? they were reading it. and so just as i'm going up, greg inningleman who knew had he, orrin hatch's advance guy he grabbed me and goes, burns. what? don't blow this.

don't ad lib. don't go off. i go, i won't. he goes, no, i'm serious. this is bob dole. read it word for word. so now i'm nervous. i said, all right. he came up. he's standing next to me. says, bob dole. how's it going? good. yeah, yeah. how's your campaign going? i'm going, not too well. [laughter] i'm like, you either, buddy. [laughter] so the words came up. and i said, welcome to salt lake international airport. pause. today it is my distinct pleasure. pause. to introduce to you a son of kansas. pause. the next president of the united states, bob dole. applause! [laughter] and he said who are you? [laughter] so it didn't go that well. but i wanted to try it. collateral consequences first

introduced to me at an ada panel maybe a year, year and a half ago. i googled it. wikipediaed. researched, read about it, tried to apply it to my life as a prosecutor for 16 years. and the world that we live in. and i was on the panel. i sat at the end. it was called padilla. we had the aclu, amnesty international. i'm sure richard jerome is here. they talked about how terrible it was that mr. padilla was going to be deported and he wasn't told about it and should have been in the plea agreement. it's a big deal. i think everybody agreed if you're going to be deported, it's a big deal. but as they went down the panel, i thought, i must have gotten the wrong case. they said poor mr. padilla, didn't fill out some paper work. he had been in this count require 30 years a family man, a good man. they didn't even tell him. and i had to go back. because when they got to me, i'm like, i must have the wrong padilla. because this guy was in kentucky and he had over a ton of marijuana in the back of a tractor trailer and got arrested. i mean, that's not a minor offense, little deal, just over some paperwork.

and he was not a citizen of the united states. well, i don't know about you, but if i'm in guatemala, be mexico, or anywhere else with a ton of dope, i'm going to figure there's going to be a lot of consequences. and i would think mr. padilla would as well. so i think there on that panel tried to bring some common sense to the discussion with respect to how far do we go? when we left, i was shaking my head because some people were honestly talking about putting in the plea agreement, let's each go back -- bill, you got new york. candace, you take texas. and find out all of the consequences that are collateral to a conviction in your state. and some of them came back 385 collateral consequences. that we were going to put into a plea agreement?

i don't know how many of you have been in a real courtroom, trying a real case, but you can imagine going through that plea agreement? you can't groom a dog in montana. you can't play a harmonica in maine. you can't -- you know. some of them we -- you possess a gun, that's a big deal to certain people. but candace is head of our domestic violence program for the past 20 years. some guy pistol whips his wife for the third time and is convicted ever domestic violencing and they do get upset. by god, under the second amendment i want my gun. they scream. they holler. so i think what we have tried to do at the national district attorney's association, i've had the pleasure of serving under a great president this last year, henry garza of texas, is talk about collateral consequences and what's reasonable and what isn't in our lives but also remind everyone that in the united states, some 40,000 prosecutors, 2,500 elected, prosecute 97% of the criminal cases in this country. when several holder stands up and talks about moving programs

addressing issues, it is good we are here picked as in the city of philadelphia in six months, they prosecute more felony cases than all of the federal judges and prosecutors in one year. over 10 million felony level cases by state and local prosecutors. what we have been trying to talk about, in addition to collateral, we need to be concerned about that. that botched execution in oklahoma, did you hear about that? yes. he is taking over for me and will be great -- i bet she got 20 calls. did you? i would always say my first question is what was the victims name? what did clayton duckett do? he was executed -- i got that part. what is going on? what he did is on june 3, 1999, abduct 19-year-old.

she was all excited. she had a tasmanian devil sticker and it -- in it. she got personalized license plates and was a kind of frumpy girl and it helped with her competent at school. she had some friends over and this guy abducted her and her friends and drove her out to a rural area. had her friend jay -- figure great, had her stand in the great and she shot her. she didn't die. he went back to his truck while she is pleading. fixes the shotgun, went back and shot her again. he and his codefendants were laughing -- she is tough. she was laying there in the grave and got her friends covering heard with dirt. her friend said she is not dead and still alive. he buried her alive.

i don't know -- it is kind of hard to me to get into great detail when they call about the botched oklahoma and the combination of drugs. was it more like a foot up? i think what we need to do in this country is talk about collateral consequences. talk about defendant's rights. some 25 carved out in the constitution recognizes criminal defendants. how many constitutional rights for victims? do we talk about collateral consequences for victims? there don't have a right to be present during a hearing. it doesn't say that anywhere. or to be told when somebody raped or killed their daughter is getting out of prison on parole. there is no right for that but here we are in washington, d.c. -- the race thing is not right. i think we all agree that an african-american applicant and a

white applicant have a background check and may have similar records and the white guy gets called back. or the hispanic -- that is not right. those are things we have to change. i have a buddy in atlanta that is probably one of the biggest ledger pits -- philanthropists in georgia. he has made up for it. it is not right -- i don't know that we do. i'm getting on a soap box. i always love it because we have a lively discussions about this whole clemency thing. i am like, really? so, we have -- honestly, i'd be open to hear your comments later, but we have federal prosecutors, federal law enforcement investigate, arrest people, charge them with crime. they go through a system either a jury trial or trial before a judge, get sentence pursuant to a law that congress, equivalent of our state to pass the laws, and then they go to prison.

then we have the executive branch saying we are going to have highly trained assistant attorneys pull through these. bill fitzpatrick -- i am republican. a woman that was a democrat nominee graded -- nominated to be a federal judge, i could not carry her purse. she was bright and brilliant. she gets slapped down to be a federal judge who sends his people because nine years ago, as part of her job as a prosecutor, she argued x instead of y in a guns case. br -- the nra comes out and says she cannot be a federal judge. they're supplanting the judgment for criminal justice system under this thing called clemency. i think he should get out, i think he should get out.

whatever the conditions are in my judgment, they are now saying the executive branch knows better. we are now coming in with these really smart assistant u.s. attorneys. we are going to let them out. we are going to give them clemency. i don't know. i said, who else has done that? i thought it was like tiffany's when we fix or will cases and now it is like going to the walmart. we are going to bring in thousands of them and the president will exercise his right -- his right to clemency. it seems like it has become defendants rights, collateral consequences, let's figure out a way to help them before they get in. and then when they get out, we don't talk about victims. people that have been thrown in the trash. people who have been raped and burglarized. people who were family members of stephanie in oklahoma.

we need to start talking about the collateral consequences of the victims of crime in america. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, scott, for living up for all my expectations. [laughter] general, thank you for sugarcoating that. >> i am not a career prosecutor. in my state, i do have responsibility for all the district attorneys and criminal attorneys so it has been a bit of a learning experience. we have something called the criminal justice working group which is similar to what governor ben holland is describing -- van hollen is describing. it is cochaired by myself and the justice and the alaska supreme court.

the public defenders are part of it, corrections, involved community agencies. so, it is a group of maybe 30 of us. we meet several times of year it to talk about these issues. i was struck by the fact that we talk about specifics but the one that caught my attention is the u.s. has prosecuted about five percent of the world's population, yet we house 25% of the world's prisoners. and, at least in alaska, 60% of our incarcerated individuals are nonviolent offenders. they are not the people that scott was referring to, the vicious murderers and so on. there is a cost associated with incarcerating them. we just opened a new prison last

year. before that, we house a number of prisoners in colorado and a few private contracts. we brought all those people back home. it seems to me there was a transition occurring and general holder referred to it in the sense that people, including fiscal conservatives, are realizing there is a cost to being tough on crime. it is a cost to society as a whole. so, just in our state which is very large, we have tried to tackle this. one of the first things we did was try to get an -- we talk about collateral contact lenses. -- consequences. there was a project going on of the national inventory of collateral consequences of conviction projects. it is funded by the aba and administered by the national institute of justice.

we contacted them. we have some legislators that we were interested in. they moved us to the top of the list for some reason to try to get this information. they did take a look at our state and lo and behold, we have well over 500 collateral consequences in our statutes and our regulations just in alaska. that does not count -- there are a number of federal level that apply to stay prisoners. some local communities have their own little new wants is on some of these consequences whether it be getting ataxic lab backs a taxicab license -- a taxicab license. many of them are licensing anything that is licensed by the state like morticians, nutritionists, hearing aid pillars -- dealers. there is a number of collateral consequences i don't think our material and the sense of discussion we are having today that people coming out of the system, prison are not going to be affected by them. it could. they happen to choose one of

these obscure professions but by and large, i do not think they are. we do have the people that work in the liquor industry, cabaret licenses. they need to work to get a license to sell liquor and that would be an area that could be affected. commercial driving licenses, an area that people could end up trying to seek a new job in. commercial fishing is a big industry in our state and you need a license for that. these convictions all affect the people's ability to get back to those jobs. we have been studying the issue, we have been taking a look at it. i think it is probably the tip of what other states have as well. we look and we do have a variance process. i think this is true for many states as well. the division of health and social services licenses are the main license in our state. they have programs of variance and we learn on average about 10 to 20 variance requests are received every month from people who are employers that want to

hire somebody that has a record that would otherwise be barred under the applicable regulation. they take about a month to process on average and many times the paperwork has been turned in initially so they have to turn back and get more information.

it takes about one month the process and about 75% of them, the applications are received, are granted. there is some progress. we also learned that for commercial driving licenses, we have maybe 35,000 individuals with commercial driving licenses in alaska. they revoke less than one percent of licenses on an annual basis because of a criminal conviction. something i thought might be a higher number is actually not that high. so, you are kind of left wondering what is the impact? intuitively, we know it is important for people when they get out to have some options. our state, i cannot speak for

the national average, about 60% of lower population -- of our population is rearrested within three years. that is one of the main goals of ours. it is trying to reduce a that recidivism level. we do think that creating opportunities is reasonable. not for the vicious criminals. those people are going to have to carry around those convictions forever and with good reason. there are many, many large subset of nonviolent offenders -- those people can be bad people and violin and we have to recognize that as well. we're looking at trying to create opportunities for them. the other interesting thing is federal drug felonies -- a lif etime ban for food stamps and temporary assistance as possible.

states can opt out of that or they can minimize or moderate the ability of the person to become eligible again. in our state, we are one of 11 states that have not changed those. we still enforce the federal ban. these are federal monies. i think the feds tapered ministering the program in the states. you get out of -- you have a family and you get out of prison. it bars you from getting the federal benefits could be hard. another statistic that i read between 1991 and 1998, the number of kids who have had a parent incarcerated in the state or federal facility has increased over 100%.

kids -- families need a way out. people getting out of the system need a way to support the family. is it our state? we have not altered or changed the federal law. we never opted out and allowed people to regain those benefits that meet certain conditions. we are taking a look -- of the next step in when we are doing anyway is to try to come up with what we are calling a certificate of completion. there are over 500 statutes and regulations. it is a patchwork process. there is no rhyme or reason to it when you go through it. it has been happening or enacting the law changes. the certificate of completion is intended -- the details is not legislated. if you have completed your utilization and sentence -- a rehabilitation and sentence, you get the certificate will be issued by a court or a commissioner.

then, you have something you could take to an employer and that employer hopefully will regardless of race consider you as eligible and would give you a job if you are entitled to it. it is similar to what the other major effort out there which is done by the uniform block and -- commission -- it is a model act. it approaches this issue on a number of levels. one is to come up with an inventory of all these consequences. part of the act seeks to establish some causal connection between the restrictions and the offense.

for example, look at our state commercial fishing licenses. if you are convicted of theft or crime involving dishonesty, you can have your license, your commission will -- or commercial -- your commercial fishing license revoked. i don't know the connection between crime of dishonesty and a commercial fishing license, but this uniform act that was proposed would try to impose some sort of reasonable restriction, reasonable causal connection between that. if you have served your sentence, you have the certificate that you can use and to show -- it is proof that you've been through the system, you are worthy. you paid your debt to society.

the numbers are getting so overwhelming. we are getting into that direction. the other major thing that is happening in our state is pretty topical right now which is the expunging of records. we have a thing called court view. it records arrests, convictions, acquittals, and your record.

this last session -- the conservative senators got through a bill to require expungement of arrest records and acquittals. it is on the governor's desk right now and it has a fair amount of scrutiny. i think with good reason. people who are quitted does not mean they are innocent. it means they are not incident -- guilty. the prosecutor didn't meet the burden of proof. i have few misgivings about expunging the records of acquittal arrests. i think it is a fair question. the idea of being, referred to these instances already, these things follow you around for the rest of your life. the public can access it. it is not that collocated.

without more expert nation -- explanation, an employer see somebody with an arrest record and you don't know what it is. you know what the circumstances are. if you have a guy without an arrest record, an applicant -- i will say it for myself, you would probably go with the guy without an arrest record. that is another front where progress is being made but not without controversy. the number of these measures have been vetoed. there was one in our state right now which i think the jury is still out on. i'm not sure what the governor will do. i look forward -- i appreciate the comments from the other panelists. it is something we have to wrestle with as a society. >> thank you, all three of you for your comments.

general, you raise an issue at the heart of this. what are we trying to accomplish philosophically with collateral consequences? i pose a two or three part question. they are not intended to be. e punitive for the crime. they're supposed to cobbler some additional societal goal. public safety, deterrence. i guess for all of you, are there certain collateral consequences that you feel are more rationally related to public safety than others? some clearly are trying to garner public safety. number two, is there a deterrent effect because we know that collateral consequences increased dramatically in the 1980's and 1990's and crime decreased significantly in the 1980's -- beginning in the 90's.

are people not engaging in some criminal behavior because -- gosh, i don't want to but my license at risk or something like that? all three of you, philosophically, what are we trying to accomplish? are we accomplishing it? which collateral consequences make sense to you? do you want to start? >> not at all. i think the purpose of collateral consequences is for public safety. if you know you are going to do something that violates the law, you're going to jirga, that seems like a good deterrent been thinking you can't be an animal breeder somewhere. or you won't be able to cut hair or any of the other places where there is licensing requirements and at the other political record -- if you have a criminal record, you cannot do that. do i think it meets that goal

for public safety? what we really need to have in terms of all the things we've been talking about is an individualized assessment. i don't want people out on the street either, people love engaged in criminal violence, a rapist. we would never want a pedophile working on a public school, a private school, in any place where they would find children. for most of these, we are talking about is the relationship between the job to be performed and the criminal act that the person was found guilty of and has served his or her time? i don't think it is a deterrent. i think public safety could only be met where there was this relationship between the job and the license, whether it is driving a car or anything. >> you wouldn't have a problem if you were convicted of a sexual offense, you cannot be a

schoolteacher? >> absolutely not. we want to protect our children. >> scott? >> i concur. in reading some of these across the country, honestly, some of them were humorous. i saw no collection between the collateral sanction of somebody who was convicted of their fifth drunk driving that could not groom a dog. maybe it is drunk grooming, i don't know. [laughter] as you say, i think in the beginning the obvious common sense, real-life purpose is to keep sex offenders from being a boy scout leaders. to keep people that are violent out of situations socially and through employment. that is legitimate and i think all reasonable americans would support that. some of them are silly. >> i agree with the rest of the panel.

i am not an expert. there are experts here. i think in terms of the reduction of crime that is occurred -- i think a large part is demographics. you look at the 18th to 30-year-old age group and i think you could pretty much track criminal statistics with the size of that population goes up or down. the baby boom that we had through the war and that group reached its prime age. i agree with what scott and esther said. they make perfect sense. none of us would ever advocate getting away with it. it has become a juggernaut. my state alone is well over 500. i do not think that is reasonable. >> it is the legislature that created many of these collateral consequences. one of my frustrations is it the legislature wants to pass a bill

that suggest the courts invite people of these collateral consequences, why don't they just a limited some of them? i think that would be more appropriate way. >> you have to understand on this panel, you have some speed guys and local guys. we don't entirely trust the federal government, ok? >> i gathered that. >> i have to tell you some of us have an adverse reaction when the eoc puts out guidance suggesting that it is inappropriate for employers to ask about criminal convictions on initial job applications because, for those of us that are interested to reserve public safety, we have a general sense there is some relationship here.

employers ought to have some idea of criminal backgrounds if they are going to hire someone. what is the eoc trying to accomplish? >> let me be clear that we didn't say you cannot inquire about someone's criminal background conviction. that is not what the guidelines talk about. the eoc has protected classes, race, sex, religion, age, disability. criminal record is not a protected class. what we're looking at is the theory of disparate impact. when you have a neutral role but has a disparate impact on a group. it could be a role of that you didn't unroll intent to discriminate, but it ends up discriminating. the ones that are the easiest to think about -- i will get your answer.

the ones that is easiest to think about his height and police department. are used to be a height requirement in new york and i had a disparate impact on women, and latinos, and asians getting positions in the police department because they couldn't meet the height requirement. that is an example of a neutral rule. we are saying there was a disparate impact on minorities. on african-americans and latinos. it doesn't say you cannot do a background check. it doesn't say you cannot ask that question on an application. it does say that if you have a blanket neutral rule that you will not hire anyone with the political record, that is the problem -- a criminal record, that is the problem. not saying you will consider anybody with a criminal record, but that you will look at that record and analyze it just like you would anything else. their education, whether they

meet the requirements of the job, taking a look at it but not a blanket rule. >> either of you have comments about the eoc guidelines? >> she is much more versed in this. i know she is very knowledgeable about the number of states -- alaska is not one of them. that is something that wouldn't surprise me but to ban employers from having to box -- a box on the application that says if you have been convicted of a crime. you couldn't do it at that stage because as i mentioned, that is when many of these people are screened out. somebody has check that box -- ban the box legislation. this guy that had been arrested, is on your shortlist. at that point, you can inquire but then in the context of a

face-to-face interview. it is not that these can never come up, it is when they come up and the band the box legislation to prohibit them from being right there in the application but it is something that comes up. this is something we have looked at in our state as well. i think -- one employer did it on a voluntary basis in minnesota. those groups in retail -- th at is one in recent past i recall. >> bed bath and agreement to take the box off. the box has nothing the -- the guidelines don't go to ban the box. it is by state legislation. >> does new york state have a box?

>> i don't know. i can't answer that question. the concept comes out of the american with disabilities act in which you cannot ask someone in a hiring situation until you are about to make a conditional offer of employment. whether i need reasonable accommodations. you think i am qualified than you do an individualized assessment because i the criminal record. that is the concept behind it. >> scott, where are we going with this -- as you know, you see more and more movements to have greater advice about -- greater advisement about collateral consequences. do you think there is a notion

>> i think that is the real concern in the real world. i spent the last few days sitting in a courtroom watching real men and real women try cases in courtrooms in america. i was struck to the fact that we forget that 85% of prosecutors offices in this country have for prosecutors or less. they're really small towns in small counties. chicago and san diego. america,majorities in you will find out they know who

their neighbors are, they know that the smith kids are always in trouble. the collateral consequences in small communities are, people know who committed a crime and who didn't and what the justices -- how they look at each individual case. honest to god, if some really smart person in washington passes this collateral consequence thing, and we have to have three agreements that are two inches thick, but we have public defenders who don't make a lot of money but have to sit there for an hour and a half. we have to be very careful. time we spoke, henry was kind enough to set that up.

his whole thing about the criminal justice system is broken. too long, too many low-level offenders have been locked up. we need to change that. collateral consequences is one of them. reentry -- really? i would like to come to washington dc once and to celebrate the fact that homicides are down 50%. rape and robbery down 40% and 30%. today, google bj a recidivism. we came out with a study this week. it is really high. commit -- 70% of felons committing offense within three years of being released. but somebody decided, if you

continue to have the audacity commit crime after crime after crime, we will lock them up for a long time. crime is down dramatically. sheet -- with this issue and other issues i would hope women would reflect and think about it and how we get to real prosecutors from new york who prosecute cases every day. how will that affect their lives when they say people are ready for the next case? >> i spent three years of my life running a prison system. that, onentified in of the weakest areas of the criminal justice system is reentry. trying to bring inmates back into society. does your task force have a

particular look at reentry? >> we do. reinvent the we wheel. we try to go where others have gone, met --, honestly. they're on our task force as well. the executive director. they're currently working with the grant of a couple million dollars. they create housing for prisoners as a commodity system. forces have reentry task . level, they're doing something called ready for rent, .hich is a workshop i'm not sure how many hours it takes, but they take people and

teach the basics about the landlord/tenet situation and what the expectations are. how to do some housekeeping. these are very basic things for people who may have been living on the streets or on couches before that. people aree rearrested in the struggle for violating. that is a huge part in terms of our population. sentenced and do violate, gety drunk, get high, whatever the case may be. paceve something called project called accountability certification enforcement.

typically, they may violate several times in the prosecutor may allow several violators -- violations to build up before -- primarily they failed a drug test, failed to show for the drug test or fail to show for the regular meeting with their officer. you will go to jail for two days for a first offense. the idea is to show immediate consequences. that has shown some progress. they implemented one in forbanks, with which is domestic violence offenders. the other is for drug offenses. well, 40arted one as

miles out of anchorage. i think those are important. they have to be immediate consequences. not severe, but something to get their attention, to let them hopefullyain, that will reduce the size of the population. that is a constant revolving door. we are just following, trying to show some promise. >> we have 20 minutes. that's see if we have a questions from the audience, the fact that whether you're a convicted felon or not, you're free to ask questions. [applause] in the backeer there. -- i had astion

question about what folks think about the idea of allowing certainors to waive collateral consequences. interestingould be to see what licensing agencies and other directories -- other bureaucracies think about that. >> that is a great question. i don't know that prosecutors have the authority to waive them, necessarily. , if theythey couldn't did have that would be a question in my mind as to whether they could wave them at the time of sentencing. is an interesting concept. i think it would be worth

studying to find out if there is something that they could do at that level. has givene statute that authority to different agencies in the government. the due process them. most of them are approved. pleasantly surprised to learn that. it could be done by the prosecutor, maybe that would be even better areas i don't know the legality of it. >> either of you? real prosecutors could collect me, but in some sense, every single day when you're engaged in negotiations, there is some waving of collateral consequences. gun or you'red a going to be a registered sex offender for life if you are 15.

you can roll the dice or we can go to trial. it would be difficult to take say,tory consequences and i have a authority to waive your drunken dog grooming. i don't see that happening. >> there was a big controversy in denver several years ago when it was found that the denver district attorney was putting a lot of offenses down to a non-deportable offense. the primary purpose of making the person not subject to automatic deportation. i said, do you have any notion about where these waivers are to take lace? >> since i'm a proponent of individual assessment and looking at the person as he are now, not the record they created , for example, it would seem to me that within state government, a procedure can be set up where a person would apply to have

that particularly licensing prohibition waived depending on who they are. then the government agency would be the one that would waive it with an appeal. for example, the civil service you have a right to appeal. that is what belongs within state government, where they can actually do the kind of individual analysis. >> it would make sense at the barber board would decide who would make a good barber or not. >> i am recently retired from the state supreme court in new york. in new york and probably other urban areas, a family is not entitled to public housing if any member of the family has been convicted of a crime. i think it is probably just

felonies, but it could be everything. on the one hand, i am very sympathetic and one has to be sympathetic to the of the people living in the building who do not want a former gang member or a drug dealer moving into complex. by the same token, there's criminal genentech then having someone being released from prison and not finding a place to live. i don't think individualized focus would really work, because you have an immediate need. this person is being released from prison and he needs a home, he needs a place to live. living with the families probably best option for the most part. on the other hand, he needs that immediately. we all know what bureaucracies are. individual assessment really strict time. what work hasring been done in this area and

whether you have any thoughts about that. >> if anybody has any thoughts in the area, my guess would bee esta. that mean in terms of breaking up the family. i haven't seen any particular studies on that. i am not aware. i know it is a big problem. >> i have not seen studies either. dealsogram in anchorage with about 40 or 50 prisoners a day. they provide them housing. .nder no which families and another at the tail, either. -- i don't know that the tail either. detail either.

i was informed that they're trying to be flexible with the rules. it would be automatic that no alcohol would be allowed on the premises. is that going to push people out? withare experimenting allowing some alcohol on the premises. details,now all the but it is a very tricky area. as you say, nothing is more likely to lead to recidivism than not having any place to go realistically. briefly too speak the law-abiding housing tenants. i think he while it is an entitlement, it is being -- they don't want

people that just got out of prison coming back and wreaking havoc. it is a nice place but it is their home. to have -- do we have to be subjected to mrs. smith's son who just got out for robbery? i think that is one where there is a rational relationship between the consequence for the good of the order of other people. >> it is a tough question. you, eric ellman with the consumer data association. the discussion is really about saying no. part of the policy debate short of saying no is an employer's right to know. there are public policy proposals to essentially cut off after certain. of time, and employees ability to ask a question about an employee's criminal history. resources manager

study shows that many employers do conduct criminal history checks, but that study also shows that most employers conduct criminal history checks responsibly.-- even a conference i attended a couple of years ago, a couple of criminologists said there really is no redemption point. it could be 10, 12, 15 years after supervision ends. while many people agree that there shouldn't be a just say no to any job for any person for all time, but we need to be sure that we don't lose sight of the fact that employers have a right to know the entire breadth and width and depth of employees criminal history so they can responsible decisions for them, their employees and their customers. >> comments on that? i have several

different comments. one is that more recent research that is been done on redemption as ready.s completed it looks like 10 years. it depends on whether they're talking about violence or drugs or property. leaving aside those people who will immediately recidivate within three years. there's no question that employers have a right to know who they are hiring. the biggest concern i have a that when checks is you get a report back, sometimes it is not accurate. they get chance to know what that is and have it corrected. the problem is, it gets corrected for agency a. it doesn't get corrected for

agency be, necessarily. the correction may not take place with respect to the repository which is maintained by the state or the federal government. what i'm talking about is, records are coming back and it is not me. or there are 10 arrest records and no convictions. there is a problem with making sure there is something accurate. the question is the accuracy. that is my concern. >> expungement was not fully thought through. and that is what we are starting to realize. the same issue about fairness to the employer, whether it is a bona fide qualification for the job. do you all have any thoughts on

this whole subject of expungement as it relates to these issues? >> what types of problems are you seeing? what crimes are expungement and what sorts of problems --? it was a generic pill, so didn't have many guidelines. i think between local defense attorneys and local judges, there've been creating a new it is reallyso difficult because we don't have a -- the specifics necessary foreign expungement. it is any deep felony. -- it ispled down no any level d felony. i'm not sure what the time.

is. i think it is going to be effective immediately. there is language in it that says the court system is supposed to use its best efforts to go back and take out still arrest records and so on. i have misgivings about it. north carolina agreed on a 15 year cut off. they had to get buy-in from all stakeholders as to whether that is something they could live with. it is something i think that is reasonable to talk about through arrest records. certainly after some heard of time, i do know that it is fair for somebody who has rejoined society to carry around that stigma anymore. is ainciple, i think it noble endeavor, but once you start getting into details,

there are a lot of issues that are raised. >> a lot of what real don'tutors generally know, i thought and spot -- i thought expungement was a fun thing. been nine years, this man is a family man, he has a job, he is put everything behind that. i thought it was a good thing. it felt safe to have them. we rely on women and men to try cases all the time. i trust her judgment every day in indiana or wherever you're from to say yes. i think they're good when used appropriately.

>> we have a point of agreement appear. here. >> what are you doing for dinner? [applause] [laughter] >> the supreme court of canada has ruled that these collateral consequences are something that have to be considered by the prosecutor and the sentencing judge. if there is a certain sense that is been imposed within a particular range, but beyond that, something higher in that range would lead to some or being deported or lose the right of appeal on a d partition order. that should be considered, not sends could not be provided -- even when there's

though the sentence came , firstfter the fact thing you get a call from housing or social services. as a result, you no longer have social service benefits because of it. in the court of appeal, they said this is fresh evidence that we should consider. we will grant her an additional discharge as opposed to an actual conviction charge of the record. that is an imperative understanding of what could be done. it is considered. i thought it interesting whether mark what heve to had been arrested or convicted.

our law society asks that about every respective lawyer. are you an alcoholic, do you have mental health issues? is not that any of those questions bar any of those people. it just leads to more questions and more process. for example, someone who says they have gone through some mental health issues, they have to have counseling to make sure you're ok. is your sense that canada has fewer collateral consequences than the united states? >> definitely. 500 seems amazing. we do have some similar ones, though. .elfare benefits it is not so pervasive. the 500 or so is beyond.

>> what is your sense about this after the fact look. reconsider. >> it is a very interesting question. where does padilla lead us. defense. speak for the i would be surprised if those ands of questions information is not shared with your client before they plead. or shared by the judge of that is the consequences of a conviction. fraud convictions are one of the things in the law that to single you out for a lot of consequences. it surprised me when i looked at it. issue, weortation have presumptive sentences in alaska for certain offenses.

recently our court of appeals decided that a gentleman who lived in the military but was not a citizen, who after all his life and committed a crime. this sentence would've subjected him to a deep rotation. our court of appeals upheld it. trial court could sentence into three and 64 days, which was less than the trigger that might subject them to deportation. a citizen of alaska would've gotten that sentence that was a presumptive sentence, but this individual, because of his status got a lesser sentence in it was upheldain, by court of appeals. our supreme court did not accept -- this is an interesting angle. number of legislators were

puzzling over that because he did not seem right under the circumstances. if somebody has pled to a crime on something like that, that housing,e an effect on that is a tough case. i don't know. >> i love canada. you can rest assured you will be a lot nicer on this then we i thought i could go there if i got in real trouble [laughter] . note.that join me in thanking our panel. [applause] next "washington journal," political news of the reek with matt -- of the week

with matt lewis and sabrina siddiqui. why the american legion and other top pa "washington journal" live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> in place of president obama, michelle obama gave the president's weekly address. she addressed the kidnapping of hundreds of nigerian schoolgirls. a group of republicans give their weekly address. they called on the president and senate democrats to take action. hello, everyone.

i am michelle obama, and on this mother's day weekend, i want to take a moment to honor all the mothers out there and wish you a happy mother's day. i also want to speak to you about an issue of great significance to me as the first lady and more importantly as the mother of two young daughters. like millions of people across the globe, the husband and i are outraged and heartbroken over the kidnapping of more than 200 nigerian girls from the school dormitory in the middle of the night. this unconscionable act was committed by a terrorist group determined to keep these girls from getting an education. grown men attempting to snuff out the aspirations of young girls. i want you to know that barack has directed our government to do everything possible to support the nigerian government's efforts to find

these girls and bring them home. girls, brock and i see our own daughters. we see their hopes and their dreams. we can only imagine the anguish their parents are feeling right now. many of them may have been hesitant to center dot is off to school, fearing that harm might come their way. list -- that risk because it wanted to give them every opportunity to succeed. the girls knew full well the dangers they might encounter. the school had recently been closed due to terrorist threats. these girls still insisted on returning to take their exams. they were so determined to move to the next level their education, so determined to one day build careers of their own and make their families and communities proud. what happened in nigeria was not an isolated incident.

it is a story we see every day as girls around the world risk their lives to pursue ambitions. it is the story of girls like -- malals use of sig fortunately, she survived. when i met her last year, i could feel the passion and determination as she told me that girls education is still .er life's mission as she said in her address to the united nations, she said the terrorists thought that they would change our aims and stop our ambitions, but nothing changed in my life except this. weakness, fear and hopelessness died. strength, power and courage was born.

the courage and hope embodied by a and girls like her around the world should serve as a call to action, because right now, or the 65 million girls worldwide are not in school, yet we know that girls who are educated make higher wages, lead healthier lives, and have healthier families. when more girls attend secondary school, that boosts their country's entire economy. education truly is a girl's best chance for a bright future, not just for herself, but for her family and her nation. that is true right here in the u.s. as well. the story of these nigerian girls will serve as an inspiration for every girl and boy in this country.

i hope that any young people in america who take the school for granted, any young people who are slacking off or thinking , i hope theyg out will learn the story of these girls and recommit themselves to their education. these girls embody the best hope for the future of our world, and we are committed to standing up for them, not just in times of tragedy or crisis, but for the long haul. we are committed to giving them the opportunities they deserve to fulfill every last bit of their god-given potential. so, today, let us all pray for their safe return. let's hold of families in their hearts during this very difficult time. let us show just a fraction of their courage in fighting to

give every girl on this planet the education that is her birthright. thank you. >> nothing is more important than preserving the american dream for our kids and grandkids. is why republicans are focused on building a strong economy that produces good jobs and lasting opportunities. the trouble is, that task gets harder and harder each time the powers that be in washington won't act on a good idea. i am dave camp from michigan. bill would protect thousands of welfare recipients to help find jobs. america still waiting for senate democrats and president obama to act. i am virginia foxx from north carolina. 14 months ago, the house passed hr eight at three, my bill to help more american workers gain the skills and education necessary to compete for in demand jobs. americans are still waiting for president obama and senate democrats to act.

>> hello, i am lee terry from nebraska. 12 months ago the house passed hr three, my bill to build the keystone pipeline. americans are still waiting for the president and the senate democrats to act. it is time to build the keystone pipeline. i am martha roby from alabama. 12 months ago the house passed my bill, hr 1406, to allow private-sector workers to get benefits that public employees enjoy. america's waiting for president obama and senate democrats to act. >> eight months ago the house passed hr 761. americans are still waiting for president obama and the senate democrats to act.

>> i, i am bill flores from texas. provide ourd service members with the tools to help them find good jobs when they return home. are still waiting for president obama and senate democrats to act. bill toonths ago, my make it easier to develop resources so we can lower energy costs and reduce our dependence -- americans are still waiting for president obama and senate democrats to act. >> i am bob goodlatte from virginia. five months ago, the house passed hr 3309, my bill to remote innovation and job creation by helping businesses defend themselves against abusive patent litigation. americans are still waiting for president obama and senate democrats to act. george holding from north carolina. 10 weeks ago, the house passed

hr 2804, my bill to rein in red tape and increase transparency of new regulations so small businesses can better plan ahead. americans are still waiting for president obama and senate immigrants to act. senate democrats to act. >> americans are still waiting for president obama and senate democrats to act. i am bill johnson from ohio. six weeks ago, the house passed my bill to fight back against administrations war on coal that is destroying jobs. americans are still waiting for president obama and senate democrats to act. >> i am todd young from indiana. five weeks ago, the house passed hr 2575, my bill to restore the

working hours and wages that millions of part-time employees lost because of obamacare. americans are still waiting for president obama and senate democrats to act. >> and kevin brady from texas. yesterday the house passed my extend a taxnently credit so we can keep good ideas and good jobs right here at home. kline from minnesota. yesterday, the house passed my bill to strengthen charter schools and encourage more choice and opportunity in our educational system. these are only some of the many bills we have passed to provide new hope to families, workers and students across the country. more are in the works. the khazar focus day in and day out is on building a stronger economy and a better america. it is time for president obama and senate democrats to step up and make that their priority to. thank you for listening, and of

course, happy mother's day. >> next, military leaders discuss the future of pay and benefits for active service personnel. live at 7:00 a.m., your calls on "washington journal. " >> the glass-steagall act was a very clear line between the of servicesversion and things a bank could do and the deposits it took and the services it provided to regular individuals and small businesses. there's a very very clear distinction. the samers were on side as fdr and the population was on the same side and things became stable for many decades after that. you contrast that to what happened in the wake of the 2008 crisis, which has been a much

more expensive crisis for the general economy, for the actual unemployment level, not the tagline unemployment level. for what was lost to individuals throughout, and relative to the bailouts and subsidies that are been given since.. frank came along and did nothing remotely like dissecting speculation from depositors and traditional banking activities. >> a look at the relationships between 1600 pennsylvania avenue and wall street, sunday night at 9:00 on afterwards, art of book tv this weekend. join other readers to discuss the book at book to the.org. at book tv.org.