PROJECT EXILE: SUCCESS OR FAILURE? -- 23 January 2003

[CAPTIONING MADE POSSIBLE BY THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION]

just ahead on "Need To Know" -- -- in the world against
violence, no program gets more credit than project exile.-
Rochester is one of a few cities that uses this unique
approach.-
But some say project exile may be lucky rather than good.-
We'll look at the program and look inside the rotchest ear
museum's effort to preserve the best films.-
And we'll have our weekly edition with the "The Business
Section with the Democrat and Chronicle" on "Need To Know."-
-
>> You look at homicides.-
We have the highest homicide rate in the state of New York.-
Captioned by the National-
Captioning Institute-
--www.ncicap.org-- -

>> Thank you for joining us.-
I'm Michael Caputo.-
Get tough on crooks using guns and you'll fete at the violence
program.-
That's the theory behind project exile, a program started six
years ago.-
It cracks down on gun crimes by prosecuting them in federal
court.-
Criminal penalties tend to be more severe there than in state
court.-
Those convicted of crimes under the program are exiled to
federal prisons across the U.S., hence the name.-
Project exile began in Richmond, Virginia.-
Rochester was the second community to institute it.-
The program has spread since to places like San Francisco and
Philadelphia.-
Proponents say it has helped cut down on homicides and serves
as a deterrent.-
But there are studies suggesting that project exile may have
little to do with the drop in the homicide rate.-
Now with homicides leveling it off, there may be more
skepticism about the program.-
WXXI's Matt Cummings has this report.-
-
>> Four years ago, billboards began delivering a pointed
message to the Rochester community -- you plus an illegal gun
equals time in federal prison.-
Project exile arrived promising to drop the hammer on illegal
gun carriers as a way to slow Rochester's gun violence and
homicide rate.-
Created a law enforcement collaboration, a federal, state, and
local officials never before seen here.-
During the first years of the program, it was touted as a
cutting-edge way to are e deuce violent crimes.-
-
>> We're all focused on the same goal -- removing guns from the
community, reducing violence, having less incidents where
police officers are attacked, and project exile will do that.-
-
>> But this past year, Rochester's homicide rate remained
unchanged.-
41 homicides, the same number as 2001, although with the drop
in the city's population, the rate can be seen as rising.-
Gloria is a 19-year veteran of the Rochester police force,
spending tile on the east and west sides of the city.-
-
>> It's obviously increased in the last 19 years since I've
been on, although in the last few years I think it's holding
steady.-
We obviously find more guns on the street when we're making
arrests, finding more firearms in people's possession, making
more gun arrests than we had been in the past.-
The offenders are utilizing guns to resolve issues more so than
they have been in the past.-
-
>> Dr. John clovic is chair of R.I.T.'s criminal Justice
Department.-
-
>> Rochester has a severe gun violence problem.-
We have the highest homicide rate in the state of New York,
higher than many other cities in the country and have had for
some time.-
The overwhelming majority, 80% of homicides, are caused by gun,
most of them handguns.-
-
>> A recently released study from the University of California
at brk Lee raises questions about project exile's impact on gun
violence and homicide rates.-
The study concludes that cities using project exile saw a
decrease in gun violence mostly because they'd experienced
larger than average increases in violent crimes in the 1980's
and 1990's with the explosion of the crack cocaine trade.-
When the trade fell off in the mid to late 1990's, so did the
related violence.-
The study claims project exile was simply a program that was in
the right place at the right time and is not a deterrent to
illegal gun carriers.-
-
>> We did interviews with inmates in jail and they all heard
about the project.-
They started quoting Johnnie Cochran's exile ad to us in the
middle of the interview.-
But it also is very hard, I think, to deter some individuals
carrying guns.-
We talk to people and ask them, for example, does this prevent
-- you think this will prevent people from carrying guns?-
Yes, we think it would.-
Would it prevent you from carrying guns?-
They thought for their own safety that they had to be in
possession of a weapon.-
So, it's a complicated thing to try and affect the behavior of
those guys.-
It's harder to affect the behavior of someone who's heavily
into crime and criminal organizes, for example, than it is to
deter the behavior of middle-class people with D.U.I. laws or
something like that.-
-
>> Yet project exile has removed illegal guns and the people
who use them from the streets.-
The U.S. Attorney's Office of the western district says they
have removed 418 guns as of September, 2002.-
The Monroe county district attorney's office says they have
removed 554 guns as of the end of 2001.-
Mike Green of the Monroe county district attorney's office says
the true measure of project exile's success is difficult to see
when looking at statistics but its impact may lie in what it
prevents.-
-
>> I think it's been very successful.-
That's not to say all the guns are off the street.-
Obviously, you read the newspapers, there's plenty of guns out
there.-
But our figures show there are near 91 guns taken ouf the
streets this year through exillexill efforts.-
If those 191 guns are still on the street, how many more
robberies would you have had with those guns, how many more
homicides with those guns?-
In my mind, if you prevent just one homicide by taking 190 guns
off the street, you've been a success.-
If this project saved one life, in my mind it would be a
success.-
-
>> While recognizing the guns and criminals project exile has
removed from the streets, he says there is no one magical cure
that will put an end to the gun violence in our community, not
even project exile.-
-
>> There is a tendency for everybody to look for that panacea
and when a project sort of gets a name and gets some publicity,
they view that as perhaps the silver bullet.-
There's never going to be a silver bullet, a single project
that has such a dramatic impact overall.-
-
>> Thanks, Matt.-
I should point out when criminals are arrested under project
exile they face mandatory sentences for illegal firearm
possession and denial of bond for those charges.-
Prusepruse -- pew pew is an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the
western district of New York.-
And Krauss William Clauss, a defender.-
You've seen this Berkeley study an what we've just heard.-
Is project exile more lucky than good?-
-
>> Well, I disagree with the conclusions that the study draws,
but I want to make one point off the bat, that is that we have
never held ourselves out there as the magic bullet to solve
crime.-
We want to make it clear we are a partnership, working in
conjunction with other community outreach programs.-
And to the extent that there has been success, we don't want to
take credit for it.-
We want to see ourselves as a partner.-
In that respect, we think we are a valuable part of the effort
against crime.-
-
>> More lucky or good, Mr. Clauss?-
-
>> Well, it's hard for me to know that from where I sit.-
I can say, of course, we represent a number of people accused
of gun crimes and we represent more than we ever had.-
In fact, right now in Rochester, 1463 cases my office -- 1-3
cases my office is involved in is a weapons case.-
I've read the study about Richmond and I can use my own
anecdotal evidence here.-
When project exile was announced, I think there was a decline
in homicides that many people got out front and were quick to
attribute to the decline to project exile.-
I didn't see those same people when the homicide rate went up
essentially questioning wlort maybe it was coincidence that the
rate went down, one a result of project exile.-
I have to agree with the professor.-
The clients I have represented, they know about project exile,
but they're going to carry guns for reasons that have to do
with their own safety, that have to do with the criminal
activity that they're in, and they're going to disregard the
possible penalties.-
-
>> Let's talk about this.-
I mean, it's got to be a deterrent if, you know, you know
you'll get nailed with a tougher federal penalty if you carry a
gun.-
Isn't it a detencht?-
You don't think so?-
-
>> Again, all I can tell you is that we represent and have
represented hundreds of people in this project exile, since its
started, who carry guns.-
In my estimation, having tone this kind of work, criminal
defense work in this community for 20 years, people carry guns
primarily because they need them to protect themselves either
because they're in the illegal drug trade or some other type of
criminal activity, or because they live in what they perceive
to be a dangerous situation and they have to have a gun to
protect themselves.-
They're not worried about the penalties.-
-
>> What is the deterrence factor for project exile?-
You would think a tougher penalty would make you think twice or
three times about carrying a gun.-
No?-
-
>> I would hope so.-
Part of what we recognize early on at the inception of the
program was this chur where people, as bill chentioned, this
culture where people feel a need to carry guns is something
that's ingrained in our society.-
And that's something that's got to change, not going to tchange
in one or two years.-
It's a generational thing.-
I think the better measure of the success of a program like
project exile and perhaps other programs partnered with project
exile is going to be better measured against time, say, in 10
years or perhaps 15 years.-
Now, we all envision a day hopefully where there would be no
homicides.-
Until that happens, we're going to be out there, we're going to
be using the best law enforcement techniques available, and
we'll be fighting crime the best way we know how and we think
this is valuable.-
-
>> Mr. Clauss mentioned 1-3 cases are weapons-related.-
Is project exile clogginging up the federal courts in a sense
with these local and state offenses and in a sense making a
federal court a local and state court?-
-
>> That was part of the criticism early on in Richmond, to be
frank, some of the federal judges in Richmond didn't like the
program because what was happening was precisely what you
mentioned, that it was turning the federal courts that
traditionally deal with more involved investigations, into a
local-type court.-
But we haven't seen that effect here in Rochester.-
The three district court judges, judge Siragusa and the others,
have been very supportive of the program in the respect that
they have taken on the volume of cases that have come over to
federal court and have accepted that volume of cases and have
dealt with it accordingly.-
-
>> What do you think?-
Is it clogging up the courts, taking up too much of the courts'
time?-
-
>> I think it depends on what you expect or want your federal
court system to do.-
I'm not the only one who thinks that federal court might do
better with other things.-
Terrorism.-
Identity theft.-
I saw in this morning's newspaper that identity theft has
doubled in the last year or two.-
The kind of things that are more typically federal in nature.-
Do I think the judges support project exile insofar as the
judges want guns taken off the street?-
Yes.-
I'm not so sure, however, that the judges agree they would
prefer to be spending their time doing street crime as opposed
to some other things that they could be doing.-
I think the question is who does it better.-
I've had experience, as had Bret, in the state system and they
do a pretty good job of prosecuting street crime, and I include
gun crime there.-
The federal system is no doubt more expensive.-
Do we as the nation want to spend more money to use the federal
courts to do this?-
This is a question, and I think we have to decide whether we're
getting the results we want.-
-
>> Are we spending more money?-
I would guess we are because the federal prosecutions cost
more.-
-
>> There's no question we are spending more money.-
But it's a question of are you getting the bang for the buck?-
-
>> Are we?-
-
>> There is a cost associated with it in terms of a
prosecutorial standpoint, it's minimal.-
It just requires a reassignment of a prosecutor to handle
firearms cases, and in this case, that's me.-
But the cost is passed through the court system in terms of
court personnel, the United States marshal service has to
absorb some of the cost and housing inmates in federal
facilities.-
But, again, a lot of that involves shifting of costs which
would necessarily have gone to the state institutions, and in a
sense, we're lessening the costs on the state institutions, so
really you could look at that somewhat as a wash.-
I see this as more of an inexpensive method for attacking
crime.-
-
>> Tell me about the screening process for cases that qualify,
if you will, for project exile, because not everybody who gets
caught carrying a gun is prosecuted under project exile.-
What is the screening process?-
-
>> That's true.-
It's a very simple process, and it's about as basic as you can
get in terms of crime fighting.-
It's just a sharing of information.-
Typically, cases in federal court would be made through
investigations that are conducted by, for example, the F.B.I.,
I.N.S., I.R.S., but what we are doing under project exile is we
are coordinating with primarily the city of Rochester police
department.-
And when somebody is arrested for a gun crime, they provide
that information to us in forms -- in the form of police
reports.-
We review the case.-
We do the standard prosecutorial things such as examine the
case on the Merritts, and if it is a viable prosecution, we
weigh where you'll get the biggest bang for the buck in terms
of penalty and if the bigger bang for the buck is in federal
ral court, that's where the case will go.-
-
>> Talk about the criticism that prosecutors will seek a case,
an easy case.-
They'll take the easy cases, they wopets touch the tougher
cases.-
Is that a valid criticism?-
-
>> Well, again, from a standard prosecutorial stand point,
you're going to prosecute your best cases, whether that's in
the state system or in the federal system.-
And, yes, to the extent that we are reviewing state cases, we
take cases that we feel we're going to be very successful in
prosecuting because we feel if we tell somebody you're coming
to federal court and you're going to be serving federal time,
that it would take the wind out of our sails a little bit if we
took marginal cases and weren't able to follow through on that
promise.-
-
>> Could you comment on that last question?-
-
>> Well, I think one of the dangers that we need to be at least
aware of is when a lot of money gets poured into a project --
and I understand Bret's point about shifting of resources --
but I think project safe neighborhoods, an initiative of the
Bush Administration, is intending to devote $500 million just
for these types of programs.-
113 new federal prosecutors, for example, around the country.-
I think there can be -- and I'm not saying there is here in our
district -- but a pressure to put on prosecutors to get
convictions and to go after more cases so that they can say
this is a successful project.-
Some criticisms of exile exime and other places and to a
certain extent I would join in this here, is that the
perception of the public relations is that project exile is
getting the hardcore criminals off free.-
But it's my experience with my office, and as I said, other
people have lodged this criticism, is really getting a lot of
other people into the federal system that are not really the
kind of people that most people would assume or believe are
dangerous criminals.-
So, there may be a tendency to overreach, make sure that the
project looks like it's doing a good job because numbers
sometimes are directly connected to it.-
-
>> I've heard the analogy made that -- or let me ask it this
way, that project exile is following down the road of the
Rockefeller drug laws.-
I guess what I mean by that is the penalties are harsh, maybe
too harsh, it clogs up the jails but doesn't get the results.-
What would you say to that?-
-
>> There's no question there's more people in jail.-
I saw in preparation for today's conversation, I saw the bureau
of prisons is now running about $5 billion a year.-
The federal bureau of prisons is now over 100,000 inmates for
the first time ever.-
We're putting people in for long periods of time.-
And these people are going to come out someday.-
Now, are they going to be coming back to this community?-
Probably.-
Are they going to be employable?-
I think I was told once the number-one relation between
unemploiblet -- the one factor that guarantees that is a felony
conviction.-
I know we talk about juvenile justice and one of the good
things, shifting gears just slightly, but the juvenile justice
center has been promoted as keeping our young people here so we
don't lose touch with them sending them to the Bronx or
wherever.-
But here we're sending people hundreds of miles away.-
For their families, they have limited means, not able to see
them, they're cut off from their children and you have
unintended consequences that certainly are not intended by Mr.
Bret Puscheck.-
-
>> I'd like you to get the last word on this comment.-
Are we going to roll down the road and in 10 years say we
didn't get the guns and get at the violence problem?-
-
>> I hope not.-
Like I said earlier, I think the better measure of the program
will be seen in five or 10 years down the road.-
But I want to debunk one myth.-
As a prosecutor, I understand that the way to solve crime is
not by locking everybody up in a jail.-
That's not how you're going to solve crime.-
I also understand everything is integrated, you have to get at
the root causes of crime, educate people, for example, make
sure people have job opportunities.-
So, everything in society naturally is integrated.-
But on the other hand, I'm not going to apologize for putting
people in jail for committing crimes, violent crimes, crimes
involving weapons and crimes that we've seen over time lead you
down the path towards serious injury and death.-
-
>> Gentlemen, I want to thank you both for being here.-
This discussion does continue on our website,
www.wxxi.org/ntk.-
If you're looking for the latest on politics and government
news, including columns from WXXI news reporters, log on to
www.NYcitizens.org.-

NOW IT'S TIME FOR THIS WEEK'S
EDITION OF "THE BUSINESS
SECTION" WITH THE "THE DEMOCRAT AND CHRONICLE."

(Music)

with us is Ellen Rosen, editor of the "The Business Section
with the Democrat and Chronicle."-
Ellen, Kodak came out with their numbers, their earnings
report.-
How did it make the management breathe?-
Any easier?-
-
>> I think in some ways this actually was obviously a vast
improvement over a year ago.-
The company really, you know, Kodak led the dow for the 52
weeks of 2002.-
The earnings were about -- they missed the street estimates by
about three cents but the earnings were right about where they
thought they would be.-
But Kodak is not incredibly optimistic looking into the
future.-
There were some surprises that came out of yesterday, though
the earnings were where everybody thought there would be.-
There were some surprises, one of which is Kodak for the first
time putting a time line on the beginning of the demise of
film.-
They're saying by 2006 they think that digital will start
seriously eating into film, which is their cash cow.-
-
>> Digital is not making big profits yet, is it?-
I know that they're improving in terms of the sales, but
they're not reaping the profits yet, are they?-
-
>> Where you make the money in digital is -- the cameras are
one thing.-
But because you're not selling film, you have these memory
cards.-
It's the services for people to print and transfer images to
other people.-
That's where Kodak is hoping to make its money.-
That's what they said yesterday.-
They have until twix -- 2006 to come up with something to
replace film.-
-
>> Here are some numbers.-
You said there were other surprises too.-
-
>> The nice surprise for workers was the wage dividend, highest
in seven years, 7.15% of their 2002 salary.-
When you guide it by the Kodak workers that will be eligible,
it's a little over $3,600 per person, which is kind of -- it's
the average, anyway.-
Some will see more or less based on their Sally.-
But it's a nice influx of the economy and a nice surprise for
workers.-
-
>> So, the workers -- I asked you how management is breathing
after this.-
Are workers breathing better?-
I know there were mixed results in terms of job cuts, but none
of those are here.-
-
>> We don't think a lot of the job cuts will be here.-
But remember, Kodak workers are still reeling from those
announced.-
And so, there are some people that have been laid off up until
-- even this past week.-
So, I don't think the Kodak workers are 100%.-
I'm sure they were pleased to see the dividend, but I think
they're still concerned about the future of the company.-
And Dan carp told Ben rand yesterday he's a little concerned,
not terribly concerned about morale.-
He feels he's got a solid company going forward, but he's
concerned.-
-
>> Quickly, the other two companies are going to be coming out
with earnings.-
-
>> Xerox coming out with fourth quarter and year-end earnings
on Tuesday and Bausch and Lomb on Thursday.-
Xerox had interesting news today.-
It won't impact earnings but could impact their stock and some
other things over the next few days.-
We'll see KPMG, the accounting firm, announce they will face
accounting charges from the S.E.C. over how they handled their
accounting with Xerox.-
This Sunday, we're looking at the business of veterinary
medicine, what are the costs to get into and stay in business.-
-
>> Ellen, thank you very much for being with us.-
I'm sure you're probably tired of the cold.-
But it's the told that helps preserve our greatest films, along
with other efforts by curators.-
This is at the George Eastman house.-
With more on this story, WXXI's John Kaiser.-
-
>> The George Eastman house in Rochester, New York, is one of
the most significant museums in the world.-
Focusing on the art of photography and film, the museum
contains a film archive which stores about 25,000 motion
pictures.-
-
>> Films like "American in Paris" and "meet me in St. Louis"
and "king congress" the original, 1933, "Wizard of Oz," "gone
with the wind," "citizen cane," "the shining" is in there,
"blade runner" is in there.-
We hit the highlights of American cinema, of everybody else's
national cinema.-
The colder you're going to go, the safer the material is going
to go.-
You're basically slowing down the chemical reaction that takes
place in the film.-
Based on the temperature and the humidity, temperature being
41.4, humidity being 27%, that first number that you saw right
there, 623 years, that tells us that we'll have 623 years
before the film begins to degrade.-
You know, by keeping it in the cold and keeping it in the
humidity, by keeping it in a well-maintained vault, things can
come out on D.V.D. and vhs tape.-
Disney has their own vaults and when they want to release "lion
king" or Warner wants to release the "Wizard of Oz," they go
into their own vaults and pull out the negative and master that
to D.V.D. and sell that to hundreds, if not thousands.-
-
>> We've been in this since 1948.-
We have a very strong portion and are certainly up in the top
archives of the world as well as in the United States.-
We have a very large nitrate collection as well as Martin
Scorsese keeps a lot of his personal collection here, which are
films that he likes and his own personal film.-
Part of what I do is I look at the motion pictures before we
send them to the lab, deciding, with other people on the staff,
what needs to be done to each individual motion picture.-
We then have to check for any damage in the original material.-
We have to then repair that damage so that it can go through
printers, so that it can be printed into new materials.-
Basically, the main purpose or the general purpose that we have
is to make sure that the materials under our care are still
there in the future, 100 years from now, 500 years from now,
that these materials are still in the best condition they can
be in and that other people at those times can see them as they
were originally meant to be seen.-