IV PART IX-S. 1 AND S. 1400 (General codification and provisions relating to abortion, July 25, 26 and September 27, 1973... PART X-S. 1 AND S. 1400 (Provisions relating to attempt, complicity, conspiracy, Page 6479-6803 Craig, Gregory, attorney, Washington, D.C.__. Falls, Raymond L., Jr., secretary, Committee On the Federal Gainer, Ronald L., Chief, Legislative and Special Projects Section, Criminal Division, Department of Justice.. Gale, Mary Ellen, counsel, American Civil Liberties Union, Harris, Laurie Susan, Deputy Federal Public Defender, Los 7673 Lawler, Andrew M., Jr., member, Committee on the Federal of the Psychological Professions and Sciences, accompanied by Dr. Melvin A. Gravitz, secretary to the council.. Pauley, Roger A., Deputy Chief, Legislative and Special Projects Section, Criminal Division, Department of Justice. Van de Kamp, John K., Federal Public Defender, Los Angeles, 7796 Material submitted for the record- American Bar Association, Section of Antitrust Law, panel dis- 8133 American Bar Association, letter of March 6, 1974, from Kenneth J. Burns, Jr., Secretary, and resolution re mandatory minimum (The) Associated General Contractors of America, letter of 8075 Association of the Bar of the City of New York, report by the 7692 Material submitted for the record-Continued Brown Commission Report, Sections 602 and 608. "Criminal Code: Justice Replies," by Henry E. Petersen, the Washington Post, March 3, 1974. DeShelter, Kenneth E., letter of October 24, 1974, re violations Ginsberg, Philip, Chief Defender, Seattle, Washington, statement_ Page 8033 8097 7991 8094 Mattina, Joseph S., "Sentencing: A Judge's Inherent Responsi- 8089 Model Sentencing Act, excerpts from_-- 8092 Pirtle, Robert L., Attorney, Seattle, Washington, letter to Chair- 8075 Sentencing, the second circuit sentencing study, excerpts from Stanton, Nile, executive director, Indianapolis Lawyers Com- mission, statement on proposed code revision.. Montgomery, Frank R., Statement of the National Committee on "White Collar Crime," Public Citizens' staff report prepared by 8101 7898 8037 8082 REFORM OF THE FEDERAL CRIMINAL LAWS THURSDAY, JUNE 13, 1974 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL LAWS AND PROCEDURES OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10:15 a.m., in room 2228 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Roman Hruska presiding. Present: Senator Hruska. Also present: Paul C. Summitt, chief counsel; Douglas R. Marvin, minority counsel; Dennis C. Thelen, assistant counsel; and Mabel A. Downey, clerk. Senator HRUSKA. The subcommittee will come to order. The chairman is not able to be here because of other official Senate duties. He asked me to preside. We will resume our hearings on the bills S. 1 and S. 1400 having to do in each instance with the revision of the title 18 Criminal Code of the United States. We are favored this morning by the presence from the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, Raymond L. Falls and Andrew M. Lawler. It is my understanding that Judge Asch had originally been assigned to this occasion and he is not able to be here. Am I correct? Mr. FALLS. That is correct. Judge Asch is chairman of our committee, which is a special committee of the bar to study the Criminal Code. He is unable to be here, so we are here in his stead. Senator HRUSKA. We welcome both of you here. We have received your report. Have you a statement on the report, Mr. Falls? Mr. FALLS. Yes; we do have some comments, Senator. We do not have an additional written statement. Senator HRUSKA. Go ahead. STATEMENT OF RAYMOND L. FALLS, JR., SECRETARY OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE FEDERAL CRIMINAL CODE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF THE BAR OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK; ACCOMPANIED BY ANDREW M. LAWLER, JR., MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE FEDERAL CRIMINAL CODE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF THE BAR OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK Mr. FALLS. Let me begin with a few preliminary comments. We indicated when we testified 2 years ago on the Brown Commission (7673) bill that we approach this problem, as I am sure the subcommittee does, with a great awareness indeed, perhaps being intimidated by the massiveness of the task, that anyone faces who attempts the task that the Brown Commission attempted and that this subcommittee is attempting, to review and codify the entire criminal law system in the United States. Our committee of the association was especially appointed some 3 or 4 years ago, initially to study the Brown Commission proposal, and 2 years ago we submitted to the subcommittee a printed report and gave testimony at that time. Since that time, of course, we have introduced into the Senate S. 1 and S. 1400, which represent two separate attempts at codification of the criminal law, each of which differs in some particulars, in many particulars, from the Brown Commission bill. During the period since those bills were introduced we have made. further study of S. 1 and S. 1400 in an attempt to compare them with the Brown Commission bill and to make our recommendations with respect to drafting problems in one or another of the bills, and to express our preference and recommendations as among the various provisions of the three bills. We have delivered to the clerk of the subcommittee today copies of our tentative report comparing the three bills. We hope within the next few weeks to provide the subcommittee with copies of a final printed report, which we would like to ask be made part of the record. The tentative report that we delivered today is, however, substantially complete and final in terms of the recommendations and opinions expressed. I should point out, too, that our present report should be read together with the report that we submitted 2 years ago, because we have not attempted to recanvass all the issues that we spoke to in that original report and in our testimony 2 years ago. Senator HRUSKA. Note will be taken of that and will be regarded accordingly. Mr. FALLS. Thank you. Again, a few general views with respect to the whole question of codification. One cannot study a proposal of this sort without sometimes having a question or a qualm about whether the game is worth it, whether the project should be pursued at all, because there are certainly risks involved in a project of this kind. I suppose it is impossible in writing a bill so large and so comprehensive and dealing with such a variety of questions to achieve perfection or anything close to it. There is always the risk that any codification will contain in it ambiguities, unintended changes in the law, or erroneous policy judgments, either because they were consciously arrived at erroneously or because of inadvertence. We think, however, that those risks are outweighed by the advantages of proceeding with the codification. We think that the project should go ahead. There has been an enormous amount of effort spent on it both by the Brown Commission and by this subcommittee, by various public groups, and we think that there are advantages to be achieved that outweigh the risks involved. First of all, we think that any of the three bills that have been considered the Brown Commission bill, S. 1 or S. 1400-achieve a certain desirable objective in terms of rationalizing the law and making |