NCJ Number
56582
Journal
Judicature Volume: 59 Issue: 6 Dated: (JANUARY 1976) Pages: 268-275
Date Published
1976
Length
8 pages
Annotation
EFFORTS AT THE LEGISLATIVE LEVEL AND BY THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION TO REVISE CRIMINAL OFFENSE CODES ARE DISCUSSED, WITH EMPHASIS ON VARIATIONS IN DEALING WITH OFFENSE TYPES.
Abstract
LEGISLATION PROPOSED IN THE 94TH CONGRESS TO REFORM FEDERAL CRIMINAL LAWS (SENATE BILL 1 AND HOUSE RESOLUTION 333, KNOWN AS S.1 AND H.R.333) RESULTED FROM THE BROWN REPORT ISSUED BY THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON REFORM OF FEDERAL CRIMINAL LAWS IN 1971. THE STRENGTH OF H.R.333 RESTS IN THE FACT THAT EVERY SECTION OF TITLE 18 IN THE U.S. CODE, THE TITLE THAT COMPILES ALL FEDERAL LEGISLATION DEALING WITH CRIME, HAS BEEN CAREFULLY EXAMINED AND APPROPRIATELY REVISED. THE BROWN REPORT AND H.R.333 ACCEPT THE THESIS OF CONTEMPORARY PENOLOGISTS THAT A CONSTANT INCREASE IN THE SEVERITY OF PUNISHMENT IS NOT AN INTELLIGENT WAY TO REDUCE CRIME. THE HEART OF THE BROWN REPORT, AND PRESERVED IN H.R.333, IS THE CREATION OF A SENTENCING STRUCTURE WHICH SPECIFIES MAXIMUMS FOR CERTAIN GRADES OF CRIME AND TO WHICH EACH SPECIFIC FEDERAL OFFENSE IS TIED. CONSECUTIVE SENTENCING IS CONFINED TO CASES WHERE EXCEPTIONAL FEATURES PROVIDE JUSTIFICATION, AND H.R.333 ALLOWS FOR THE APPELLATE REVIEW OF SENTENCES, STIFFENS THE GOVERNMENT'S BURDEN OF PROOF IN CONSPIRACY CASES, AND RELAXES THE INORDINATE SEVERITY OF PRISON PENALTIES FOR HARD DRUG OFFENSES. THE PURPOSE OF S.1 IS TO RESTORE CAPITAL PUNISHMENT AND MAKE IT MANDATORY FOR CERTAIN FORMS OF HOMICIDE. THE BILL RETAINS A PRISON PENALTY FOR NONCOMMERCIAL PRIVATE POSSESSION OF MARIJUANA AND PROVIDES SEVERE PENALTIES FOR TRAFFIC IN HARD DRUGS. A HOUSE RESOLUTION PREPARED IN LARGE PART BY THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION (H.R.10850), INTRODUCED IN 1975, ALSO INVOLVES THE REVISION OF TITLE 18. PROVISIONS IN THE RESOLUTION DEAL WITH THE INSANITY DEFENSE, THE TREATMENT OF CLASSIFIED MATERIAL, MARIJUANA, THE SENTENCING STRUCTURE, CAPITAL PUNISHMENT, AND OBSCENITY. THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION HAS ENDORSED S.1 IN PRINCIPLE BUT HAS SUGGESTED A SERIES OF AMENDMENTS TO THE BILL AND ITS COUNTERPART, H.R.3907. CONTROVERSY OVER THE PROPOSED BILLS AND TITLE 18 REFORM IS NOTED. (DEP)