S.1722: New Criminal Code A Threat

By Mary Walsh

Looming on the political horizon of a year already cursed by the appalling possibility that Ronald Reagan may become President is a legacy from another advocate of oppression, Richard Nixon. Senate Bill 1722, the proposed new criminal code reform package (also known as "grandson of S.1''), is the latest in a series of efforts ostensibly "to improve the federal system of criminal justice" and "better serve the ends of justice". The net result of the proposed new criminal code, however, will be to sacrifice various civil liberties to a law and order perspective of criminal justice.

method proposed by the Senate.

On December -15, 1978, Sen. Kennedy's office 'sent a letter to Rep. Drinan, new Chair of the House Judiciary Subcommittee, in an attempt to induce him to support the omnibus rather than the incremental method of amending the criminal code. Again political pressure worked: the new House Judiciary Subcommittee in February of 1979 rejected the unanimous recommendations of its 1978 predecessor that revisions be on an incremental basis, and began hearings on an omnibus criminal code bill. The new House bill was reported out of committee on March 11, 1980 as H.R. 6915. The Senate version, S.1722, a reworked version of S.1437, was introduced into Congress by Kennedy and Thurmond in September

S.1722 is the most recent of many proposed revisions of the federal criminal code, which as it stands is a mass of piecemeal legislation, containing provisions which are often confusing and sometimes contradictory. To bring order out of this chaos, President Johnson created the National Commission on Reform of the Federal Criminal Laws (the Brown Commission) in 1966. After years of study, the Commission issued its majority report in 1971. However, its recommendations met with disfavor from thenPresident Nixon, who asked Attorney General John Mitchell to rewrite the federal criminal code in a way more suited to his punitive view of criminal justice. Mitchell's bill was sent to Congress as S.1400 in March of 1973, with Nixon calling for quick passage: "Law and order are code words for goodness and decency.... The only way to attack crime in America is the way crime attacks our people-without pity." The Director of the Brown Commission declared that -S.1400 "contradicts in every respect...the recommendations of the National Commission on Reform of Federal Criminal Laws.... [It's] a program of primitive vengefulness.

93

In the meantime, minority members of the Brown Commission introduced their recommendations into Congress as S.1; the two bills were consolidated in January of 1975 and introduced again as S.1.

Opposition to the proposed new criminal code began almost immediately, from such varying sources as jurists, newspapers, the AFL/CIO Executive Board, major religious organizations, and hundreds of community and professional associations. As a result, a few of the more repressive features were modified or deleted, and the bill was reintroduced in May of 1977 as S.1437 under the unlikely co-sponsorship of Sens. Kennedy and Thurmond. This new 682-page bill was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee in November 1977 after only five sessions of hearings.

94TH CONGRESS 1AT SEBION

S. 1

To codify

95TH CONGRESS IST SESSION

United States Code; and for other

S. 1437

ore, and reform tide 18 of the United States Code; and for other

96TH CONGRESS 1ST SESSION

purppers.

S. 1722

To codify, revise, and reform title 18 of the United States Codes and for other

purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

Mr. KENNEDY (for himsell, Mr. THURMOND, Mr. DECONCını, Mr. Hater, and Mr. Strox) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

building, refusal to open a door to a marshall serving a subpoena, holding a rally in violation of a court order, could all become federal crimes, as could much similar conduct that is not criminalized by current federal laws (Sec. 1302). Sentences/Fines: 1 year-$25,000.

Demonstrating to Influence a Judicial Proceeding-S.1722 reaffirms that demonstrations around political trials or controversial legal issues. such as reproductive rights or affirmative action can be cause for federal prosecution, even though the present statute outlawing such demonstrations has never been used (Sec. 1328). Sentences/Fines: 6 months-$25,000.

of 1979. These two bills may be passed by the present Congress within the next few months.

Obstructing a Proceeding by Disorderly Conduct-S.1722 vastly expands current law by making impairment of any federal official proceeding by unreasonably noisy, violent or tumultuous conduct or "similar means" a federal crime (Sec. 1334). Sentences/Fines: 6 months-$25,000.

Conspiracy and Attempt Conspiracy would make criminal the planning of a demonstration or rally that could become a disruption of a governmentfunction or a proceeding or could influence the judiciary, even if the demonstration or rally never occurs (Secs. 1001, 1002). Sentences/Fines: dependent upon the "crime" being planned.

Anti-Nuclear Activities-S.1722 targets antinuclear activists and utilities reformers for special investigation and prosecution. Any property damage that takes place at a nuclear facility or any energyproduction or distribution facility could become a new federal crime. The facility need not even be completed or operational. The inchoate crimes-of Conspiracy, Attempt, and Solicitation (which criminalizes "persuading" another to commit a crime) would apply to this offense. Thus the planning or organizing of anti-nuclear demonstrations which result in violence or damage to property become federal crimes (Sec. 1702). Sentences/Fines: up to 5 years-$250,000 for individuals, $1,000,000 for organizations.

Despite all the years of study, hearings, redraftings of the legislation and political jockeying, S.1722 still carries the same Nixonite taint as the bill introduced. by John Mitchell. Activities now protected at least to some extent by the Constitution would become federal crimes; the rights of criminal defendants would be abrogated in many areas and sentencing made more harsh; and freedom of the press and labor rights would be limited. Under the provisions of S.1722 and its companion H.R.6915, the following civil liberties would be threatened:

When the Senate convened on January 19, 1978, S.1437 was the first order of business, with the final vote set for the next day. Twenty Senators were not present, and those who were had not been told of the scheduling until three days before. These steamroller tactics were successful: although the debate took eight days, there was little fanfare or media coverage and traditional allies of civil liberties were in scant attendance; the bill was approved by the Senate 72-15. The new bill was even more repressive than originally proposed: provisions were added permitting judges to deny bail; bbscenity laws were made more severe by making local rather than national standards applicable; and a patently unconstitutional provision proscribing the mailing of abortion information was re-enacted.

1

Meanwhile, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Criminal Justice was holding its own hearings on revision and recodification of the federal criminal laws. In August 1978, the Subcommittee unanimously rejected S.1437 and introduced its own H.R.13959, calling for a step-by-step or "incremental" approach to the criminal code reform, rather than the omnibus

„Kriteriinonit svijevaznod ozont idio

Peaceable Assembly

Opposition to War, Registration, or the Draft-Picketing at an induction center, urging young people to turn in or burn their draft cards, or counselling conscientious objectors not to register for the draft could be held illegal (Sec. 1115). Sentences/Fines: up to 5 years-$250,000. +

Freedom of the Press

Protecting News Sources-Under S.1722, as under current law, reporters could be accused of "hindering law enforcement" if they refuse to identify sources (Sec. 1311) or of "defrauding the government" if they disclose government information secretly leaked to them and they had a purpose, in addition to or other than informing the public, such (continued on page 12)

Obstructing a Government Function by Fraud-Engaging in "misrepresentation, chicanery, trickery, deceit, craft, overreaching, or other "dishonest means" and thereby obstructing any government function becomes a crime broader than similar statutes presently in effect. Giving misleading directions to a postman, using a trick to avoid surveillance by an FBI agent, making a misleading statement on a government questionnaire-all could raise the threat of federal prosecution (Sec. 1301). Sentences/Fines: 5 years-$250,000.

Obstructing a Government Function by Physical Interference-Physical interference with any government function involving the "performance of an official duty" by most public officials is prohibited. A demonstration which blocks a post office or federal

Hezmir bent odw burdard stu70) 194 191ts leaudio

Women Farmworkers Organize for Change

Albuquerque, N.M. (LNS)—A successful strike in the 'Arizona onion fields in 1977 showed the state's farmworkers the importance of organizing. Over two years later, women organizers of that four-month strike called the first national conference of farmworker women in Phoenix on April 18.

تر

"Farmworker women experience special problems," said Adela Serrano, the director of El Centro Adelante Campesino, which sponsored the women's conference. One hundred women from around the country discussed their common problems of inadequate health care, lack of day chre, and male domination...

Organizations represented at the conference included Texas Farmworkers, Chicago's CASA, Arizona Farmworkers, Ladies Garment Workers,

(continued on page 13)

 ́ Junė, 1980/Whát She Wantï/PRES montfow vd