Son of S.1

THE SHEER NUMBER OF LAWS that govern the United States has gotten out of control during this century. Most legislators and the vast majority of ordinary citizens are baffled by the stupendous maze of red tape, obscure statutes and dust-ridden amendments that comprise the federal system of laws and determine the way the nation runs. A prime example is the United States Criminal Code, a confusing profusion of laws that determine what is illegal in the eyes of the federal government and how many years a crime can land you in the slammer. Americans on all sides of the political spectrum agree that the Criminal Code is sorely in need of revision. In fact, the Code has never been fully systematized; it was last indexed in 1909. There are still laws on the books that make it a crime to interfere with government carrier pigeons or to seduce a woman aboard a passenger ship. President Johnson authorized the Brown Commission in 1966 to update the code, which was clearly out of step with modern society and legal thought. After 12 years and a long, strange trip, the House now has before it Senate Bill 1437, an enormous 700 page effort to clean up the system. The bill passed the Senate on January 30 by a vote of 72-15.

Most of the bill is a clear improvement over what now passes for a Criminal Code, but in its present form S. 1437 endangers civil liberties and greatly expands the prosecutory power of the federal government. If it is not stopped, and soon, it will be the law of the land. S. 1437 merits a close look.

S. 1437 is the lineal descendant of the late Senate Bill 1, which died in the Senate Judiciary Committee during the summer of 1976, when it met heavy liberal opposition because of fearsome provisions in the areas of sentencing and restraints on a free press. Out of the ashes of that bill rose S. 1437. The trick is that the body of the bill remains substantially the same, with most of the changes in the aforementioned areas.

S. 1437 is so complex that it is impossible in an analysis of this length to focus on the specifics involved. Some of the provisions, however, deserve examination as examples of the spirit that pervades much of the bill. Those relating to inchoate offenses--attempt, conspiracy, and a brand new crime called solicitation--are too vague. These laws could conceivably be used to prosecute or harass people who participate in political activities in opposition to government policies. The provisions in question go beyond what is needed to maintain democratic order and cut into political rights of dissent previously taken for granted.

In another area, that of national secrets, S. 1437 is far milder than its predecessor, but it still leaves the door open for an official secrets act and unprecedented restrictions on the freedoms of speech and press. In still another area, reform of penalties and sentencing, the bill features a set of jail terms and penalties that are far too harsh for most crimes related to drugs--not just hard stuff--and institutes mandatory penalties for a whole slew of crimes without regard to previous criminal records or the current overcrowding of already ineffective federal prisons.

Two major provisions are particularly offensive. First, reporters could, under certain circumstances, be jailed for refusing to reveal sources. Second, current conspiracy laws, perhaps the most easily abused sections in the Criminal Code, are left untouched. S. 1437 is plagued with such potential disasters.

THE HISTORY of the bill exemplifies the political brokerage that shapes virtually all legislation. The Brown Commission finally made its report in 1971, and its recommendations were taken under consideration by a Justice Department committee chaired in turn by John Mitchell and Richard Kleindienst. That committee drafted the original Criminal Code reform bill, designated S. 1400 in 1973. However, the original bill died in committee, and with good reason; the proposal contained some of the Nixon administration's most paranoid reflections. It recommended the death penalty for a shockingly wide range of crimes and a "National Security" act that would protect at executive discretion almost anything within government purview. Under that legislation, for example, Daniel Ellsberg would have been jailed. After S. 1400 died, Senators John McLellan (D-Ark.) and Roman Hruska (R-Neb.), the national champion of mediocrity, co-sponsored a less strident version--S. 1.

The current incarnation of this well-intentioned but warped effort was sponsored by Senators Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and McLellan, who died last year. Many observers contend that Kennedy co-sponsored the bill, an obvious attempt at compromise, despite its repressive sections in a self-interested maneuver for the chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Unfortunately, Senator James O. Eastland (D-Miss.), the long-time chairman of that committee, decided not to retire, leaving Kennedy in the lurch with a bill he will have to see through to the bitter end. Kennedy has apparently pushed the bill through the Senate, but the going will be tougher in the House, and it may well not reach the House floor during the current session.

In the meantime, the best thing S. 1437 has in its favor is public ignorance, and a relative lack of awareness by the press. The Los Angeles Times is to date the only major newspaper to oppose the bill in an editorial. As The National Committee Against Repressive Legislation said in its brief against the bill, "S. 1437 retains a large number of provisions which individually and in totality are gravely detrimental to the American system of individual rights. We must therefore oppose it."