Page,4-Tuesday, July 22, 1980-The Michigan Daily

Revisions needed
for criminal code


f
1
I

LETTERS TO THE DAILY:
Claim. that
women aren't
good soldiers
challenged
To The Daily:
Your recent editorial contributor Mark Sherman seems so
adamantly opposed to women serving in combat (Daily, July 17)
that perhaps no arguments to the contrary will have any impact
on his thinking.
He might, however, want to give some thought to these points
when discussing women's "physiological inferiority:"
North Vietnamese soldiers, who certainly proved
superior to Americans when fighting in jungle
terrain, are physically slighter than the typical U.S. soldier.
Vigorous, effective training proved more useful in that recent
war than the mere fact of size.
Furthermore, some weapons and other equipment provided
by the U.S. military during that war were altered for the use of
South Vietnamese soldiers, who were also smaller in physical
stature.
Doesn't it seem to make sense to train military women with
the lighter M-16 rifle when that is the weapon of choice for com-
bat today? It can also be argued that karate is far more useful to
a soldier than boxing.
Mr. Sherman seems to subscribe to the idea that bigger-and
more traditionally, masculine-is better.'
I do not mean to say that I approve of the U.S. engaging this
country in an armed conflict in the near future. Nor do I support
resumption of the draft, for women or men.
However, as a former ROTC student who has sampled some of
what the Army is all about, I feel strongly that as long as women
choose the military, full choices and opportunities must be made
available to them.
-Cynthia Cheski
July 17

The federal criminal code
defines the activities for which
people are subject to criminal
prosecution by the U.S. gover-
nment. Proposals calling for
comprehensive revision of the
federal criminal code-S. 1722 in
the Senate and H.R. 6233 in the
House-are now pending in both
Houses of Congress.
Agreement that the United
States should reform its
anachronistic federal criminal
code extends across virtually the
entire political spectrum.
'Specific questions about the
nature of this reform, however,
have been far more divisive.
NIXON sparked the ongoing
congressional debate, when he
sent Attorney General John Mit-
chell to Capitol Hill with the first
contemporary proposal for com-
prehehsive criminal code
revisions (S. 1). Since then,
public interest groups have bat-
tied uphill to prevent irres-
onsible changes which invite
abuse by police and prosecutors.
S. 1722 represents a slight im-
provement from earlier
proposals; yet, the Senate has
been unable to break the mold of
Nixon'sS. 1.j
The House of Representatives
began working on criminal code
revisions years later than did the
Senate. This circumstance has
served to limit Nixonian influen-
ce of the House criminal code bill.
H.R. 6233, indeed, has excluded
many of the features which cause
PIRGIM to worry about the
Senate bill.
Critics of S. 1722 lament, for
example, the bill's reliance on
generally defined crimes. S.
1722's proposed ban on "obstruc-
ting a government function by
fraud" is typical , of that
vagueness. Yale Law Professor
Thomas Emerson warns that the
"obstruction by fraud" section
would cover everything from
"avoiding surveillance by an FBI
agent" to "giving a postman the
wrong directions."
THIS SORT OF catch-all
language violates an elementary
principle of justice, in that it fails
to notify people of what they may
not do. The "obstruction by
fraud" provision therefore
clashes with the Fifth Amen-
dment's requirement that
Congress establish a clear line
Daily ec
poli
Letters . and colun
opinions of the indi
do not necessarily re
beliefs of the Daily.
Cartoons frequen
the left and right side
not necessarily repre

"appeal primarily to the prurient
By Marc Manason interest."
between 'permissible and PIRGIM BELIEVES that Hat-
prohibited activities. H.R. 6233, ch's amendments would exacer-
on the other hand, usually citesl bate the problems inherent in at-
specific conduct. tempts to regulate the content of
The two bills also differ with expression. Although courts
regard to incarceration. S. 1722 normally veto government cen-
would permit judges to restrict sorship of messages which pose
the freedom of persons who have not "clear and present danger"
been released to await trial. This to public safety, they have
unprecedented grant of power claimed that the Constitution af-
ignores an important con- fords no protection whatsoever to
stitutional distinction. "obscenity." Such deviation from
Traditional constitutional in- a stance of tolerance for diverse
terpretation suggests that gover- ideas risks the immediate loss of
nment may condition a defen- insightful or entertaining works
dant's freedom only in order to. which deal frankly with sexual
ensure his appearance at trial, matters. Moreover, judicial san-
Under S. 1722, though, a judge ction of even this limited censor-
could make a wholly subjective ship sets a dangerous precedent
ruling that preservation of for future cases. Justice Douglas
"community safety" requires observed that First Amendment
pre-trial action against the protection should never "turn on
defendant. the purity of thought" that
SUCH DENIAL of due process literature instills in the minds of
cannot be justified in terms of its its readers.
pottial to prevent crime. Since The Senate criminal -ode
S. 1722's authors recognize that debate has even created
problems which lie outside the
boundaries of S. 1722. Senator
Kennedy, despite his longtime
public opposition to capital
punishment, made a deal with
Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.) which
may result. in federal
(authorization of the death
they cannot define the charac- penalty. Thurmond agreed to co-
teristics which render a defen- sponsor S. 1722 with Kennedy and
dant "unsafe," the prejudices of Hatch in exchange for Kennedy's
an individual judge will deter- promise to let the death penalty
mine whose freedom shall be (Bill S. 114) slide through the
breached. Senate Judiciary Committee.
Another provision of S. 1722 Kennedy, as the committee
would establish a double jeopar- chairman, could have stopped S.
dy in sentencing by allowing the 114 from reaching the floor.
prosecution to appeal lenient sen- The avowed purpose of Ken-
tences. S. 1722 also would nedy's acquiescense in the death
eliminate parole release. penalty legislation is that Thur-
PIRGIM opposes S. 1722's incar- mond can ensure "conservative"
ceration policies, which H.R. 6233 backing for S. 1722. Rep. John
has wisely rejected. Conyers (D-Mich.) described the
Although S. 1722's threats to Kennedy-Thurmond pact as a
liberty have received much at- "sleazy agreement" which im-
tention, some Senate leaders perils defendants' rights.
regard the bill as permissive. Conyers cited historical evidence
Sen. Orin Hatch (R-Utah), a co- to show that blacks and other vic-
sponsor of S. 1722, wants to in- tims of socio-economic op-
crease the proposed maximum pression would suffer most from
sentence for distribution of por- a federal death penalty law.
nography to five years. He will PIRGIM . regrets Kennedy's
also seek to broaden the bill's decision to ally himself with
definition of obscene material. Thurmond in this manner.
The key clause of S. 1722's H.R. 6233 offers a better plan
present definition states that, to for criminal law reform than
be obscene, a book or movie must have previous congressional
:initiatives. Even so, the path
ahead holds many dangers. The
full House of Representatives
may seek to incorporate
repressive amendments into
H.R. 6233. The Senate attempt to
Cl Scombine H.R. 6233 with S. 1722
could be disastrous. We must
nns represent the monitor the final stages of
criminal code revision carefully,
vidual author(s) and and then decide whether the
flect the attitudes or finished product deserves sup-
port.
The author of this article is
tly appear on both treasurer of the PIRGIM-U-M
of the page; they do board of directors. He is
currently interning with the
sent Daily opinions. American Civil Liberties
- Union in Washington, D.C.

I
I
I

0

I
r