to be some leeway. I think it would have to be a fairly general kind of mandate in this particular instance.

Mr. SUMMITT. Could early eligibility for parole solve part of that problem?

Mr. FALLS. I do not know that it would solve the problem. You know, one of the reasons, I suppose, for consistent uniform sentences is to give people the feeling that justice is being done. I think that they get a good feeling that it is not being done, even if the situation. is later corrected, if a man in one court is sentenced for 15 years and someone in the same circumstances in another court is sentenced to 5, even though the situation may ultimately be corrected by some action.

Mr. SUMMITT. In essence, a parole board may review the case after 6 months. That is a review of the sentence, in a sense.

Mr. FALLS. I agree with you that that diminishes the undesirable impact of inconsistent sentences. I do not think that it removes the problem. It helps.

Mr. LAWLER. I would think that substantial improvement would have to be made with the parole board, though, because no one is satisfied right now as to uniform standards being applied when individuals come up for parole.

The other problem, of course, is-it is probably not so much present with the difference between a 10- or 20-year sentence where the individuals come up at the same time. It is probably more aggravated in a situation between a suspended sentence and someone who receives a 2% or 3-year sentence, because just going to jail obviously disrupts family life as far as the ability of the individual to hold a job, et cetera.

That situation is the one that cannot be remedied by parole. That is the discrepancies between different districts and even within a single district, with the same situation resulting in a suspended sentence or 18 months in prison.

Mr. FALLS. I think that there is an example some years ago, when some fellow pled guilty to an antitrust offense out in the Midwest some place, for which no one was ever sent to jail. He was sent to jail and committed suicide.

This is the kind of thing we are discussing.

Well, that is all we have, unless you have some further questions. Senator HRUSKA. This is a very comprehensive presentation, and we are grateful to you. Either in the analysis of the bill or in its writing or revision, one cannot consider any more than one section at a time, one page at a time. Of course, that process is going on now and the final drafting process is in progress.

It would be helpful in connection with your report here if you could furnish us with an index on it and perhaps number the pages. Is there an index in the process of preparation?

Mr. FALLS. Our final committee report will have both an index and consecutively numbered pages. This will be furnished the subcommittee as soon as it is printed.

Senator HRUSKA. It would be very helpful and it will be used for the printed record if we receive it in time. [See p. 7692.] Mr. FALLS. Surely.

Senator HRUSKA. Thank you very much for coming.

Did you appear before the Brown Commission?
Mr. FALLS. We were before the subcommittee.

Senator HRUSKA. This is your second go-around here then? I thought you also appeared before the Brown Commission, or submitted a statement.

Mr. FALLS. I do not think so.

Senator HRUSKA. The subcommittee will stand in recess, subject to the call of the Chair.

[The printed report of the Special Committee on the Proposed New Federal Criminal Code of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, referred to above, follows:]

[Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the subcommittee recessed, subject to the call of the Chair.]

The Association of the Bar of the City of New York

42 West 44th Street New York, N.Y. 10036

THREE VERSIONS OF A PROPOSED NEW FEDERAL CRIMINAL CODE (Brown Commission Bill; S.1; and S.1400)

By

The Special Committee on the Proposed

New Federal Criminal Code

July, 1974

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

Chapters 1 and 2-Preliminary Provisions and Federal Penal
Jurisdiction

2

Chapter 3-Basis of Criminal Liability; Culpability; Causation

10

Chapter 4-Complicity

11

Chapters 5 and 6- Responsibility Defenses and Defenses Involving Justification

12

Chapter 7- Temporal and Other Restraints in Prosecution.. 14

Chapter 10-Attempt, Conspiracy & Solicitation

18

Chapter 11-National Security

24

Chapter 12 - Foreign Relations, Immigration and Nationality 33

Chapter 18- Offenses Against Public Order, Health, Safety and Sensibilities

67

Chapters 30-36- Sentencing

68

THREE VERSIONS OF A PROPOSED
NEW FEDERAL CRIMINAL CODE

(Brown Commission Bill; S.1; and S.1400)

In May 1972 this Committee published a 96-page report entitled "The New Criminal Code Proposed by the National Commission on Reform of Federal Criminal Laws."* Since that time two additional legislative versions of the proposed code have been introduced, S.1, 93d Cong., 1st Sess. (1973), introduced by Senators McClellan, Ervin and Hruska of the Subcommittee on Criminal Laws & Procedures of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and S.1400, 93d Cong., 1st Sess. (1973), introduced by Senator Hruska and others at the request of the Department of Justice. H.R. 6046, 93d Cong., 1st Sess. (1973) is identical to S.1400, and H.R. 10047, 93d Cong., 1st Sess. (1973) is the same as the original proposal of the National Commission, chaired by former Governor Edmund Brown of California.

This report analyzes the three proposals in the light of our earlier report (cited as "Report"), to which extensive reference will be made to avoid repetition. The three proposals will be referred to as S.1, S.1400 and "Brown Commission" or "C." Chapter numbers utilized in the headings of this report follow those of the Brown Commission bill.

In many respects our earlier criticisms of the Brown Commission report have been taken into account by the Subcommittee staff in its preparation of S.1 and by the Department of Justice in S.1400. For the reasons which follow, however, we believe that further revisions of each of the three bills are necessary before they would be ready for enactment into law. We urge that in further study of the three bills an effort be made to combine the best features of each, and that, where all three bills are defective, those defects be corrected.

* For other Association comment, see Special Committee on Consumer Affairs, "The Proposed New Federal Criminal Code and Consumer Protection," 27 Record of The Ass'n of the Bar of the City of New York 324 (May 1972), also in "Reform of the Federal Criminal Laws," Hearing before the Subcommittee on Criminal Laws & Procedures, Senate Judiciary Committee, 92d Cong., 2d Sess., part III, subpart B (March 1972) at 1827-28.