DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CRIMINAL CODE REVISIONS WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 1977 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee (in conjunction with the Judiciary Committee of the Council of the District of Columbia and with the Law Revision Commission of the District of Columbia met) pursuant to notice, at 9:42 a.m., in room 1310, Longworth Building, Hon. Romano L. Mazzoli (chairman), presiding. Present: Representatives Mazzoli, Coleman and Steers. Members of the District of Columbia Council: Mr. Clarke; and members of the District of Columbia Law Revision Commission: Mr. Danzansky, Ms. Dixon, Mr. Medalie, Mr. Krattenmaker, Ms. Josephson, Mr. Risher, Mr. Harrison, Ms. Fortune, Ms. Just, Mr. Guidoboni, Rev. Eaton, Mr. Whalen, Mr. C. F. Murphy, and Mr. Newman. Also present: Dan Hall, subcommittee counsel; James T. Clark, committee legislative counsel; Jack C. Barthwell III, committee staff counsel; Baylee Reid, subcommittee deputy counsel; Harry Singleton, deputy minority counsel; Milton Stein, former director, LRC; Robert Joost, general counsel, LRC; Daniel Scikoby, senior attorney, LRC; and Mark Nosette, counsel to the District of Columbia Council. STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE MAZZOLI Mr. MAZZOLI. The subcommittee will please come to order. I am pleased to call to order the Subcommittee on the Judiciary of the House District of Columbia Committee. We are meeting today for the purpose of receiving public comment on the tentative proposals of the District of Columbia Law Revision Commission revising the basic criminal code for the District of Columbia. I especially welcome the members of the District of Columbia City Council's Committee on Judiciary, headed by Chairman David Clarke, and the members of the Law Revision Commission, chaired by Mr. Stephen Danzansky. To the best of my knowledge, this will be the first time that Congress and the City Council have participated together in joint hearings to consider legislative proposals for the District. These hearings, which will extend over 3 days, will give this subcommittee, the Council members, and the Commissioners the opportunity to consider the Commission's proposals in light of the comments which will be received from individuals and representatives from various public and private interest groups. I understand that subsequent to these hearings, the Commission will resume its deliberations and submit its final recommendations for a new basic criminal code to the Congress and City Council early next year. LAW REVISION COMMISSION In 1974, Congress authorized the creation of the Law Revision Commission to examine the common law, statutes, ordinances, and regulations of the District for the purpose of discovering defects and anachronisms and recommending needed reforms. The Commission was required by law to give special consideration to the criminal laws of the District. CRIMINAL CODE REVISIONS There is a compelling need for revising the Criminal Code of the District. The present code, which was enacted in 1901 and which has not been revised since, contains many, antiquated and inconsistent provisions. It was against this background that the Criminal Code—rather than the noncriminal code provisions-became the top priority of the Commission. And, the tentative recommendations being considered today represent the first step toward creating a modern, comprehensive Criminal Code for the District. Due to the unprecedented nature of these proceedings and the large number of persons participating on our panel, we are forced to limit oral testimony to 5 minutes per witness. Each member of the panel will be allowed 5 minutes in which to pose questions to each witness, or each panel of witnesses, or in which to make observations on the subject matter before us. I am confident that these hearings will be as productive as they are unprecedented. They will allow interested and affected citizens of the District, as well as criminal justice experts, a full opportunity to influence the final form of the new District of Columbia Criminal Code. Because of the extraordinary amount of time and effort which will have gone into the creation of the new District of Columbia Criminal Code-time and effort of the Law Revision Commission, the City Council, the Congress, and the citizens of the District-I am confident the new code will serve as a model for many jurisdictions around the Nation which are seeking to update and revitalize their governing statutes. I would like, at this point, without objection, to enter in the record the statement of our full committee chairman, Hon. Charles Diggs. Without objection, the chairman's statement will be made a part of the record. STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN DIGGS The CHAIRMAN. I am very pleased that the Subcommittee on Judiciary, under the able leadership of my colleague from Kentucky, Mr. Mazzoli, is convening these concurrent hearings on the tentative proposed revisions of the basic Criminal Code. The participation of the Law Revision Commission and the Judiciary Committee of the District of Columbia Council in these hearings is tangible evidence of the spirit of cooperation that was intended to grow out of the Home Rule Act of 1973. It should also be ponted out that, to my knowledge, this is the first time in the history of the District of Columbia that Congress and the duly elected officials of the District of Columbia have joined to consider issues of such great importance to the future of the District of Columbia. Let me commend the Law Revision Commission, which first, under the leadership of Hon. Patricia R. Harris, and now ably chaired by Mr. Stephen Danzansky, has produced proposed revisions that are clearly the result of careful discussion and deliberation. Great attention has been given to the balancing of the needs and values of the community with the individual rights of both the offender and the victim. I am gratified that the time provided for the deliberations of the Law Revision Commission enabled the Commissioners ample opportunity to consider the many approaches and alternatives to criminal law necessary to produce proposals as comprehensive as these, and we look forward to the fruits of a similar consideration of the remainder of the sections in titles 22, 23, and 24 of the District of Columbia Code outside of the basic Criminal Code. One again I want to convey my thanks and that of the committee to the members of the Law Revision Commission for their work and hope that these hearings produce much useful information for the remainder of your deliberations. Mr. MAZZOLI. Also, without objection, to be made part of the record is a note regarding the text of the complete tentative proposal for the new basic Criminal Code. I understand there are certain technical changes which, without objection, will be made a part of the record. [The material referred to follows:] DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA LAW REVISION COMMISSION-NOTE REGARDING TEXT OF COMPLETE TENTATIVE PROPOSAL FOR A NEW BASIC CRIMINAL CODE The text of the complete Tentative Proposal and the explanation and sectionby-section analysis thereof submitted for the Hearings Record is the same as the Text of the separately printed substantive code and the sentencing supplement, with two exceptions: (1) Insert a new paragraph (18) in the General Definitions section in chapter 1 and renumber existing paragraphs (18) through (25) as (19) through (26). The new paragraph, which is a definition of the term offender, will not be printed at the end of proposed chapter 20 (Sentencing) as it appears in the separate supplement on sentencing. (2) The Introduction to the Explanation and Section-by-section analysis has been modified slightly to summarize the tentative recommendation of the Commission as to Sentencing of Offenders. (There are also a few technicals to the Introduction). References in the Explanation of Chapters 1 through 10 to exact grading of particular offenses have simply been deleted. Mr. MAZZOLI. At this point, it is my pleasure to recognize, for an opening statement, the gentleman from Missouri, a valuable member of our subcommittee through the year he has been in Congress, Mr. Coleman. STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE COLEMAN Mr. COLEMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to be here today and to embark on what you discuss as an historic joint hearing on these recommendations of the District of Columbia Law Revision Commission. 99-869 - 78 - 2 I want to commend the chairman for having these hearings and to take this time to have a full airing before we have the final submission by the Commission early next year. I welcome the City Council members. I also have a great appreciation for what the Law Revision Commission has done. I think they have done an outstanding job of submitting to us the recommendations. I think all of us realize that law-abiding citizens, in general, are feeling frustrated with the legal system. The fact that this was addressed by the Commission when it said, in terms of usable law or law not even understood by judges and lawyers, people who are supposed to administer and enforce the law, I think we have gone a long way to spelling out exactly what "willful," "malicious," and "intentional" mean in the criminal statutes. There are several things I want to mention briefly concerning the way the present recommendations read. I want to bring up these for further discussion. First of all, I think we need to treat white-collar crime a little more significantly than the proposed Code does. I think it fails to do that. We have seen the securities and consumer fraud run rampant in such places as Arizona and Florida where billion-dollar fraud schemes have come about. I think we need to follow, not just New York State in adopting the language of the so-called mail-fraud or wire-fraud statutes, but I think we want to get at the fraud itself. At the present time, I do not see this in the recommendations of the Commission. SENTENCING I am also concerned about the recommendations on sentencing. It does seem that 20 years, even two-thirds of that, if you want to look at it that way, is an inadequate sentence for murder. I question whether or not rape should be relegated to a class B crime. I also question Code section 608, which deals with unlawful sexual activity between a parent and a child who is less than 18 years of age because it treats such acts as a class A misdemeanor. However, if the child were not a ward of the individual who perpetuated the crime, the sexual attack would be under a different section and in prison for up to 5 years. In one, the punishment is 6 months; and in the other it is 5 years. I think the wrong is probably just as great. Another area I think we have to be concerned about is trying to make people negligently liable for the cause of death of another human being, such as people who are breeding extreme health hazards. They should be held for homicide. I think there is a point where we have to say that the evidence and culpability has to be in some way corrected. One other matter about which I am extremely concerned is the sentencing and use of-it seems to me everyone is aware of my concern about dangerous weapons, not just firearms. Persons can be just as deadly and have just as much fear if a gun is pointed at him as a pickax, switchblade, ice pick, and what-have-you. I think we need to look at these. We need to increase the sentences for people who commit robbery with a dangerous and deadly weapon. We also need to consider mandatory sentencing in our Code. As I indicated, I look forward to working with you on this very important effort. Mr. MAZZOLI. I think you. At this time, we will recognize the chairman of the District of Columbia Council's Judiciary Committee, the Honorable David Clarke. STATEMENT OF COUNCIL MEMBER DAVID A. CLARKE Mr. CLARKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are appreciative of the opportunity to be here to share in hearing comments regarding the tentative proposals of the Commission for reform of the basic structure of the criminal law of the District of Columbia. The task of the Commission is not an easy one. The criminal law serves many purposes in our society; the most basic of which is to define what is and is not accepted conduct-what are the limits of personal freedom. This changes with time, as social mores and standards change. The criminal law, to be effective and respected, must be updated from time to time to accord with the society it seeks to regulate. NEED FOR CRIMINAL CODE CHANGES The need for improvement of the District of Columbia criminal laws is uncontroverted. Our present statutes have been enacted on an individual basis over the course of several decades. Many of them have become outdated or contain inconsistent provisions. Others no longer reflect the values and culture of modern society. Their complexity, their overlapping nature, and their lack of uniformity make it difficult for layman and lawyer alike to know what the law is, and very difficult indeed for courts to apply the law with equal and balanced justice. MODEL PENAL CODE AND STATE LAWS The effort which is now going forward follows in the wake of various State code recodifications. In 1962, the model penal code of the American Law Institute pointed the general direction for reform of American criminal law. In 1971 the final report of the National Commission on Reform of the Federal Criminal Laws, under the chairmanship of former Gov. Pat Brown, of California, made a number of important recommendations. Since 1970, well over half the States have either reformed their criminal laws or are currently so doing, with many drawing heavily upon the work of the American Law Institute and the Brown Commission. And, of course, the Congress of the United States is now embarking upon a total revision of the Federal Criminal Code. Through the efforts of the Commission and its staff, we have had an opportunity to review the provisions of the Commission's tentative draft. I would like to make a few comments about its strengths and weaknesses that I see at this point. Codification itself represents the potential for important gain. It promises the citizen the ability to look to one place and find out what his government is saying to him about crime. It can provide fairer warning. And it provides coherence. As Justice Black remarked several years ago "Tyrants in the old days used to write their criminal laws in print so fine or language so strange that citizens could not |