Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1958-04-29

Federal rules or criminal pro-
cedure apply, the report noted.
so does the Mallory ruling.
"A kidnapping across State
lines into Kansas. the inter-
state transportation Of stolen
cars into Texas, the theft Of
Government checks In New
York. q counterfeiting ring In
Chicago. a murder on an In
dian reservation In New Mex
leo - prosecution OF oil these
cases win inevitably run into
the demand for such an early
arralgnment as 10 foreclose
adequate Investigation by Fed
eral law enforcement ofhcials."
The report announced that
the subcommittee considering
Mallory legislation will clarity
not only the meaning Of the
Federal rule involved In the
Mallory case, but also what are
proper and permissible police
actions between arrest and ar
raignment. being careful to
see that these procedures do
not violate such fundamental
constitutional guarantees as
are contained In the Fifth
Amendment and the Fourteenth
Amendment to the Constitu-
ton Of the United States"
The subcommittee rejected
the view that individual rights
and public protection cannot
share a meeting ground within
the framework Of the Constitu-
ton.
I'VE abhor the use by police
OF any greater pressure than is
absolutely essential to justice
in carrying out police functions
after arrest and prior TO ar
raignment." the subcommittee
said. I'VE abhor equally the
idea. put forth by some per-
sons. that the police do not
have the right TO reasonably
interrogate persons held In Gus
tody prior TO arraignment."
The subcommittee expressed
the view-indorsed yesterday by
the full committee-"that the
police not only have the right
but they have the duty to con-
duct reasonable interrogation
of persons charged with crime"
1T must be. ultimately. the
reasonablenesS. the common
sense Of interrogation practices
which is in question and not
the mere act Of interrogation
itself" the report declared.
Wire-Tapplng Views
Calling for promt and de-
cisive action on wire tap
ping. the report declared that,
largely because of the ofiicial
confusion. wire tapping Is being
carried on virtually unimpeded
in the United States today by
private persons for q multitude
of purposes"
The report said the commit
tee felt the Supreme Court had
been right in last DEFENDERS
Benanti case. in which 1t held
that wire tapping by State
law enforcement officers, even
though authorized by the State,
violates Federal law and that
evidence obtained through wire
tapping by State officers Is in
admissible In Federal prosecu-
tons.
The situation. as It stands
now. was outlined this way by
the report:
las long as mere intercept
ton itself. without divulgence,
Is allowed. business COMPETE
tors. private detectives, busy
bodies and others may wire
tap without Federal restraint.
Yet. law enforcement officials
possessed Of intercepted infor-
nation vital to the security of
the Nation may not use such
information in bringing spies
and saboteus to justice"
In proposing a Federal habi-
tual offender law. the subcom-
mittee found that existing
State laws have not been effec-
tive in lettering or rehabili-
tating crime repeaters because
they Enthusiastically pro-
vide punishment for punish
ment's sake and rob the indi-
vidual offender Of all desire for
self-betterment.
Release II Worthy
What the report proposed
would work this way: The
sentencing judge, In the case
of a repeater, could add an
indeterminate sentence to the
sentence imposed for q partic-
ular offense. This sentence
could keep the offender inn.
prisoned for the rest Of his
life or could let him out shortly
after he completed the mini
mum term for the offense IT.
self. His release would depend
on how well he had rehabili-
tated himself. And after his
release on parole he could be
popped back into prison IL he
again embarked on q career of
crime.
The report argued that such
o Federal habitual offender
statute would enhance the sue
cess Of rehabilitation programs
while keeping out Of circula-
ton the professional criminals.
who II released, would almost
certainly prey on society.
The report made public q
study Of sentences In Federal
courts showing not only O wide
range Of sentences for the same
offense In Federal courts in
various parts Of the country.
but also a disparity in sentences
by different judges In the same
district.
For iVaaAn~Aa -