Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1958-03-22

iar The. critics of the legislation APP
proved by the House Judiciary Commit
tee, which would modify the effect of
the Supreme Courts ruling in the
Mallory case, have concentrated on
one contention-that it does not suffi-
GENTLY protect the rights of a suspected
criminal
This, we think, is a grossly mis-
guided approach to the problem. The
Mallory decision raises grave doubt that
any confession, If it results from ques-
tiening of suspect after arrest and
before arraignment, can be used as evil
dence. The confession may be entirely
voluntary and entirely true. But it may
not be used as evidence unless the Sus-
pect was promptly arraigned. What this
means is that suspect, prior to any
questioning which might lead to a con-
feSsion, must be taken before a magis-
trate, warned that he need not make a
statement, that If he makes statement
1t may be used against him, and that he
Is entitled to the services of a lawyer,
who, if necessary, will be appointed to
represent him. And the lawyer, If he
tainly will advise him that he should
make no statement of any kind to the
police. The result of this, as a practical
matter, is that there will be no confess
sionS and that in many types of cases,
often the most primitive and brutal, the
crime will go unsolved and the criminal
will remain free to pounce upon his next
victim.
The legislation which has been APP
proved by the House committee would
give the police some opportunity to
question suspect before arraignment-
time enough, for example, to check out
an alibi and confront the suspect with
the result Of the check if it showed that
he was lying. They would have to warn
their prisoner that he need not make
statement and that any statement he
makes might be used against him. But
they would not be required to provide
him with lawyer, who would tell him
not to make any statement. OF course,
the legislation would not sanction third
degree tactics or coerced confessions,
and it would not permit the police to
hold a suspect as long as they wished
In order to secure confession. The
validity of confession would be deter
mined by the courts on the facts of each
case. If a suspect had been held and
questioned for an unreasonable length
of time that alone might serve to in
validate a confession. But reasonable
period of detention for questioning, a
matter of few hours, would not.
Congress undoubtedly has constitu-
tional power to enact such legislation,
and we do not believe that its enact
ment would deprive a suspect of any
constitutional right. If passed, as Rep
reSentative Heating has said, it will
help punish the guilty and protect the
innocent" Or, as Representative Willis
has stated, the measure is an attempt
ito balance the right of free society
to protect itself against crime and the
rights of person accused of crime"
This, we think gets to the heart of
the matter. For the public has right
a right which is ignored by the critics
of this legiSlation-to reasonable pro-
lection against criminals. And this right
cannot be enforced In many types of
serious crimes If the police are to be
barred, for all practical purposes, from
questioning suspects. The Mallory deci-
sion, at least in its implications, erects
such barrier The legislation which
the committee has approved would re-
store a reasonable balance between the
rights of a. suspect and the rights of the
public, and we hope that 1t will become
law.