Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1963-07-29
Crime and Its Cure

Every reasonable person will agree
that the public right to protection from
criminals is at least equally as i'm
portant" as the legal rights of an in
dividual suspected of crime. But to
state this proposition is not necessarily
to achieve the desired result.
The House District Committee In
a 15-to-4 vote has reported out an
omnibus" bill proposing IA changes in
the local criminal law-changes which
vary greatly in Importance and desir-
ability. The basic objection Is, however,
that a catch-all bill of this sort can
not receive appropriate consideration
at this session of Congress and there
fore has virtually no chance of being
enacted. If the bill remains in this form
Congress, at the sessions end, very
probably will have done nothing to
enable the District authorities to cope
with mounting crime in the Nations
Capital.
The most important proposed
change, in our judgment, would modify
the Mallory rule" This rule was
adopted by the Supreme Court in 1857
in contradiction to the indicated will
Of Congress. 1t provides that a con-
fesSion, even though entirely voluntary,
cannot be used against a suspect If
there has been an unnecessary delay in
bringing the accused before a magis-
trate. It was juStice-defeating rule
when the high court adopted it. And
it has been stretched to absurd lengths
by our own United States Court of
Appeals.
This proposed bill would modify the
rule by providing that an otherwise
admissible confession Ii. e., voluntary
confeSSion) shall not be declared mad
Missile merely because Of delay in
arraignment before a magistrate. We
think the language should read "rea-
sonable delay" Subject to this reserva-
ton, however, we heartily indorSe the
Mallory rule change-aS we have done
in the past.
A second major proposed change
would modify the Durham rule, adopted
by the Court of Appeals in 1854 to
broaden the defense of insanity in
criminal cases. The new rule produced
a chaotic situation in the trial courts,
and it has not been followed In any
other Federal Jurisdiction. The House
committees bill wants to change the
rule. 1t is not accurate to say that the
proposed change would turn back the
clock to the ancient right-wrong test
(does the accused know the difference
between right and wrongly in criminal
cases. Instead, the proposed change is
patterned on an insanity definition
recommended by the American Law
Institute, and ordinarily we would favor
it. However, the Court of Appeals last
October handed down a unanimous
opinion in which it tried to straighten
out the mess created by the Durham
rule. The United States Attorney has
said he thinks he can live with this
modification, provided it is not whitfield
away or watered down in subsequent
rulings. Consequently, or so it seems
to US, legislative action now in this
area would be premature.
Another significant proposed change
has to do with questioning suspects.
The committee is not urging a return
to the practice of arrests for investi-
cation" without probable cause to make
the arrests. Instead, its recommended
ton adopts the substance Of the Uni
form Arrest Act. With possibly one
exception, it strikes us as a reasonable
effort to reconcile the need Of the police
to ask questions when a crime has
been committed with the rights Of any
person suspected Of having committed
the crime. This is a complex matter,
however, and 1t deserves more careful
scrutiny than it could receive in this
omnibus bill.
AS for the remaining provisions,
they are a miscellaneous collection of
more or less important changes. Taken
together, however, they need a great
deal Of study. And the basic trouble
with this bill is that it precludes ade-
quate study. 1t asks Congress to bite
off much more than it can possibly
hope to chew at this session.