Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

LEGISLATION TO REVISE AND RECODIFY

FEDERAL CRIMINAL LAWS

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 12, 1978

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met at 2:40 p.m. in room 2237 of the Rayburn House Office Building; Hon. James R. Mann (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Mann, Hall, Gudger, and Evans.

Staff present: Thomas W. Hutchison, counsel; Robert A. Lembo and Kathy J. Zebrowski, assistant counsel; and Raymond V. Smietanka, associate counsel.

Mr. MANN. The subcommittee will come to order.

Today we are continuing our series of hearings on the criminal code recodification legislation. We have already heard from a number of witnesses who have presented a wide variety of viewpoints. I am certain that the testimony of today's witnesses will further aid the subcommittee in its consideration of this legislation.

Our first witness is our distinguished colleague from California, Representative Glenn Anderson. The criminal recodification legislation encompasses a broad range of issues, and Mr. Anderson has introduced legislation dealing with one of those issues: Penalties for the use of a firearm during the commission of a crime. We welcome his views and recommendations on this issue.

Representative Anderson has submitted a written statement which, without objection, will be made part of the record.

[The prepared statement of Representative Anderson follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. GLENN M. ANDERSON BEFORE THE HOUSE JUDICIARY SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE

I appreciate the opportunity to address this distinguished Subcommittee on the sentencing provisions for those convicted of firearm-related crimes.

In your consideration of legislation revising our Federal Criminal Code, there are several options before you regarding gun-related offenses. I believe that our criminal code should contain provisions mandating that any individual convicted of committing a federal felony with a firearm should be imprisoned for five years. He should not be put on probation, he should not be released on early parole, and his sentence for possession of the firearm should not be served concurrently with the sentence imposed for the commission of the crime itself.

H. R. 1559, which I authored and which has been cosponsored by 107 of our colleagues, would amend Chapter 44, Title 18, along the lines I am recommending. I initially introduced this legislation because it made sense to me that it would provide a check on gun-related crime. Public reaction to this proposal has confirmed the need for it.

People want the potential criminal to know that if he carries a gun in the commission of a crime, he will go to jail. They believe, as do I, that this will deter some criminals before they act. And those that go ahead and commit the crime, and are convicted, will surely not have the opportunity to repeat their offense for several years. They will be in prison.

I have been deluged by correspondence supporting the proposal from all parts of the country. And in a district-wide survey I recently conducted in California's 32d Congressional District, which I represent, 93 percent of those responding indicated their support. Only 3 percent opposed it, and 4 percent were undecided. Of all the questions asked, on many important issues of the day, this one elicited the most uniform response.

Response from interested organizations has also been overwhelming. Just two weeks ago, the 150,000 Fraternal Order of Police announced their support. Others in support include the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the California District Attorney's Association, the National District Attorney's Association, the National Sheriff's Association, the California Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO, and the California Chamber of Commerce. These groups are certainly varied, and often speak for diverse interests. They have all spoken for mandatory sentencing legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I ask at this time that letters in support be included in the record of these hearings so that the Subcommittee can examine them later, in considering the proposal.

Popular demand for H.R. 1559 has been clearly demonstrated. It is important. badly needed legislation. It is legislation that should be allowed to stand on its own merits. It is my view that the full House should have the opportunity to vote on H.R. 1559, as it stands. Why must it always be included as one part of some larger, controversial bill, be it gun control legislation or criminal code reform? Why must Members of Congress be put in the position of having to choose between mandatory sentencing, which they favor, and some larger bill which they may dislike? Give the Members a clear choice. Allow us to vote for or against H.R. 1559 because we favor or oppose mandatory sentencing.

The Senate has passed legislation, S. 1437, which among its many provisions. increases the added penalties for use or possession of a gun while committing a federal felony, from one year to two, and eliminating the possibility of probation or a suspended sentence for first-time offenders. Like many of our col leagues, I have some problems with other parts of S. 1437. Those provisions, however, are beyond the scope of my testimony here today.

The legislation I proposed, H.R. 1559, would have provided a five-year minimum sentence, instead of the two years which is contained in the Senate bill. As the General Accounting Office Report of February 6, 1978 states, and I grant you that no conclusions were reached in that report on the value of mandatory sentencing, ". . . most who have researched this area have found that the frequency with which punishment is applied is of greater importance than its severity." It must be certain that the offender will go to jail. So I would say to you, that though I have asked for a five-year minimum sentence, two years of non-probationary time is clearly preferable over what we have now.

I would close by referring the Subcommittee to a study conducted last year by the GMA Research Corporation, an independent national market and opinion research firm. This study indicates that well over 90 percent of all Chiefs of Police, Sheriffs, and rank and file police officers, beileve that mandatory prison sentences for all persons convicted of committing a felony with a firearm, would reduce crime. About 80 percent said that it would serve this purpose more effectively than does current law, or would federal registration, federal licensing. or a prohibition on public ownership of guns.

In summary, I urge you to report legislation that is directed at the criminal who abuses the gun: the individual who, through his own actions, jeopardizes the rights and lives of honest, law-abiding citizens.

Thank you for giving me this time.

[H.R. 1559, 95th Cong., 1st Secs.]

A BILL To amend chapter 44 of title 18 of the United States Code (respecting firearms) to penalize the use of firearms in the commission of any felony and to increase the penalties in certain relating existing provisions

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 924 (c)

of title 18 of the United States Code is amended to read as follows: "(c) Whoever

"(1) uses any firearm to commit a felony with respect to which the district courts of the United States have original and exclusive jurisdiction under section 3231 of this title, or carries a firearm during the commission of any such felony, or

"(2) uses any firearm transported in interstate or foreign commerce or affecting such commerce to commit, or carries such a firearm unlawfully during the commission of, any crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, and is convicted of such crime in a court of any State.

shall, in addition to the punishment provided for the commission of such felony or crime, be sentenced to a term of imprisonment for not less than five years, nor more than ten years. In the case of his second or subsequent conviction under this subsection, such person shall be sentenced to imprisonment for any term of years not less than ten, or to life imprisonment. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the court shall not suspend the sentence in the case of any person convicted under this subsection, or give him a probationary sentence, nor shall the term of imprisonment imposed under this subsection run concurrently with any term of imprisonment imposed for the commission of such felony or crime.".

Mr. MANN. The subcommittee has received a request to cover this hearing in whole or in part by means of tape recording. Pursuant to rule V(a), permission to do so will be granted unless there is objection. Is there objection?

Hearing none, permission is granted.

You may proceed, Mr. Anderson.

TESTIMONY OF THE HON. GLENN M. ANDERSON, REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. ANDERSON. I appreciate the opportunity to address this distinguished subcommittee on the sentencing provisions for those convicted of firearm-related crimes.

In your consideration of legislation revising our Federal Criminal Code, there are several options before you regarding gun-related offenses.

I believe that our criminal code should contain provisions mandating that any individual convicted of committing a Federal felony with a firearm should be imprisoned for 5 years. He should not be put on probation, he should not be released on early parole, and his sentence for possession of the firearm should not be served concurrently with the sentence imposed for the commission of the crime itself.

H.R. 1559, which I authored and which has been cosponsored by 107 of our colleagues, would amend chapter 44, title 18, along the lines I am recommending.

I initially introduced this legislation because it made sense to me that it would provide a check on gun-related crime. Public reaction to this proposal has confirmed the need for it.

People want the potential criminal to know that if he carries a gun in the commission of a crime, he will go to jail. They believe, as do I,

that this will deter some criminals before they act. And those that go ahead and commit the crime, and are convicted, will surely not have the opportunity to repeat their offense for several years. They will be in prison.

I have been deluged by correspondenc supporting the proposal from all parts of the country. And in a districtwide survey I recently conducted in California's 32d Congressional District, which I represent, 93 percent of those responding indicated their support. Only 3 percent opposed it, and 4 percent were undecided. Of all the questions asked. on many important issues of the day, this one elicited the most uniform response.

I might add that I put out 160,000 mailers in my district, got about a 10-percent return, about 15,000 and of those 15,000, 93 percent favored this proposition.

Response from interested organizations has also been overwhelming. Just 2 weeks ago, the 150,000 Fraternal Order of Police announced their support. Others in support include the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the California District Attorney's Association, the National District Attorney's Association, the National Sheriff's Association, the California Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO, and the California Chamber of Commerce. These groups are cetrainly varied, and often speak for diverse interests. They have all spoken for mandatory sentencing legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I ask at this time that letters in support be included in the record of these hearings, so that the subcommittee can examine them later, in considering the proposal.

I have these letters here.

Mr. MANN. They will be received.1

Mr. ANDERSON. Popular demand for H.R. 1559 has been clearly demonstrated. It is important, badly needed legislation. It is legislation that should be allowed to stand on its own merits. It is my view that the full House should have the opportunity to vote on H.R. 1559. as it stands. Why must it always be included as one part of some larger, controversial bill, be it gun control legislation or criminal code reform? Why must Members of Congress be put in the position of having to choose between mandatory sentencing, which they favor, and some larger bill which they may dislike? Give the Members a clear choice. Allow us to vote for or against H.R. 1559, because we favor or oppose mandatory sentencing.

The Senate has passed legislation, S. 1437, which, among its many provisions, increases the added penalties for use or possession of a gun while committing a Federal felony, from 1 year or 2, and eliminating the possibility of probation or a suspended sentence for first-time offenders.

Like many of our colleagues, I have some problems with other parts of S. 1437. Those provisions, however, are beyond the scope of my testimony here today.

The legislation I proposed, H.R. 1559, would have provided a 5-year minimum sentence, instead of the 2 years which is contained in the Senate bill.

As the General Accounting Office report of February 6, 1978, states. and I grant you that no conclusions were reached in that report on the

1 The letters submitted by Representative Anderson appear at the conclusion of his testimony.

value of mandatory sentencing, "*** most who have researched this area have found that the frequency with which punishment is applied is of greater importance than its severity." It must be certain that the offender will go to jail. So I would say to you, that though I have asked for a 5-year minimum sentence, 2 years of nonprobationary time is clearly preferable over what we have now.

I would close by referring the subcommittee to a study conducted last year by the GMA Research Corp., an independent national market and opinion research firm. This study indicates that well over 90 percent of all chiefs of police, sheriffs, and rank and file police officers, believe that mandatory prison sentences for all persons convicted of committing a felony with a firearm, would reduce crime.

About 80 percent said that it would serve this purpose more effectively than does current law, or would Federal registration, Federal licensing, or a prohibition on public ownership of guns.

In summary, I urge you to report legislation that is directed at the criminal who abuses the gun; the individual who, through his own actions, jeopardizes the rights and lives of honest, law-abiding citi

zens.

Thank you for giving me this time.

I appreciate my colleague, John, for letting me get a little bit ahead

of him.

Mr. MANN. Thank you, Mr. Anderson. Certainly your proposal has a great deal of merit. I think you have identified one of the problems of our legislative process, that we think we have to do the whole thing before we can do part.

Mr. ANDERSON. Well, I've been on this bill for, I guess, about 3 or 4 years. At one time I find myself lumped with the fight on gun control. Now I find myself in the judicial reform bill, and all I want is to get this simple little bill out.

So thank you very much.
Mr. MANN. Thank you.

Mr. Hall?

Mr. HALL. No questions.

Mr. MANN. Thank you very much.

NATIONAL SHERIFFS' ASSOCIATION,
Washington, D.C., January 11, 1977.

Hon. GLENN M. ANDERSON, M.C., 1230 House Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. ANDERSON: It is gratifying to learn that you have again introduced a bill that would provide for a mandatory sentence for anyone using a firearm in the commission of a federal crime.

The vast majority of American peace officers will, I am sure, be overwhelmingly in favor of its passage. As violent crime increases as do the number of lawmen slain yearly, it appears obvious that half-measures must be abandoned.

The National Sheriffs' Association, during its 1972 Annual Informative Conference, unanimously approved a resolution similar to yours in regard to the several states.

It appears to be much more practical to curb criminal misuse of firearms than it is to disarm the law-abiding citizen.

I congratulate you for your clear thinking and positive action. Your bill, if passed, will I am sure, lead to a measurable diminution of criminal activity. Cordially,

FERRIS E. LUCAS,
Executive Director.

« AnteriorContinuar »