All defendents have a right to a fair trial to determine their guilt or innocence. The hypocrisy of commiting a person to a mental institution on the say-so of a psychiatrist is no different from imprisoning that person without a trial. The only permissable admission to a mental hospital must be voluntary. The only considerations of the criminal justice system must be guilt or innocence and the meting out of justice. What the above will do is abolish the insanity defense and involuntary commitment and will eliminate the need for psychiatry in the courtroom. For too long, psychiatry has been pulling the wool over our eyes and making a mockery of our justice system by assisting criminals such as Dan White to get away with murder, please see enclosed P.1. The inability of the psychiatric profession to accurately assess mental state at the time of a crime has resulted in many travesties of justice, please see enclosed p. 2-12. On another note, I understand that your final draft is due out in the beginning of September, with hearings to begin the 6th of September. At most, in that the 1st and 2nd are a weekend, and the 3rd is Lubor Day, this allows only 2 days for distribution of the draft, analysis, and travel to Washington by concerned individuals and groups such as ourselves. Obviously this is unworkable and unfair and we strongly urge you to push back the beginning of the hearings until at least the 1st of October. Additionally the Criminal Code affects all Americans to such a marked degree, as I'm sure you'll agree, that your subcommittee must hold hearings at various locations around the country so that persons unable to travel to Washington due to family, business or other obligations may be heard. It is your responsibility to ensure that the Criminal Code receives as musch input as possible from the people it will affect, in this case, all of America. This position is supported by the American Friends Service Committee, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, the National Committee Against Repressive Legislation, the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, the Massachusetts Black Caucus and Mobilization for Survival. Once again, we commend you for the improvements made so far in the mental health sections and urge your prompt adoption of the further improvements cited above. And, in the name of the principle upon which our country was founded..."government of the people, for the people, and by the people"...please see to it that the hearing date is postponed and that nation-wide public hearings are held. With Best Regards, Judith R. Lebel Judith R. Lebel, R.N. Citizens Commission on Human Rights Citizens Commission On Human Rights Washington Office 4317 Fessenden Street NW. Washington DC (202) 797-9×12 20016 National Research Office 4872 Fountain Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90026 National Advisory Board Lee Coleman. M D Michael Kananack June 5, 1980 Dear Member of the House Judiciary Committee: We have been following closely the mark-up process of HR 6915 in the Judiciary Committee and the amendments Michael Smith, Ph.D. Chemistry Written by the Justice Department for HR 6915 have been We have studied these amend David Jordan John Friedberg. MD Ray Reynolds, MD Res Kenneth Whitman Kenneth Donaldson Author and Lecturer brought to our attention. ments and have found that many of .these would severely curtail civil liberties. The following pages contain short discussions with illustrations regarding several of these amendments. We strongly urge you to vote against these amendments when they are introduced into the full Judiciary Committee. Sponsored by the DC Association of Scientologists for Reform OBSTRUCTING A GOVERNMENT FUNCTION BY FRAUD The Justice Department's Amendment to Restore the Coverage of the General Obstruction of Justice Provision from Current Law: The Justice Department states that: "The proposed amendment would add to the coverage of section 1729, including not only obstructions by fraud but by 'other improper means. This amendment will bring section 1729 closer to current law, recognizing the importance of protecting against all such obstructions of justice. The crux of the offense should be the effect of the conduct and the intent with which the conduct is performed, rather than the conduct's particular nature." This would, in reality, leave "obstruction of a government function by fraud" then open to a very wide interpretation with the likelihood of many serious civil liberties abuses. This amendment is so loosely worded that it could apply to many situations which would not normally be considered worthy of classification as crimes. For example, say that a woman's boss is being investigated by the FBI. One night she notices what appears to be an FBI agent following her. If she in any way attempts to use a trick to avoid surveillance by this agent, she is guity of a crime. Or take, for example, a man who is rather upset on morning when a new postman comes to his house. The postman asks where 1832 Oak Street is and the man tells him down the street realizing at the same time that it might not be; he neglects to go after the postman to clarify the statement. He is now guilty of an offense. CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY RALLY TO LOWER The Justice Department's Amendment to Restore the Pinkerton Doctrine: The Justice Department's reasoning behind this amendment states: "In Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640 (1946), the Supreme Court, in an opinion written by the late Justice Douglas, held that conspirators were criminally liable for substantive offenses committed by other members of the conspiracy if two tests are met. First, those substantive offenses must have been "reasonably foreseeable" at the time of the conspiracy. Second, the offenses must have been committed "in furtherance" of the conspiracy." In other words, this would mean that if one agreed with another person to do something that would be a crime, and he, or the other person engaged in any conduct intending to commit the crime, they both would be guilty. Let's take an example in order to see the dangers inherent in this section. Suppose someone were interested in a federal interstate highway that was being proposed to be built through a local park. The person sees a sign advertising a meeting to be held regarding the construction of the highway. He attends the meeting at which it is decided that they will attempt to block construction of the highway in order to save the park. Now imagine our individual goes home and decides that he doesn't want to take part in the activity, and in fact, on the day of the rally to block the construction, he stays at home. Per this amendment, this man would still be guilty of a federal offense, even though this would constitute a violation of his 1st Amendment right "of the people peaceably to assemble." The Justice Department's Amendment to Restore Partial Coverage of Oral False Statements to Law Enforcement Officers: The Justice Department states in its explanation of this amendment: "The proposed amendment to section 1742 makes it an offense in a government matter to make a material oral statement that the person knows is false. The provision is limited to the making of such a statement to someone the defendant knows is either a law enforcement officer or a person officially assigend investigative responsibilities of a non-criminal nature." This amendment would thus make it a federal offense to knowingly make a false statement to government official, whether under oath or not. In other words, if a government official thinks a citizen has made a false statement knowingly, he can prosecute the person and it's the citizen's word against the official's. There would be no presence of an attorney or oath given or similar safeguard afforded to the individual. Say Bill Smith is asked by an FBI agent if John Jones lives in his building. Bill doesn't want to be bothered and says "no", but it later turns out that John Jones does live there. Thus Bill is guilty of making a false statement and is liable for prosecution under this amendment. |