A Synopsis of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984
| Publication year | 1985 |
| Pages | 183 |
| Citation | Vol. 14 No. 2 Pg. 183 |
1985, February, Pg. 183. A Synopsis of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984
The first significant effort toward overhauling the federal criminal code began with the introduction of a 753-page proposed recodification entitled Senate Bill 1 in January 1975. Because of President Richard Nixon's opposition to a more liberal proposal sponsored by the Brown Commission, Senate Bill 1 was drafted in large part by the Department of Justice under Attorneys General Mitchell and Kleindienst. However, it encountered heavy criticism directed primarily toward its provisions authorizing expanded government wiretapping, mandatory minimum sentences, restriction of the exclusionary rule, and its severe penalty provisions against certain associations and public demonstrations. Fallout from the Watergate investigations concerning alleged governmental abuses and public opposition stimulated by representatives of the media, the American Bar Association and various defense groups led to the demise of this legislation.
In 1977, the Senate eliminated many of the controversial provisions found in Senate Bill 1 and passed Senate Bill 1437, the Criminal Code Reform Act of 1977. However, a similar bill introduced in the House (H.R. 6869) ran into trouble due to expressed concerns regarding the creation of a sentencing commission, the imposition of mandatory minimum sentences, preventive detention, government appeal of sentences, and provisions relating to the commitment of mentally incompetent defendants in the criminal justice system. Although persistent bipartisan efforts have since been expended in attempting to gain the passage of a comprehensive criminal code, all measures failed until President Ronald Reagan signed the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 ("new Act") on October 12, 1984.
Many of the concepts disfavored in the 1970s, such as preventive detention, the creation of a sentencing commission and the government appeal of sentences have found their way into the new Act. A number of new substantive crimes have been included in the new Act, but the most significant changes discussed below concern bail and sentencing reform, as well as a dramatic change in the insanity defense.
Preventive detention may now be ordered under certain circumstances. Code § 3142, as amended,(fn1) provides that a judicial officer shall order the pretrial release of an accused on a personal recognizance or unsecured bond, subject to the condition:
that the person not commit a Federal, State, or local crime during the period of his release, unless the judicial officer determines that such release will not reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required or will endanger the safety of any other person or the community.(fn2)
The predecessor statute, Code § 3146(a), required only that the defendant not commit offenses relating to obstruction of justice or witness or juror intimidation (Code §§ 1503, 1512 or 1513) as a condition of release. The language in Code § 3142(b), which provides for pretrial detention if the judicial officer finds that release will endanger the safety of any other person or the community, is also new.
If the court finds that release upon a personal recognizance or unsecured bond will not reasonably assure the appearance of the accused or will endanger the safety of any person or the community, it may impose a variety of conditions in affording pretrial release. Some of the requirements which may be imposed upon the accused and which are new provisions are that the accused remain in the custody of a designated person as long as that person assures that the accused will appear and not pose a danger to others; complies with a specified curfew; executes an agreement to forfeit specifically identified property upon failure to appear; and undergoes medical or psychiatric treatment in a designated institution as the court deems necessary. The court may impose any condition that is reasonably necessary to assure the appearance of the defendant or the safety of any other person or the community.(fn3)
The court can order the temporary detention of a person if the court determines that the detainee, at the time the charged offense was committed, was (1) on release awaiting trial on another felony; (2) pending the imposition, execution or completion of any other sentence; (3) on probation or parole for any other offense; or (4) is subject to deportation and may flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community. The court then shall direct the
Upon a motion of the attorney for the government, if the charge involves a crime of violence, an offense which carries a maximum life or death sentence, an offense which carries a term of ten years or more under the Controlled Substances Act, or where the accused has been convicted of two or more prior such offenses, the court is required to hold a hearing to determine whether any set of conditions of release will reasonably assure the appearance of the accused or the safety of others. A rebuttable presumption arises that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the safety of others or the community. Additionally, the prosecutor, or the court on its own motion, may compel a hearing upon the contention that there is a serious risk that the person will flee, obstruct justice or threaten or intimidate a prospective witness or juror.
If a release order issues, it must be in writing and must set forth all of the conditions of release and advise the person of the penalties for violating its terms and conditions and the consequences for obstructing justice or...
To continue reading
Request your trial