VIEWS ON THE PROPOSED CODE

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

I do not even understand the collection of words attributed to me in Wednesday's CRIMSON article about the American Law Institute's proposed Prearraignment Code. I certainly did not utter them.

My position, in capsule form, is this: under existing law, all suspects have an absolute right to refuse to answer incriminating questions; they ought to be effectively advised of this right and the consequences of its waiver; the police, whose function it is to elicit incriminating answers, should not be entrusted with the responsibility of advising suspects of their right not to give such answers.

The proposed code does not provide lawyers for those unable to afford them because the reporters would prefer that suspects not exercise their right to remain silent, and they fear that lawyers would advise suspects of this right more effectively than would the police. It is a dangerous philosophy for the Government to grant a right (i.e., to refuse to answer incriminating questions) and then, out of fear that the right may be exercised, to deny most citizens effective access to the information necessary to its exercise. This is what the reporters have proposed and why I am opposed to their Code. Alan M. Dershowitz   Assistant Professor of Law