AS IT STANDS, FEDERAL CRIMINAL LAW PROMOTES SENTENCING DISPARITY, UNREGULATED PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION, INEQUALITIES IN TREATMENT OF SIMILAR OFFENSES, ESCAPES ON TECHNICALITIES, AND OTHER PROBLEMS. THE MOST AMBITIOUS ATTEMPT AT RECODIFICATION HAS BEEN S. 1437, A RELATIVELY COMPLETE REVISION THAT CHANGES THE LAW IN A NUMBER OF RESPECTS, OFTEN BY RESOLVING AMBIGUITIES. THE BILL APPEARS TO BE HEADED IN THE PROPER DIRECTION, BUT DEFECTS IN ITS CULPABILITY SECTIONS CUT ACROSS THE ENTIRE CODE. THE BILL REQUIRES THAT WHERE NO CULPABILITY (STATE OF MIND REQUIREMENT) IS SPELLED OUT FOR A PARTICULAR OFFENSE (AS IS FREQUENTLY THE CASE), THE REQUIRED STATE OF MIND IS ASSUMED TO BE 'KNOWING' WITH RESPECT TO CONDUCT AND 'RECKLESS' WITH RESPECT TO CIRCUMSTANCES. BUT THERE ARE PROBLEMS IN DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN CONDUCT AND CIRCUMSTANCES. THE BEST SOLUTION WOULD BE TO SPECIFY FOR EACH ELEMENT OF EACH CRIME EXACTLY WHAT STATE OF MIND IS REQUIRED--INTENTION, KNOWLEDGE, RECKLESSNESS, OR NEGLIGENCE. IF THIS SOLUTION IS TOO CUMBERSOME, AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACH WOULD BE TO DEFINE CONDUCT FOR EACH OFFENSE. ANOTHER PROBLEM HAS TO DO WITH THE BILL'S DEFINITION OF 'KNOWING.' A REDEFINITION IS SUGGESTED. A SEPARATE AND EQUALLY FAR-REACHING PROBLEM CONCERNS GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CONSTRUCTION. THE BILL STATES THAT WHENEVER THE PRESENT TENSE IS USED THE FUTURE TENSE IS INCLUDED. UNDER THIS CONDITION, THE PHRASE 'A PERSON IS GUILTY OF AN OFFENSE IF HE MURDERS, STEALS, ETC.' WOULD ALSO MEAN 'A PERSON IS GUILTY OF AN OFFENSE IF HE IS GOING TO OR WILL STEAL, MURDER, ETC.' REDRAFTING SHOULD BE UNDERTAKEN TO CORRECT THESE FLAWS. (LKM)