It analyzes the subcategorization of offenses and their prescribed penalties for each group, citing the purpose of the changes and assessing how the new formulation meets the intended objectives. The reform proposal aimed to clarify and update a complex older code. It is deemed to contain some improvements -- e.g., codes against intimidation prescribe penalties according to the gravity of the threatened act rather than by the means employed to communicate the threat. Nevertheless, the principal flaw of the revised code remains that of an imbalance between complexly delineated circumstances for some offenses and inadequately conceptualized distinctions for others. For example, the code distinguishes thefts vaguely according to whether the offender's objective was the usage or the destruction of the stolen property, while assault and battery categories contain copious minutiae concerning the extent of injury. Legal formulations cannot expect to preview every imaginable offense, but should rather strive for synthesized, inclusive categorization. A total of 71 footnotes are given.