Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Dangerousness Detention topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public defender warns expansion of dangerousness detention risks racial disparities and harms
Summary
A public defender and other witnesses opposed bills to expand pretrial 'dangerousness' detention, citing research that pretrial detention increases subsequent re-arrest and exacerbates racial disparities; prosecutors urged several limited additions to predicate offenses in technical amendments.
The Joint Committee on the Judiciary heard competing testimony on H.1691 and related bills that would expand the circumstances under which prosecutors can seek pretrial detention on grounds of dangerousness.
Jeff Garland of the Committee for Public Counsel Services testified in strong opposition to expanding detention authority. Garland cited research showing pretrial detention increases the probability of future re-arrest and can magnify racial disparities. “One study found that pretrial detention caused a 35 percent increase in re-arrest for a new crime post disposition,” Garland said, and added that short periods of detention can have large downstream effects on employment, housing and family stability.
Prosecutors and some sponsors urged technical additions that would allow the Commonwealth to seek detention in narrowly defined circumstances — including certain offenses against children and firearms-related crimes. District Attorney Quinn said several SJC decisions had limited the scope of predicate offenses in the past and argued the legislature should clarify that certain serious offenses could be considered under the dangerousness statute.
Witnesses debated whether expanding predicates or removing time limits would be disproportionate and risk overuse of preventive detention. Garland urged the committee to preserve the statute’s time limits and narrowly defined predicate offenses to protect due process and avoid widening disparities.
The committee asked witnesses about appellate decisions that have constrained dangerousness detention and about the practical effects of allowing prosecutors broader authority to detain. No formal committee action was taken.
Ending: Committee members asked for further submissions on empirical impacts, racial-disparity estimates and possible guardrails to ensure the statute targets the most dangerous persons while limiting pretrial incarceration.
