NCJ Number
81927
Date Published
Unknown
Length
0 pages
Annotation
Dangerousness, a crucial issue in pretrial release and detention decisions, is explored in terms of public fear of crime and the difficulties these pretrial and judicial officials have in defining and applying the concept.
Abstract
Although factors can be identified which will enable accurate risk prediction, no method has been developed which can successfully sort the cases of actual risk from the 'false positives' (i.e., instances where the individual exhibits the predictive characteristics but fails to manifest the predicted behavior). As a result, serious overprediction of dangerousness occurs, raising a moral problem for society at large. There is no moral justification for incarcerating many nondangerous persons in order to prevent one dangerous criminal act. The problem with assessing danger is that the criteria are, necessarily, objective. A definition of dangerousness must first be agreed upon. The pretrial community must deal forthrightly with preventive detention in the face of public and legislative concern. It must establish better local review systems and screening practices, while at the same time protecting defendants' rights. Few released defendants fail to appear for trial or are charged with another offense. Thus, preventive detention often merely represents a subtle coercive method of inducing guilty pleas. Detention remains widespread because those in power exercise it unjustly over the powerless. Speakers include a law professor, president of the National District Attorney's Association, Director of the New York City Criminal Justice Agency, and Executive Director of the Federal Public Defenders in San Diego.