NCJ Number
105159
Date Published
1986
Length
222 pages
Annotation
These five papers examine the ways different States define dangerousness in making pretrial release decisions, consider alternatives to detention for dangerous offenders, analyze the reasons the new State laws on dangerousness are seldom invoked, and discuss constitutional challenges to the new laws.
Abstract
The analysis of State definitions concludes that public concern about releasing certain defendants is legitimate, but it is hard to codify the behavioral traits that define these defendants. Nevertheless, general agreement exists that the 'violent predator' is the truly dangerous pretrial defendant. A discussion of restrictive alternatives other than detention concludes that traditional alternatives have proven ineffective, but new programs such as intensive supervision, drug testing, and electronic surveillance of a defendant's movements to monitor compliance with house arrest all show promise. Policy implications related to using these alternatives are also explored. A discussion of victims' interests argues that victims' rights and defendants' rights can and must be balanced at the pretrial stage. A discussion of the continuing use of high money bail rather than the new danger laws in prerelease decisionmaking by States contrasts the States' experience with the heavy use of the Federal danger law that took effect in October 1984. The author concludes that the inertia of the criminal justice system is the main reason for the failure to use the new laws. A discussion of legal issues notes that the new Federal law has survived numerous challenges in its first year and concludes that State legislatures that use the Federal law as a model in drafting procedural safeguards will enact statutes that also survive constitutional challenges. Footnotes, case lists, and reference lists for each paper. For volume 2 of this study, see NCJ-105160.