skip navigation

PUBLICATIONS

Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.

 

NCJ Number: 66657 Find in a Library
Title: PREPARED STATEMENT OF PAUL R RICE ON FEBRUARY 6, 1978 CONCERNING HR 7747 (FROM PRETRIAL RELEASE AND DETENTION, P 174-185, 1978 - SEE NCJ-66651)
Author(s): P R RICE
Date Published: 1978
Page Count: 12
Sponsoring Agency: National Institute of Justice/
Rockville, MD 20849
Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/
NCJRS paper reproduction
Box 6000, Dept F
Rockville, MD 20849
United States of America
Document: PDF
Type: Legislative/Regulatory Material
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: HYPOTHESIZING A PRIORI THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE PRESENT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA LEGISLATION ON PRETRIAL DETENTION, A PROFESSOR OF LAW ADDRESSES THE REVISIONS TO SUCH LEGISLATION EMBODIED IN H.R. 7747.
Abstract: THIS PREPARED STATEMENT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL EFFICIENCY AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS CONCERNING H.R. 7747, AN ACT TO AMEND TITLE 23 OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CODE WITH RESPECT TO THE PRETRIAL RELEASE OR DETENTION OF PERSONS CHARGED WITH CERTAIN TYPES OF VIOLENT OR DANGEROUS CRIMES. THE WITNESS DISCLAIMED ANY INTENTION OF QUESTIONING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE CONCEPT OF PREVENTIVE DETENTION, BUT EXPRESSED HIS DESIRE TO ADDRESS ONLY THE FAIRNESS AND CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SEVERAL OF THE REVISIONS PROPOSED IN H.R. 7747. ARGUING THAT PREVENTIVE DETENTION (BECAUSE OF ITS IMPLIED ASSUMPTION OF DANGEROUSNESS OF THE DETAINEE) CARRIES A GREATER STIGMA THAN INCARCERATION DUE TO FINANCIAL INABILITY TO POST BAIL, THE WITNESS URGED MORE EXPEDITIOUS ACTION ON TRIALS FOR DETAINEES. HE ALSO EXPRESSED OPPOSITION TO THE INCLUSION OF DEFENDANTS ON BAIL IN THE PROVISION ALLOWING PREVENTIVE DETENTION WITHOUT A HEARING FOR RECIDIVIST PROBATIONERS AND PAROLEES BECAUSE OF THE DIFERENCE IN LEGAL STATUS BETWEEN THESE TYPES OF RELEASEES. EVEN THE LEGALITY OF DETAINING OR REVOKING THE PAROLE OR PROBATION STATUS OF A SUSPECT ON A SUBSEQUENT OFFENSE IS QUESTIONED, IF THIS IS DONE WITHOUT A HEARING AND AN INQUIRY INTO THE DANGEROUSNESS OF THE INDIVIDUALS CONCERNED, WHICH IS THE BASIC JUSTIFICATION FOR PREVENTIVE DETENTION. THE PROCEDURAL INADEQUACIES OF THIS PROPOSED REVISION ARE DISCUSSED AT LENGTH, AND REMEDIES ARE SUGGESTED.
Index Term(s): Constitutional Rights/Civil Liberties; Criminal proceedings; District of Columbia; Legislation; Preventive detention
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=66657

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.