COFAR blog

Anthony Remillard, an intellectually disabled man, fatally assaulted another resident at the former Templeton Developmental Center in 2013.

Remillard spent seven years in prison after pleading guilty to that killing as well as to a previous assault on a Templeton staff worker and setting fire to a dwelling in Worcester. He was only released to a Department of Developmental Services (DDS)-funded group home after he completed his sentence. Even though he has an intellectual disability (ID), he was found competent to stand trial by a Superior Court judge.

It was due to cases like Remillard’s that we have expressed concerns about legislation pending in Massachusetts that would enhance criminal penalties against individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) who assault healthcare workers in group homes and other DDS-funded residential settings.

Many people with IDD are not capable of controlling their aggressive behaviors and do not have the capacity to knowingly and intentionally commit crimes. Yet, they can and do sometimes face criminal charges for their actions and can end up in prison.

Last week, the state Senate voted in favor of S.3171, a bill “requiring health care employers to develop and implement programs to prevent workplace violence.”

The legislation contains several important provisions relating to developing plans to deal with workplace violence and with training healthcare workers and other personnel to reduce the potential for such violence. But the measure would also enhance criminal penalties for assaulting healthcare workers. That has led to a concern for some that the legislation could push more people with ID into the criminal justice system.

Amendment approved to delay warrantless arrests

Apparently due to that concern, the Senate approved an amendment to S.3171 on Thursday that would delay for a year an authorization in the legislation to police to perform a warrantless arrest of an individual who assaults a worker in a DDS-funded facility. According to advocates for the bill, the one-year exclusion would allow for consideration of alternatives to the arrest and criminal prosecution of persons with IDD who assault healthcare workers. 

The Senate also approved a separate amendment that would require police officers responding to reports of workplace violence to use “de-escalation tactics and diversion strategies” before making arrests. 

It does appear that the first amendment would not affect a separate section of the bill, which would expand the circumstances under which an individual could be criminally charged for assaulting a healthcare worker to any activity by the healthcare worker in the line of duty. Currently, the law provides for a 2.5-year prison sentence only for assaults on a healthcare worker while the worker is treating or transporting a client. 

The legislation now goes to a House-Senate conference committee. In terms of the potential for incarceration of people with IDD, the Senate bill appears to be preferable to the House version of the legislation (H.4767). That House bill would upgrade assaults on healthcare workers to a felony charge, carrying penalties of up to 10 years in state prison. 

Studies show many people with IDD end up in the prison system

In 2023, a University of Minnesota Policy Research Brief stated that people with IDD “are overrepresented in the criminal legal system.” The Brief stated that while less than 1% of the U.S. adult population has IDD, between 2–10% of people in jails, prisons, or awaiting trial have IDD.

The Arc of the U.S., citing a 2000 study, reached a similar conclusion, stating that:

Individuals with this disability (IDD)…constitute a small, but nonetheless growing percentage of suspects/offenders within the criminal justice system. While those with intellectual disabilities comprise 2% to 3% of the general population, they represent 4% to 10% of the prison population, with an even greater number of those in juvenile facilities and in jails.

A number of advocacy organizations with which we are aligned on many issues, such as the Massachusetts Nurses Association (MNA), are rightly concerned about a serious and ongoing problem of assaults on nurses and other healthcare workers in healthcare facilities. The MNA has pushed for higher criminal penalties for such assaults, but the organization did support a one-year exemption for the DDS-funded facilities.

The doctrine of criminal intent does not always protect people with I/DD

It has been argued that the criminal penalties specified in the legislation apply only to intentional assaults on health care workers, and do not override the clinical and legal protections already in place for individuals whose behaviors stem from their disability.

It’s true that Massachusetts law relies on the doctrine of criminal intent or Mens Rea that requires that prosecutors prove that an individual charged with a crime acted “intentionally,” and not because of accident or negligence. While this ordinarily does provide protection to individuals with IDD, it is still up to the discretion of judges and juries as to whether the defendant acted with criminal intent. 

In fact, in Anthony Remillard’s case, he pled guilty to a manslaughter charge in order to avoid a possible life sentence if found guilty by a jury. So his attorney had concluded that the criminal intent doctrine was not likely to protect him from a criminal conviction.

This issue clearly requires striking a delicate balance between ensuring the safety of healthcare workers in all settings and considering the rights of individuals who cannot be held responsible for their aggressive behaviors. Whatever action the conference committee takes on the legislation this year, we hope to continue to work with the MNA and other organizations in improving that balance.