BLOG
Letter to the Editor RE: 'Flanagan's Law'
In response to: “Named after former Fall River mayor, Flanagan’s Law filed to protect public safety and prevent violent mental health failures”- Fall River Reporter - ARTICLE LINK
Letter to the Editor
Fall River Herald News
RE: 'Flanagan's Law'
This proposed legislation is a dangerous combination of carelessness and ineffectiveness.
I write today to express my immense concern and disappointment in Representative Alan Sylvia’s filing of Massachusetts House Bill HD.5406, “An Act establishing the Massachusetts Violent and Dangerous Persons Mental Health Information System”, which he and his citizen collaborator, Mr. William Flanagan, have requested be called “Flanagan’s Law”.
It is my opinion that this bill’s negligent lack of specificity in, and due respect for, profoundly critical issues of personal privacy, civil liberties, criminal justice, and mental health are astonishingly reckless.
My first concern about this bill is that the proposal suggests anyone would be eligible for inclusion on this new secret list if they were “found to be a ‘violent or dangerous person’”. You might ask, how is a “violent or dangerous person” defined?
Firstly, anyone who is “convicted of a violent felony offense”. Which sounds right, until you realize this is further defined as a litany of loosely associated crimes.
Primarily a “violent felony offense” is defined here to include any crime by any adult – or juvenile! – in which the person used a deadly weapon or any other sort of physical force against another person. I could maybe understand the use of a deadly weapon, but it seems to me like a singular moment of using physical force in an arrestable offense is inherently a poor indicator of future risk to the masses in any increasingly violent manner.
Furthermore, their definition of a “violent felony offense” includes the crimes of burglary, extortion, arson, or kidnapping. Including these criteria separately seems to be an admission on the part of the authors that these crimes are often not considered legally violent offenses, and an admission that the authors believe they ought to be for the purpose of their list.
Lastly, this bill further defines a “violent felony offense” to include adults and juveniles who commit crimes which “otherwise involve conduct that presents a serious risk of physical injury to another”. Whew, talk about casting a wide net. This last inclusion criteria seems to be wide open for interpretation and seems to grounds to include everyone from drunk drivers to people who start forest fires to hungry and desperate teenagers running out of a store stealing a candy bar. How scary.
Believe it or not, that’s not the only way someone could find themselves on this secret list.
The second way an individual would be eligible for inclusion on this list of “Violent and Dangerous Persons” if they are ever, even once, “adjudicated as posing a substantial risk of harm to self or others as determined by a qualified mental health professional” under either a Section 12 (involuntary mental health treatment) or Section 35 (involuntary substance abuse treatment) proceeding.
It is wholly illogical and irresponsible to conflate anyone’s risk of harm to themself as any kind of indicator or predictor of risk to others, now or in the future. The inclusion of this criterion is a gross mischaracterization of mental health crisis and is downright disrespectful to those who have experienced it. Furthermore, conflating addiction with interpersonal violence is a similarly reckless and uninformed decision. I’m truly flabbergasted at the suggestion.
Think of how many people you’ve heard of, or maybe know or even love, who at one time needed mental health or substance use treatment through a civil commitment proceeding. Did their struggles make them violent? Did it predict violence? Should their struggles follow them for the rest of their days, more than it already does? Should first responders or judges treat them differently for the rest of their lives because of it?
Finally, I also assert that any insinuation that the existence of such a “list” like the one Mr. Flanagan and Mr. Sylvia aim to create would have prevented the unquestionable tragedy of what Mr. Flanagan experienced in his assault on October 20th, 2025 is equal parts irresponsible and unsubstantiated by any precedent.
I’m able to say this because no similar State-sponsored database, or “list”, containing the personal information and with the stated goals of Mr. Sylvia’s proposed list exists anywhere else in our country. There is no proof or precedent that the creation of such a list or database would prevent any crime at all, big or small, visited upon any citizen of our great Commonwealth, well-known or otherwise.
Perhaps Mr. Sylvia is unaware, but there are Federal database systems long in existence aimed at indexing a narrow group of our society’s most violent offenders for the protection of first responders – the NCIC Violent Person File – and for the prevention of firearm procurement – the NICS Index. There are similarly many State-level initiatives that share critical mental health-related information across affiliated health agencies to improve and expedite mental health care.
Mr. Flanagan says in the article that “we already track sex offenders because we know the danger of letting known threats slip through the cracks. This law follows that same logic.”
With due respect, what an offensive comparison to make. Especially when a vast majority of the people Mr. Flanagan and Mr. Sylvia seem eager to include on a secret list like the one Mr. Sylvia proposed do not, in any way, present any kind of legitimate violent or malicious threat to anyone, let alone children or the most vulnerable.
In closing, I hope it becomes increasingly clear to everyone that this half-baked idea lacks credibility, precedent, and respect for human dignity on multiple levels. That it would be ineffective if enacted in any shape or form beyond the effectiveness of more established and responsible Federal and State databases. That it is reactionary at best and ill-intentioned at worst. I hope Mr. Sylvia, his citizen collaborators, and his legislative co-petitioners all reconsider this bill.
Signed,
Owen Tidwell
Fall River Resident
Mental Health Professional and Social Worker