Boston — Survivors’ advocates and lawmakers told the Joint Committee on the Judiciary on Sept. 21 that Massachusetts’ legal definition of strangulation leaves too much ambiguity for first responders, prosecutors and judges, undermining investigations and survivor safety.

Senator Robin Kennedy said strangulation is “one of the most dangerous and frequently undercharged forms of domestic violence” and that the current statute’s requirement of “substantial pressure” is ambiguous. Kennedy and witnesses pointed to medical research: “Just 11 pounds of pressure on the carotid arteries for 10 seconds can cause unconsciousness,” she said, and stressed that visible injury is often absent — she cited that roughly 50 percent of victims show no injury and only 15 percent have photographable injuries.

Tara Huard and other domestic‑violence specialists who work with high‑risk teams testified in support of S.1145, which would recast the statutory language to criminalize intentionally, knowingly or recklessly impeding normal breathing or circulation by applying pressure to the throat or neck, “regardless of whether that conduct results in a visible injury.” Speakers said the tighter language would improve investigations, charging decisions and survivor protections.

Advocates asked the committee to report the bill favorably, saying clearer statutory language is a modest but vital change that will strengthen accountability and reduce the risk of fatal outcomes.

Committee members did not take a formal vote during the hearing; witnesses offered statistics and promised written evidence to support legislative action.