Judiciary committee reviews S.193 changes to create narrow forensic facility, debates custody and treatment limits
Loading...
Summary
On Feb. 19 the Judiciary committee heard testimony on S.193, which would create a narrowly defined forensic facility and a statewide contracting approach for competency evaluations; witnesses debated who would oversee facilities, how records and contracts would be managed, and constitutional limits on holding people found not guilty by reason of insanity.
On Feb. 19, the Judiciary committee took testimony on S.193, a bill that would establish a narrowly tailored forensic facility and a statewide "umbrella" contract for competency evaluations. Witnesses included Wanda Manoli, commissioner of Buildings and General Services; Commissioner Morant of the Department of Corrections; and Karen Marber, general counsel for the Department of Health.
Wanda Manoli said BGS would prepare and publish a statewide master contract that courts, prosecutors and defenders could use to secure evaluators and evaluation services. "We would make the contract available. We would manage the process," Manoli said, adding that BGS would not pay other agencies' bills or become the formal custodian of forensic records. She told the committee BGS could help draft clarifying language stating that entities using the contract would retain responsibility for records and public records requests.
Commissioner Morant told the committee the Department of Corrections is supportive if the bill codifies current practice. "There are six individuals currently in our custody who have been alleged to have been responsible for nine murders," he said, describing the bill's application to a very small population and saying DOC could continue to hold and care for such individuals under contracted health services.
Karen Marber of the Department of Health walked members through revisions in draft 1.1. She said the draft adds criminal-court authorization for hospitalization in addition to civil-commitment references, clarifies procedures for evaluations when restoration to competency is uncertain or unlikely, and replaces the phrase "mental disease or defect" with a broader "qualifying condition" intended to include substance use, traumatic brain injury, dementia and intellectual disability. "We don't want nor do we think it's wise to build a forensic hospital, to hold mentally ill individuals," Marber said, stressing the bill targets people who would not meet hospital-level clinical thresholds but who nonetheless present public-safety concerns.
Marber also described a drafting choice to place the burden of pursuing involuntary medication for competency restoration with state's attorneys at the commissioner's request and said the draft incorporates U.S. Supreme Court standards for involuntary medication (referred to in the transcript as "cell standards"). The draft also proposes language to give victims an opportunity to express views at discharge hearings and clarifies reporting duties between the commissioner and state's attorneys.
Committee members pressed witnesses on several issues. Some senators said they were worried about placing people found not guilty by reason of insanity in settings physically connected to jails and questioned whether such placement would be constitutionally permissible and therapeutically appropriate. One member cited O'Connor v. Donaldson to note that commitment can be lawful when it is for treatment and to protect public safety, while others said prison environments are not ideal therapeutic settings.
Several members requested additional testimony to clarify how competency restoration and treatment in a proposed forensic facility would differ from treatment received inside correctional facilities. The committee chair asked staff to schedule representatives from the state's contracted health provider (referenced in testimony as WellPath) and the ACLU for follow-up sessions.
Committee members indicated they were largely satisfied with the draft's direction and a number said they were ready to move toward markup, while several asked the drafters to resolve outstanding constitutional and technical questions before a final vote. The committee did not take a formal vote during this session; members closed by thanking witnesses and scheduling follow-up testimony.
The committee is expected to hold additional hearings and to consider a markup once language clarifications and outside testimony (ACLU, treatment providers) are scheduled.
