Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
House Judiciary hears testimony on S.193 forensic facility; witnesses press for oversight, victims' notice and constitutional safeguards
Loading...
Summary
The House Judiciary Committee continued testimony on S.193, a bill to create a forensic facility for people with cognitive or developmental disabilities who intersect the criminal justice system. DAIL’s commissioner supported an AHS-based approach with strong oversight and treatment models; victims’ advocates sought clearer notice rules; ACLU urged a feasibility study and warned of constitutional risks if housed under DOC.
The House Judiciary Committee on April 14 continued testimony on S.193, a bill to establish a forensic facility to provide competency evaluation and restoration for criminal-justice-involved people with developmental or cognitive disabilities. Committee members questioned capacity, oversight and how the program would be run if placed under the Department of Corrections (DOC) within the Agency of Human Services (AHS).
DAIL Commissioner Dr. Jill Bowen told the committee the proposed facility should serve a narrow population—people with intellectual disabilities, traumatic brain injury, dementia and similar conditions who face very serious charges—and emphasized integrating health and corrections under AHS. “I like that it’s part of the agency of human services,” Bowen said, adding that alignment helps ensure the health-care elements of restoration and risk assessment are integrated with custody.
Bowen described how services would likely be delivered through contracts or designated agencies under state-imposed deliverables and quality standards. She cited evidence‑informed tools used to assess risk and restoration, including the VOTIPS and the violence risk appraisal guide referenced in testimony, and described the Slater competency‑restoration method as a pragmatic, one‑on‑one approach used in other jurisdictions. Bowen and other witnesses stressed that the facility would be small and that the number of people who would qualify—and who might be restorable—would be limited.
Committee members pressed Bowen on oversight and long‑term detention concerns. She acknowledged the need for clear exit criteria and periodic re‑evaluation, suggesting six‑month checks and annual reviews, and said the bill’s rulemaking process should establish quality, training and oversight standards before operation. Bowen said that if a person is determined not restorable, existing civil‑commitment options (referred to in testimony as Act 248) and court processes would be relevant pathways.
Victims’ advocates recommended statutory clarifications. Charley Gulterman, policy director at the Vermont Network Against Domestic Violence, asked the committee to mirror Title 13 language so courts explicitly ask victims whether they wish to be heard, require prosecutors to provide advance notice of hearings, and continue hearings when required notice was not given so victims can participate. He also urged rulemaking to define what facility events would trigger victim notification and which state entity would provide notice; the VINE (Victim Information and Notification Everyday) system was discussed as a possible tool.
The ACLU raised constitutional concerns and recommended caution. Jordan Sowder, policy advocate at ACLU Vermont, said the organization supports the intent of S.193 but warned that placing a forensic facility under DOC risks producing a carceral environment for people who have been found not competent or not guilty by reason of insanity. “It is unconstitutional to incarcerate someone who has been deemed not competent to stand trial or someone who has been found not guilty by reason of insanity,” Sowder said, and urged the committee to use the bill’s interim-report timeline to explore alternatives and assess DOC’s capacity to operate a therapeutic facility.
Committee members noted S.193’s interim-report requirement (an October report was discussed) and that rulemaking required before any facility would become operational gives the Legislature multiple checkpoints. The chair said the committee will continue hearings; the Department of Corrections commissioner is scheduled to appear in a subsequent meeting to address capacity and operations.
What’s next: the committee plans additional witnesses and bill drafting focused on procedural language and oversight; an interim report from implementing agencies is expected by October, and rulemaking will shape operational standards, notification procedures and training requirements.
