Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Forensic Facility Competency Restoration topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Witness tells House Judiciary Committee S193 would inappropriately house people with disabilities in a prison
Summary
Susan Aronov of the Vermont Developmental Disabilities Council told the House Judiciary Committee that S193, which would create a forensic facility, risks detaining people with disabilities 'potentially forever,' lacks discharge plans and independent oversight, and that community-based alternatives and out-of-state contracts should be considered.
Susan Aronov, representing the Vermont Developmental Disabilities Council, told the House Judiciary Committee on Friday that S193an act to establish a forensic facilitywould inappropriately place people with disabilities inside the criminal justice system and lacks necessary safeguards.
"Of all of the proposed solutions to the particular problem of what do we do with people who are not competent to stand trial, this is the worst proposal I have seen yet," Aronov said in testimony submitted to the committee. She said the council opposes including people with intellectual disabilities in an institutionally based competency restoration program located in a correctional facility.
Aronov introduced the Vermont Developmental Disabilities Council and described its federally established role under the Developmental Disabilities (DD) Act. She said roughly 86,000 Vermonters meet the federal definition of developmental disability and about 5,100 receive Medicaid-funded services. The council, she said, is charged with advocating for community-based, person-centered services.
Aronov argued that the people whom S193 would affect are, by definition, people with disabilities: "If someone is not competent to stand trial, it's because they can't meaningfully assist their attorneys," she told the committee. She said the bill contains no clear discharge plan for people deemed "not restorable," raising the prospect that some individuals could be detained indefinitely.
Drawing on her prior clinical and advocacy experience, Aronov warned of risks when high-security treatment is colocated with corrections operations. She cited published reporting about alleged abuse at a juvenile facility (Woodside) and recalled a Connecticut case in which a person held in prolonged four-point restraint was later treated successfully after transfer to an outside specialized program. "We can keep the public safe and provide people humane and dignified treatment outside of a correctional setting," she said.
Aronov urged alternatives: contracting with forensic psychiatry experts, piloting satellite restoration programs, or creating a designated forensic rate to give community agencies the resources to care for hard-to-serve individuals rather than grouping them in one secure location. She also pressed for independent oversight and for the protection-and-advocacy system (identified in Vermont as Disability Rights Vermont) to retain unannounced access to any facility where people with disabilities are held.
Aronov agreed to provide the committee with citations and supporting materials she referenced in testimony. Lawmakers and staff asked follow-up questions about who could perform independent clinical assessments and whether out-of-state contracts (for example with university forensic programs) might supply impartial expertise.
The committee did not vote on S193. The chair adjourned the session and said the committee will reconvene Tuesday at 9:00 a.m. for continued testimony on S193 and additional business, including consideration of a Representative Bootin amendment to H218 and review of S208.
