Senate committee reviews bill to create DOC-run forensic facility for narrow group of criminal defendants

On March 10, 2026, the Senate Institutions Committee reviewed S.193, a bill that would direct the Department of Corrections to establish and operate a locked forensic facility to evaluate, treat and house a narrowly defined set of criminal defendants.

Legislative counsel Eric Kpatrick told the committee the bill creates two main admission tracks: (1) defendants found incompetent to stand trial who meet four statutory criteria — the underlying charge carries a life‑maximum sentence, the defendant is held without bail or release would pose a substantial risk of bodily injury, the defendant is not already hospitalized under a mental‑health order, and the court finds the defendant incompetent — and (2) defendants found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) for offenses punishable by a life sentence. "That's the big picture," Kpatrick said, describing how some people who otherwise would be routed to the Department of Mental Health (DMH) could instead be placed in DOC custody under the proposal.

The bill would require competency‑restoration services for people admitted on the incompetency track, overseen by a clinical services director. Kpatrick described automatic six‑month re‑evaluations and earlier review if the clinical director believes restoration may be possible. For the NGRI track, the bill calls for a hearing within 40 days and a forensic risk assessment; the state's attorney would have the burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that placement is warranted.

DMH General Counsel Karen Butler, testifying to the committee, framed the proposal as an attempt to fill a gap: some people who do not meet the clinical threshold for inpatient psychiatric hospitalization nonetheless have clinical needs and present public‑safety risks. "Mental health treatment is not punishment. The goal is to get people to engage so that they can be successful in the community," Butler said, while noting that DMH hospitals are licensed and that hospitals can refuse admission when clinical criteria are not met.

Kpatrick and DMH stressed several limits in the draft: placement is narrowly tailored to very serious offenses, periodic court review is required, and release on conditions is possible when the court finds no substantial risk. The draft also tracks U.S. Supreme Court standards for involuntary medication and makes treatment records confidential with limited exceptions for parties to the criminal case. The bill requires DOC to consult with DMH and to adopt implementing rules; committee members noted the statute includes a timeline for an initial emergency plan (the draft references January 1, 2027 for preliminary implementation steps).

Committee members pressed on implementation details — who would pay for restoration services, where the facility would be sited, how many beds would be needed and how long individuals might remain — and Kpatrick and Butler deferred some operational specifics to DOC and the rulemaking process. The committee left the record open for additional testimony and asked DOC for further information on numbers, space, and costs.

What happens next: the committee may take additional testimony after DOC supplies operational and capacity details; rulemaking and further legislative work will determine whether and how the forensic facility would be established.