January 22, 2007 |
2007-R-0109 | |
QUESTIONS FOR PSYCHIATRIC SECURITY REVIEW BOARD NOMINEE | ||
| ||
By: Susan Price, Principal Legislative Analyst | ||
Psychiatric Security Review Board (CGS § 17a-581)
The board holds hearings to determine the appropriate level of supervision and treatment for people acquitted of crimes due to a mental disease or defect. Depending on the danger an individual poses, it may order confinement in a maximum-security facility or psychiatric hospital, approve temporary leaves and conditional releases, or transfer custody to the Department of Mental Retardation. In addition, the board makes court recommendations when an acquitee petitions to be discharged from supervision.
Membership: Six members | ||
Appointed by: Governor | ||
Term: Four years; members' terms are staggered |
Coterminous: No | |
Confirmed by: Either chamber, as determined by the governor | ||
Full or Part Time: Part time |
Paid: If a state employee, actual and necessary travel and other expenses; others also receive $ 75 per diem | |
1. The state law allowing the Psychiatric Security Review Board to conditionally release people into community settings requires it first to have trained and contracted with community-based providers to address clinical needs, provide and supervise structured activities, and intervene when a released person's risk level escalates.
a. Are there enough services to allow each person the board finds to be suitable for conditional release to be placed in the community without delay? If not, what might be done to improve this?
b. Can you give a rough estimate of the percentage of people on conditional release who are involuntarily hospitalized and returned to the board's custody? How does this compare with national statistics?
2. The board has indicated that it is seeking permission to gain access to information in the State Police's Criminal Justice Information Database. Access to this information is generally limited to specified law enforcement personnel. How would the board benefit from being given access and how could it protect against misuse of this information?
3. There is an ongoing debate about whether the assessments used to predict the public safety risk posed by an insanity acquittee should be based only on actuarial (frequency) statistics or include factors unique to the individual being assessed. What is the board's position on this issue? Are there research gaps that need to be filled before this issue can be resolved?
4. The law requires the board to notify an insanity acquittee's victims when it schedules hearings and allow them to personally tell the hearing panel how the crime has affected them. In your view, what weight should the panel give to victim impact statements? What purpose do they serve in this context?
SP: ts