Measure would expand protective orders
Opponents say it would criminalize mental disabilities
The Connecticut legislature’s Judiciary Committee has expressed interest in a Republican-sponsored bill that would allow courts to issue criminal protective orders against people found not guilty by reason of mental illness, a measure that opponents argue would criminalize mental disabilities if it were passed.
Current law allows courts to administer criminal protective orders, which are designed to protect crime victims from threats, harassment, injury or intimidation and carry a $5,000 fine and up to five years in prison when violated, against individuals convicted of certain crimes but not people found not guilty due to mental illness.
House Bill 5415 attempts to change that, despite the existence of the state’s Psychiatric Security Review Board, a six-member body under the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services. The group is responsible for supervision of people with mental illness released into the community — individuals who have not been convicted of a crime.
“All of those patients with regular community access are subject to strict conditions of release that are ordered and monitored by the PSRB, including a standard condition which prohibits any contact with a victim or a victim’s family,” said Supervisory Assistant Public Defender William O’connor III, who submitted written testimony in opposition to the bill on behalf of the Division of Public Defender Services.
“Any violation or attempted violation of the no contact condition would almost certainly result in the patient returning to the hospital immediately and losing all community access,” O’connor said.
The Division of Criminal Justice and the State Victim Advocate testified in favor of the legislation, saying it “closes a gap in existing law” and would “prevent further harm and trauma to the victim by ensuring their safety.”
“Any assertions that the imposition of a criminal protective order against an acquittee negatively impacts upon their recovery, or that such an order unjustly sets an acquittee up for future failure due to an inability to understand the order, are unfounded,” Waterbury State’s Attorney Maureen Platt wrote on behalf of DCJ. “If at the time of release an acquittee is incapable of comporting their conduct to basic instructions regarding staying away from a victim they have traumatized, perhaps decisions regarding release should be revisited.”
The debate is the latest over how the state should assist people with mental disabilities, whom advocates contend are in need of rehabilitation and not punishment. The PSRB, whose functions are currently under evaluation by a working group established by the legislature, has encountered criticism in recent years for what people perceive as favoring public safety over patient treatment.
The Judiciary Committee also has heard public testimony from people in the state’s maximum security psychiatric hospital opposed to another Republican bill that would, among other things, explicitly make public safety the PSRB’S primary concern and a patient’s safety and well-being secondary.
But lawmakers were particularly interested in the testimony of Jill Kidik, who was reportedly stabbed in 2018 by a woman who was later found not guilty by reason of insanity. Kidik said she had to medically retire as a Hartford police officer due to the incident and was afraid that the woman who stabbed her could gain access to her with no legal mechanism to dissuade her.
Kidik was also not notified that the criminal protective order administered against the woman who stabbed her was no longer effective, she said, because the woman was found not guilty due to her mental illness and sent to Whiting Forensic Hospital, the state maximum security psychiatric hospital in Middletown.
“There’s nobody that cares about what happens to us as victims or survivors,” Kidik said. “I don’t want that person to contact me ever. I don’t want to be in a room with her.”
Building on the debate over victim safety and the rehabilitation of people who commit crimes, Sen. John Kissel, a ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, asked Kidik about her experience, with a particular emphasis on that Kidik has no “disparaging feelings towards people with mental disabilities.”
“Your sole purpose being here today is to advocate for legislation that would say … you should, as a victim, be able to at least get a protective order so that you, your family, your children, your husband can feel safe,” Kissel said.
The Enfield Republican’s questions were followed by an inquiry from Rep. Greg Howard, R-stonington, who attempted to make the point that Kidik wasn’t in any less danger because the woman who stabbed her suffered from mental illness.
“You’re coming here and saying, ‘I gave the people of Connecticut 11 years of service, essentially the rest of my life,” said Howard, a detective in Stonington, of Kidik’s policing experience, “‘And I’m just asking that you give me some protection, so if I’ve ever been victimized, I can take action. Is that what you’re asking?”
“That’s it,” Kidik responded.
Rep. Steven Stafstrom, D-bridgeport, a co-chair of the committee, sought clarification on whether Kidik received “any notice at all” that the protective order against the woman who stabbed her was going to lapse, to which Kidik testified that she had no knowledge of it.
Stafstrom thanked Kidik for her service in law enforcement and said her testimony represented “an issue I don’t know that this committee was aware of until you came in here today.”
But advocates testified that the Psychiatric Security Review Board’s prohibition on people contacting a victim or a victim’s family already works effectively.
“There are no known cases of a PSRB acquittee in Connecticut attempting to contact a victim, much less attempting to harm their victim,” O’connor III testified.
Kathy Flaherty, executive director of the Connecticut Legal Rights Project, an organization providing legal services to low-income adults with serious mental health conditions, noted that unwanted contact with a victim would be factored into any risk assessment by the PSRB.
Flaherty also highlighted a state law allowing for hospitals treating people with psychiatric disabilities to restrict an individual’s ability to make phone calls or send mail if the facilities receive complaints about obscene, threatening, or harassing behavior, and that the PSRB sets parameters around temporary leave and conditional release.
“Failure to abide by those conditions can result in liberty being lost and a return to the hospital,” she wrote.
The Judiciary Committee is expected to vote next week on whether to advance the bills to the full legislative body.