A Guide to Laws Regarding Mentally Ill Offenders
(Frequently Asked Questions)

The intent of the bill | What the bill changes | Involuntarily commitment rules | Age application | Dangerous mentally ill individuals

1. What is the intent of the bill?

SSSB 6214 was written and passed in response to the tragic fatal stabbing of a retired Seattle firefighter in August 1997 by a man diagnosed with mental illness. This man, who had a long history of psychiatric commitments and acts of violence, had been released from the King County Jail a few weeks before the murder after being found incompetent to stand trial. A special Mentally Ill Offender Task Force, convened by King County Executive Ron Sims, recommended changes to the civil commitment and criminal insanity laws to assure that individuals with a known history of violence would not be released from custody without evaluation and judicial review of the need for involuntary mental health treatment. The bill therefore focuses the legal process on whether a person presents a danger to the public safety, rather than on whether the crime is a felony or misdemeanor.

2. What does the bill really change?

The bill amends the involuntary commitment and criminal insanity laws (RCWs 71.05 and 10.77). Confidentiality restrictions are loosened revised so that information about criminal and mental health history may and shall be shared more easily between police, courts, jails and mental health professionals. County Designated Mental Health Professionals (CDMHPs) authorized to involuntarily hospitalize individuals under RCW 71.05, must obtain and consider history of violent acts and commitments from the previous ten years in making their determinations. Courts must give great weight to recent history (defined as three years) of violent acts in determining whether to order commitment for 14 and 90-day periods. Individuals who are on less-restrictive civil commitment court orders must be returned to the hospital by CDMHPs if they violate the conditions of their orders and present an increased likelihood of serious harm.

The sections that will have the greatest impact on the current system are the ones that went into effect on March 1, 1999. These provisions will allow the courts to order mentally ill individuals who execute non-felony crimes and are found incompetent to stand trial, to an involuntarily committed period of competency restoration and mental health treatment. If competency is not restored, the court will then commit these individuals to an evaluation and treatment facility to enable the facility to file a petition for 90 days of commitment. Alternatively, if the competency restoration treatment takes place on an outpatient basis, the CDMHP is required to evaluate the individual and file a commitment petition. In either case, if the CDMHP or facility does not file a petition, the Superior Court reviews and may overrule the decision.

3. Can someone be involuntarily committed based only on his or her history?

Although CDMHPs must consider history from the previous ten years in making their decisions regarding involuntary detention, there must be evidence that an individual is currently gravely disabled or presents a likelihood of serious harm in order to initiate commitment proceedings. History of past acts of violence or previous commitments will not, in the absence of recent evidence demonstrating danger or grave disability, be sufficient to have someone ordered into involuntary treatment.

4. Does the law apply to children as well as adults?

The provisions of this legislation affect only adults. The governor also signed into law a bill affecting the involuntary commitment laws regarding children between the ages of 13 and 18. This legislation (SSB6208, known as the "Becca Act of 1998") allows parents to authorize the admission of their children to psychiatric treatment without requiring the child’s consent or a CDMHP petition for involuntary detention. This bill goes into effect on June 11, 1998.

5. Will the new law guarantee that dangerous mentally ill individuals will be kept locked up and off the streets?

Most individuals who suffer from mental illness are not dangerous. For those who do present a risk to the public safety, the new law closes many loopholes, assures automatic referrals to authorities who have the power to commit individuals, and gives the courts greater oversight and authority to commit people who have been charged with non-felony crimes. While no guarantee can be made, this legislation does provide for more coordination between the criminal and mental health treatment systems and mandates treatment for the individuals who present the greatest risk to the public safety.