The following letter was written to members of the Vermont House by Kelly Carroll of Bennington County, whose daughter was reportedly slain by a mentally ill man.
I am writing in support of S.193, a bill relating to a forensic facility for a small group of high-risk dangerous individuals.
Vermont has studied the need for a forensic system for years. We are now approaching another moment of déjà vu, just like when S.89/S.91 moved forward in 2023, only to have the forensic facility language removed through a last-minute House Human Services amendment to S.192 in 2024.
Please do not allow that to happen again this year.
S.193 is not perfect, but it is a meaningful first step toward building a true forensic system and continuum of care focused on treatment, supervision, accountability, victim rights, and public safety together.
As the mother of Emily Hamann, who was murdered in 2021 by someone previously found not competent in an attempted murder case, I can tell you firsthand what happens when Vermont does not have a functioning forensic system.
Vermont does not currently have, nor has it ever had, a true forensic facility, despite comments you may hear suggesting otherwise.
You may also hear testimony that victims are “irrelevant” because we supposedly lack the knowledge or experience to understand the liberty issues at stake. Trust me, no one understands lost liberties like victims and surviving families.
I also think it is important to remember that “competency” is not a medical diagnosis. It is a fluid legal determination regarding an individual’s ability at a given point in time to understand proceedings and participate in their own defense, and that determination can change at any time.
It is also important to remember that “not guilty by reason of insanity” is a legal defense. An individual must first be found competent to stand trial, acknowledge responsibility for the underlying offense, and then argue they cannot be held criminally responsible because of insanity or mental disease at the time of the act. Personally, I hope the Legislature revisits that terminology in the future and considers language such as “guilty by reason of insanity or mental disease,” which more accurately reflects the reality for victims and surviving families
You will also hear repeatedly that these individuals “do not belong in jail.” I want to remind you that S.193 applies to a very small high-risk population involving the most serious violent offenses — overwhelmingly homicide and attempted homicide cases involving dangerousness.
As a layperson, I honestly struggle when I hear members of the House Corrections & Institutions committee repeatedly argue that individuals charged with murder should not be in jail or under any system involving DOC custody. I fully support treatment and competency restoration, but these are still homicide cases involving dangerousness and significant public safety concerns for a small high-risk population.
DOC involvement was included not because anyone believes correctional facilities are the ideal long-term answer, but because nearly every other option has already failed or proven unworkable.
Some realities I ask you to consider:
- Individuals found not competent are legally considered detainees, and detainees currently cannot be housed out of state — further limiting Vermont’s already very small number of placement options.
- The Berlin Psychiatric Hospital and River Valley Therapeutic Residence are IMDs (Institutions for Mental Disease) and risk losing significant federal Medicaid funding if used for this population.
- The Vermont Developmental Disabilities Council is, instead, advocating for placements in skilled nursing facilities such as MissionCare in Bennington or community “safe homes” with 2:1 or 3:1 staffing ratios and built-in staff safe rooms.
- One year ago this month, a young woman was murdered in a staff-secure home in Chittenden County after a prior not-competent finding and resulting plea agreement for community placement with the agreement to “stay out of trouble for 2 years.”
- DOC is already warehousing individuals from 7 Vermont Counties, currently litigating competency, without any type of treatment whatsoever because Vermont has nowhere else to place them and no competency restoration program exists.
Kim McManus from the Vermont State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs’ Office also spoke about the impact across those seven Vermont counties (Windsor, Rutland, Bennington, Orleans, Chittenden, Franklin, and Washington) and the very real possibility that dangerous individuals currently in DOC custody could eventually be released back unsupervised into the same communities they previously victimized because Vermont still does not have a forensic system and nowhere else exists for them to go.
I am also deeply concerned about a proposed HHS amendment that would remove Act 248 individuals from the forensic system while the State simultaneously expands Act 248 protections to include substance use disorder. Given how much violent crime in Vermont is connected to drugs and alcohol, I worry this could unintentionally broaden competency-related arguments in ways that ultimately weaken public safety.
Last week’s arrest of a repeat violent large-volume drug dealer in Brattleboro is just one example of how much serious criminal activity in Vermont is tied to substance use and addiction-related behavior. Expanding these protections without clear boundaries raises very real public safety concerns.
In Emily’s case, we expect to return to court again this summer regarding Darren Pronto. We continue to anticipate a hearing related to hospitalization versus an Order of Non-Hospitalization (ONH), which would again mean unsecured community placement with the same agency who was responsible for his supervision when he committed his terror spree and ultimately ended up murdering my daughter — all because Vermont still does not have a secure forensic option.
Had oversight following his attempted murder case come from our local probation and parole office instead of a community mental health agency that lacked the ability to properly supervise escalating dangerous behavior, there is a very real possibility Emily might still be alive today.
That is the gap S.193 is trying to address.
At the same time, I want to express how grateful many victims are for the victim rights language included in S.193. For years, victims have felt excluded from these discussions. Please do not remove the progress that has finally been made.
The Legislature placed DOC under AHS for a reason. Let the agencies collaborate and begin building processes now instead of delaying further in search of a “perfect” system.
Even under S.193, Vermont is not looking at implementation until approximately 2028.
Please do not spend more years studying while more families continue living with the consequences of a system that still does not exist.
I encourage you to do the right thing: support S.193 and begin closing this dangerous continuum-of-care gap.
Kim McManus also testified that the police chiefs and sheriffs across all 14 Vermont counties already know who many of these dangerous unsupervised individuals within their communities are. If you choose not to support S.193, you do not need to justify that decision to me, but you should be prepared to explain it to the constituents you represent back home. Chances are, they know who the dangerous individuals in their communities are too.
Thank you for your consideration and thank you for taking the time to read my letter.
Respectfully,
Kelly Carroll
Justice for Emily
Voices for Vermont Victims