The intersection of mental health and criminal law is one of the most complex — and misunderstood — areas of Washington’s justice system. It’s a place where law, psychology, and public policy collide, often determining not just how justice is served, but whether it’s served at all. As courts increasingly encounter defendants with mental health challenges, questions about competency, accountability, and rehabilitation are taking center stage in Washington’s criminal proceedings.
This isn’t a fringe issue. According to the Washington State Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS), nearly one in three people in county jails are believed to have a mental health condition requiring treatment. That staggering number raises difficult questions: What happens when someone accused of a crime may not understand what’s going on? How do Washington courts ensure fairness while maintaining public safety? And where exactly does treatment fit into a process designed for punishment?
Understanding Competency in Washington’s Legal System
In Washington, before a criminal case can move forward, the defendant must be competent to stand trial. That means they must understand the nature of the proceedings and be able to assist in their own defense. It sounds simple, but determining competency often requires an in-depth psychological evaluation — and can dramatically change the course of a case.
The process typically begins when a defense attorney, prosecutor, or judge raises concerns about the defendant’s mental state. Maybe the defendant isn’t responding coherently, or seems unaware of why they’re in court. Once competency is questioned, the court orders an evaluation by a qualified mental health professional, usually through DSHS’s Office of Forensic Mental Health Services.
- The evaluation looks at two main questions:
- Does the defendant understand the charges and the potential consequences?
- Can they effectively communicate with their attorney and participate in their defense?
If the answer to either question is “no,” the defendant may be found incompetent to stand trial.
Restoration and the Role of Treatment
Being found incompetent doesn’t mean the case is dismissed — at least not right away. Instead, Washington law allows for competency restoration treatment. The goal is to help the defendant regain enough understanding to participate in their trial.
Restoration can happen in one of two places: an inpatient facility (like Western State Hospital or Eastern State Hospital), or, in some cases, a community-based program. Treatment typically involves psychiatric care, medication management, and education about the court process.
For example, a defendant might work with clinicians to learn what a plea deal means, who the judge is, and why it’s important to communicate with their lawyer. It’s not about changing their version of events — it’s about giving them the tools to navigate the process.
But restoration has limits. Washington caps treatment periods depending on the severity of the charges. For misdemeanors, treatment usually can’t exceed 29 days, while felony cases allow for longer periods — often up to 90 days, with possible extensions. If, after those efforts, the defendant still isn’t competent, the court may have to dismiss charges (sometimes without prejudice, meaning they could be refiled later).
This balance — between a defendant’s rights and the state’s interest in prosecution — lies at the heart of Washington’s competency framework.
The Ripple Effect on the Justice System
Competency evaluations and restoration programs play a critical role, but they’ve also strained Washington’s criminal justice system. There’s a backlog of defendants waiting for evaluations or treatment beds, often sitting in jail for weeks or months — despite not being legally competent to proceed.
This delay has sparked numerous lawsuits and policy reforms. In Trueblood v. DSHS (2015), a federal court found that Washington was violating the constitutional rights of mentally ill defendants by keeping them in jail too long before providing timely evaluations or treatment. The ruling led to sweeping changes, including mandated time limits for evaluations and increased funding for forensic services.
Still, challenges persist. Many rural counties struggle to access qualified evaluators, and the state’s psychiatric hospitals remain overburdened. Some judges, frustrated by systemic delays, have begun ordering defendants released when the state fails to comply with Trueblood timelines — a reminder that due process isn’t optional, even in difficult cases.
When Competency and Criminal Responsibility Diverge
It’s also important to distinguish competency to stand trial from the insanity defense. They’re related, but not the same.
Competency deals with the defendant’s mental state during the trial process. The insanity defense, on the other hand, concerns their mental state at the time of the alleged crime. Under Washington law (RCW 10.77.030), a defendant can be found “not guilty by reason of insanity” if, because of a mental disease or defect, they were unable to tell right from wrong or understand the nature of their act when it occurred.
This is a high bar to clear — and rarely successful. But when it is, the outcome isn’t freedom. Instead, defendants are usually committed to a secure mental health facility, often for a period longer than the potential prison sentence they might have faced.
Beyond Statutes and Standards
The legal mechanics tell only part of the story. Behind every competency evaluation and restoration order is a human being — often someone caught in cycles of poverty, homelessness, addiction, and untreated illness.
Washington’s criminal courts are increasingly recognizing that incarceration alone doesn’t solve the problem. Many counties now operate specialized mental health courts designed to divert eligible defendants away from jail and toward treatment. These courts focus on accountability through rehabilitation, using structured support and frequent judicial check-ins to reduce recidivism.
For defendants, these programs can mean the difference between another stint behind bars and a genuine opportunity for stability. For the courts, they’re a pragmatic solution to an overwhelming problem.
A System Still Finding Its Balance
Washington’s evolving approach to mental health and criminal law reflects a broader shift in how society views mental illness in the justice system. The state has made strides since Trueblood, but there’s still work to do — particularly in expanding community-based treatment and reducing wait times for evaluations.
For defense attorneys, these issues are more than procedural; they’re foundational to fairness. A seasoned Washington criminal defense lawyer must know how to navigate competency evaluations, advocate for treatment when appropriate, and ensure that due process is never compromised by systemic inefficiencies.
Ultimately, when mental health meets criminal law, the question isn’t whether justice should be served — it’s how to ensure that justice is just. Washington’s courts continue to wrestle with that challenge every day, striving to balance compassion with accountability, and law with humanity.
