This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.
Gov. Gavin Newsom has signed into law a change to criminal sentencing practices that gives judges more discretion to decide whether someone accused of a crime merits a mental health diversion.
The bill overwhelmingly passed both chambers of the Legislature this year.
Beginning in 2018, the state of California asked judges to grant a mental health diversion for most crimes if a qualifying mental health diagnosis was a significant factor in the commission of the crime and the person accused would “not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety.” Diversion programs allow people to avoid incarceration if they receive treatment.
This bill changes that standard. Now, judges must consider whether allowing the person’s treatment in the community would “endanger public safety,” which the new law defines as increasing the likelihood of physical injury or serious danger to others.
“California believes treatment and accountability go hand in hand. We are proud to preserve mental health diversion for people who can benefit from it while ensuring judges have the discretion they need to protect victims, safeguard communities, and make decisions based on the full picture before them,” Newsom said in a written statement.
Supporters of the bill, including state police unions and law enforcement groups, argued that the old system essentially forced judges into decisions with which they weren’t comfortable. They pointed to cases in which someone released on diversion went on to be arrested for another serious offense.
“Even if a judge believes diversion is not appropriate, they may still be forced to grant it,” said bill author Assemblymember Stephanie Nguyen, an Elk Grove Democrat, in public statements in favor of the bill. “That’s not justice. It’s not fair to victims, and it’s not fair to communities who expect the courts to keep them safe.”
The bill’s opponents say the measure is a sign of conservative judiciary that makes its case on outlier examples to deny a broad spectrum of eligible defendants from getting the mental health treatment they need.
“Removing the option is a step backward for California, eliminating much-needed flexibility and discretion,” said the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in a letter of opposition to the bill.
Opponents also said diversion programs generally are a counterweight to the over-policing and disproportionate incarceration rate of people of color by wiping convictions from their records, freeing people up to seek housing, education and employment unburdened by a lengthy criminal history.
Mental health and other diversion programs are not available to people accused of murder and certain sex-related offenses.
