Senate bill would bar violent repeat offenders from diversion program and now heads to Senate Appropriations Committee on a 5-0 vote.
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A bill to narrow eligibility for California’s mental health diversion program faced lengthy debate Tuesday in the Senate Public Safety Committee, ultimately advancing out of committee on a 5-0 vote.
Democratic state Senator Dave Cortese of San Jose, who expressed opposition during the hearing, ultimately did not vote.
Legislators were divided over whether the diversion system is being misused or remains a necessary alternative to incarceration.
Senate Bill 1373 would make violent, repeat offenders ineligible for pretrial mental health diversion, a program that allows defendants with mental health disorders to receive treatment instead of jail time. Those who complete diversion can have their charges dismissed and records sealed — a provision some legislators argue is being exploited.
“That if you commit the most serious, violent crimes, diversion is not an option, especially if they’re against children,” said Republican state Senator Shannon Grove of Bakersfield, the bill’s author.
Under current law, defendants charged with murder, manslaughter and certain sex offenses are already excluded from diversion. Grove’s proposal would add human trafficking and child abuse to that list, while also giving judges more discretion in deciding eligibility.
Since the bill’s introduction earlier this year, Grove says it’s been modified in conjunction with committee members, such as removing language that would bar those with two or more prior felony convictions, as well as those charged with “first strike” offenses — serious or violent felonies, such ad murder, robbery or rape — that trigger California’s Three Strikes sentencing law.
“The system is being used by violent, repeat offenders to avoid accountability, and people are paying the price as victims,” Grove said.
Supporters of the bill, including Republican state Sen. Kelly Seyarto, said it targets individuals who have learned to exploit the system.
“This bill is aimed at people that have learned to game the system,” Seyarto said on the dais during the committee hearing.
The proposal aligns with a separate measure, Assembly Bill 46, introduced by Democratic Asm. Stephanie Nguyen, which would also expand judicial authority to deny diversion when public safety is at risk. That bill would require defendants to have a mental health diagnosis within five years of the alleged offense.
Both Grove and Nguyen said they support each other’s efforts.
During Tuesday’s hearing, lawmakers and advocates expressed mixed reactions.
“Mental health matters. But details also matter,” said Democratic state Sen. Susan Rubio of Baldwin Park, a co author of the bill.
Mental health professionals and law enforcement officials also raised concerns about potential misuse.
“Mental health disorders should never be exploited as a legal pretext,” said Tianna Herrera, a mental health professional.
“And then everything is simply erased, and they can go work in a daycare, coach little League and so on is really beyond the pale,” said Sgt. John Sydow of the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office.
Opposition came from Democrats including state Sen. Dave Cortese, who argued the state’s lack of mental health resources is the underlying issue.
“So that is the broken problem. It’s not that mental health treatment doesn’t work, it’s that we put people in jail instead of giving them mental health treatment,” Cortese said.
Public defenders also voiced support for the diversion program.
“Because it both supports defendants but it supports victims and the public from future criminality,” said Alex Tuchman, a deputy public defender in Los Angeles. “Jails and prisons are not treatment centers.”
Gov. Gavin Newsom declined to comment on the bill, with his office citing its status as pending legislation.
California’s mental health diversion program was signed into law in 2018 by former Gov. Jerry Brown.
Victims’ advocates urged lawmakers to consider the impact on those harmed by crimes.
“Those victims did not get a clean record,” said Lauren Skidmore, a victims’ rights advocate. “Second chances should never come at the expense of a victim.”
Separately, legislators are also considering changes to California’s elderly parole law following the early releases of serial sex offenders David Allen Funston and Gregory Vogelsang.
Proposed reforms include making certain offenders permanently ineligible for parole or raising the minimum age requirement for certain serious crimes.
SB1373 now heads to the Senate Appropriations Committee.
WATCH MORE ON ABC10 | 2 suspects in 2022 K Street Shooting face jury for first time
ABC10: Watch, Download, Read
1
/
12