COLUSA, CA (MPG) – Colusa County District Attorney Matthew R. Beauchamp announced support for Assembly Bill 46 (Nguyen), legislation that would give courts greater discretion to consider public safety when deciding whether a defendant should receive mental health diversion. Authored by Assemblymember Stephanie Nguyen, AB 46 would restore judicial discretion and give prosecutors a voice within the state’s Mental Health Diversion (MHD) program.
Under current law, individuals charged with serious and violent offenses, including attempted premeditated murder, domestic violence and child abuse, are eligible for MHD. Judges are required to find these defendants eligible for MHD if they are diagnosed with any DSM-5 disorder, including anxiety, insomnia and eating disorders. Unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the disorder was not a motivating, causal or contributing factor in the charged offense, MHD must be granted.
Upon acceptance into the program, defendants are released back into the community with minimal supervision and a high likelihood of recidivism, according to Beauchamp. Defendants who complete the program can have their case dismissed, leaving victims with no protection or assurance they will be free from further victimization.
Assembly Bill 46 would allow courts to consider whether a proposed treatment plan is clinically appropriate to address the mental health disorder underlying the offense and whether a defendant poses a substantial and undue risk to the physical safety of another person if treated in the community.
Mental health diversion programs are intended to help individuals receive treatment while reducing their involvement in the criminal justice system. However, recent court decisions interpreting California’s diversion statute have limited a judge’s ability to deny diversion in some cases, even as incidents across the state have raised concerns about public safety.
“Diversion programs can play an important role in helping individuals receive the mental health treatment they need,” Beauchamp said. “But judges must also have the ability to fully evaluate whether the proposed treatment plan will address the behavior that led to the crime and whether releasing someone into a diversion program could pose a risk to others. AB 46 restores that balance by ensuring courts can consider both the adequacy of a proposed treatment plan and the risk a defendant may pose to others when determining whether mental health diversion is appropriate.”