Concerns Over California’s Mental Health Diversion Policy

A new law in California, designed to assist individuals with mental health issues and keep them out of prison, is resulting in the release of violent criminals and repeat offenders. Sacramento County Sheriff Jim Cooper described this situation as “terrible” and highlighted how the policy is being misused by “career criminals.” He emphasized that laws meant to be protective are instead failing to hold individuals accountable.

In an interview, Cooper expressed that these “terrible laws” relieve responsibility in favor of excuses. “There’s a significant distraction here, particularly for those grappling with addiction,” he stated. “But now, the floodgates have opened, and many criminals are exploiting the system, which is very unfortunate.”

Last week, Cooper criticized the state’s diversion policy on social media, remarking how habitual offenders cleverly use their mental health as a shield against facing real consequences.

State’s Mental Health Diversion Law Explained

California’s mental health diversion law, enacted in 2018 via AB 1810 and SB 215, allows certain defendants to halt criminal proceedings and pursue treatment programs instead of incarceration. Once they finish treatment, charges are typically dropped, clearing their record.

While the aspiration is to provide treatment for those whose mental illnesses contribute to their crimes, the law’s application extends further than many might expect. Exemptions mainly include severe offenses such as murder and rape; however, many other crimes, including child abuse, could qualify for diversion.

The criteria for qualifying mental disorders are quite broad, including nearly any condition found in the DSM-5. Only a few specific disorders, like antisocial personality disorder, don’t qualify. This has raised concerns among lawmakers who are now working to tighten the rules.

Assembly Bill 433 aims to limit diversion options for defendants facing child-related charges, and Cooper’s office praised this as a significant step, although he noted that further reforms are necessary.

Examples of Disturbing Cases

Cooper shared that certain horrific crimes have now fallen under the mental health diversion umbrella. He mentioned instances of severe child abuse where suspects remain eligible for treatment instead of prison.

• A father was charged after bludgeoning his one-year-old daughter to death, claiming a history of heavy drinking but managing to use it to his advantage.
• Parents of a 20-month-old boy, who sustained significant injuries, applied for diversion and were granted it despite the circumstances.
• In a shocking video, a toddler was seen being choked by his father while the mother, out of state, watched through a phone.
• A three-year-old boy suffered a lithium overdose, reportedly administered by his parents, who were also granted diversion.

Such cases reveal how the law ties the hands of judges, restricting their ability to decide effectively. Cooper stated that extreme incidents aren’t isolated to Sacramento but are symptomatic of the broader issue in California.

For example, brothers Adam and Juan Velasquez, associated with a gang, were convicted of an unprovoked attack on a man, leaving him gravely injured. Juan Velasquez received a mental health diversion despite his felony charges.

Furthermore, Darren Campoy, a habitual offender, was caught robbing a bank less than a year after being granted diversion for a previous robbery charge. Reports indicated he had been deemed a high risk to public safety beforehand, leading to further scrutiny of the effectiveness of this diversion program.

Cooper criticized the revolving door effect created by the current laws, insisting that accountability is essential for public safety. He noted how offenders are aware of the lack of repercussions and often strategize ways to claim mental health issues post-offense.

A spokesperson for Governor Gavin Newsom responded, clarifying that judges make diversion decisions based on the law, not the executive branch, reiterating that serious crimes remain ineligible for such treatment.

As Cooper continues to advocate for reform, he emphasized a commitment to transparency regarding the shortcomings of the current system. “We’ll keep shining a light on the failures until we see change,” he asserted.

Overall, while the intention behind the Mental Health Diversion Act was to serve those needing help, the law’s execution has raised significant concerns regarding its implications for community safety and accountability.