Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
AB 46 would adjust judicial discretion in mental‑health diversion; supporters and defenders disagree on public‑safety tradeoffs
Summary
AB 46 would clarify that judges deciding mental‑health diversion petitions may weigh public‑safety and victim impacts along with clinical criteria; sponsors said it restores judicial discretion while defenders warned it could limit access to treatment.
Assemblymember presented AB 46 to clarify judicial discretion in mental‑health diversion cases so judges can weigh public safety, victim impact and a defendant’s history along with clinical criteria when deciding whether to grant diversion. The author and many law enforcement and prosecutorial witnesses said the bill does not remove access to treatment but instead restores judicial balancing after courts have applied statutory criteria in ways they said sometimes led to overbroad diversion.
Sacramento District Attorney and other supporters argued the bill preserves the ability of judges to consider public‑safety risks and that retaining…
Already have an account? Log in
Subscribe to keep reading
Unlock the rest of this article — and every article on Citizen Portal.
- Unlimited articles
- AI-powered breakdowns of topics, speakers, decisions, and budgets
- Instant alerts when your location has a new meeting
- Follow topics and more locations
- 1,000 AI Insights / month, plus AI Chat
