Lawmakers debate AB 46’s limits on mental‑health diversion after family testimony
Loading...
Summary
AB 46 would allow judges to deny mental‑health diversion if a defendant poses a substantial risk to public safety; victim families and DAs supported guardrails, while public defenders and civil‑liberties groups opposed restrictions that they say will reduce access to treatment.
Assemblymember Nguyen presented AB 46 as a measure to restore judicial discretion in mental‑health diversion cases and to clarify that courts may deny diversion if an individual poses a substantial risk to public safety.
Members of families who lost loved ones described tragic cases they say resulted after diversion was granted and urged lawmakers to impose stronger guardrails. “We are not against programs, but we are against programs that lack complete transparency, accountability, and fail to keep the community safe,” a family member said.
Placer County District Attorney Morgan Geier and other prosecutors supported AB 46 as restoring balance and accountability; several district attorneys and victims’ groups registered in favor. Opposition testimony from public defenders, ACLU California Action and behavioral‑health directors warned the bill would limit courts’ ability to provide treatment and could push people into incarceration without treatment availability.
Committee discussion focused on balancing victim safety and rehabilitative treatment; members emphasized continued negotiation and technical changes. The committee moved the measure to Appropriations with recorded votes, and the author asked stakeholders to continue engagement on workable guardrails.
Next steps: AB 46 heads to Appropriations; legislative staff will analyze fiscal and implementation implications and the author will pursue stakeholder discussions.
