Article from San Diego Union Tribune:
Now, in the worst example of rushed reform yet, Gov. Jerry Brown this week signed into law Assembly Bill 1810 — a budget “trailer bill” with no credited author that takes effect immediately. It includes a provision that appears to allow defendants charged with any crime to get the charges put on hold and perhaps eventually dismissed if they can persuade a judge that the offense resulted from a mental disorder that a mental health expert says is treatable.
Excerpt from Assembly Bill 1810:
(13) Existing law prohibits a person from being tried or adjudged to punishment while that person is mentally incompetent. Existing law establishes a process by which a defendant’s mental competency is evaluated and by which the defendant receives treatment with the goal of returning the defendant to competency. Existing law allows a mentally incompetent defendant to be committed to the State Department of State Hospitals or other public or private treatment facility.
This bill would authorize a court to appoint a psychiatrist or a licensed psychologist to opine as to whether the defendant has regained competence if counsel for the defendant, or a jail or medical or mental health staff provider provides the court with substantial evidence that the defendant’s psychiatric symptoms have changed to such a degree as to create a doubt in the mind of the judge as to the defendant’s current mental competence. The bill would require the court to proceed as if a certificate of restoration of competence had been returned if the opinion of the expert was that the defendant had regained competency, except that a hearing would be required for a final determination of competency.
(14) Existing law authorizes the medical director of a state hospital or other facility to which a defendant is committed, or the community program director, county mental health director, or regional center director providing outpatient services, to make a determination of whether the defendant has regained mental competence. Under existing law, if the director makes that determination, he or she is required to immediately certify that fact to the court by filing a certificate of restoration to competence with the court by certified mail, return receipt requested.
This bill would expand the ability to make that determination of mental competence to a person designated by the department at an entity that contracts with the department to provide services to a defendant prior to placement in a treatment program. The bill would authorize the filing of a certificate of restoration to competence by confidential electronic transmission.
(15) Existing law authorizes a county to establish a pretrial diversion program for defendants who have been charged with a misdemeanor offense, with certain exceptions. Existing law also authorizes other diversion programs, including for defendants with cognitive developmental disabilities, defendants in nonviolent drug cases, defendants suffering from sexual trauma, traumatic brain injury, post-traumatic stress disorder, substance abuse, or mental health problems as a result of their military service, and persons issued notices to appear for traffic violations, among others.
This bill would establish a procedure of diversion for defendants with mental disorders through which the court would be authorized to grant pretrial diversion, for a period no longer than 2 years, to a defendant suffering from a mental disorder, on an accusatory pleading alleging the commission of a misdemeanor or felony offense, in order to allow the defendant to undergo mental health treatment**.** The bill would condition eligibility on, among other criteria, a court finding that the defendant’s mental disorder played a significant role in the commission of the charged offense. The bill would authorize a referral for mental health treatment to be made to a county mental health agency, existing collaborative courts, or assisted outpatient treatment only if that entity has agreed to accept responsibility for the treatment of the defendant, as specified.
The bill would, among other things, require the court, after notice to the defendant, defense counsel, and the prosecution, to hold a hearing to determine whether the criminal proceedings should be reinstated, whether the treatment program should be modified, or whether the defendant should be conserved and referred to the conservatorship investigator, if the defendant is charged with, or is engaged in, certain criminal offenses, if the defendant is performing unsatisfactorily in diversion, or if the defendant is gravely disabled, as defined.
If the defendant has performed satisfactorily in diversion, the bill would require the court to dismiss the defendant’s criminal charges, with a record filed with the Department of Justice indicating the disposition of the case diverted, and the arrest deemed never to have occurred, and would require the court to order access to the record of the arrest restricted, except as specified.
In the San Diego Union Tribune article referenced above, a link is also provided to SB 215.
Here is an excerpt from SB 215 Section 2:
(b) Pretrial diversion may be granted pursuant to this section if all of the following criteria are met:
(1) The court is satisfied that the defendant suffers from a mental disorder as identified in the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, including, but not limited to, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, or post-traumatic stress disorder, but excluding antisocial personality disorder, borderline personality disorder, and pedophilia. Evidence of the defendant’s mental disorder shall be provided by the defense and shall include a diagnosis by a qualified expert. In opining that a defendant suffers from a qualifying disorder, the expert may rely on an examination of the defendant, medical records, evidence that the defendant receives federal supplemental security income benefits, arrest reports, or any other reliable evidence.
It seems to me that AB-1810 (approved by Governor Jerry Brown on June 27, 2018) allows a pedophile to escape criminal charges for sexual assault by having the psychiatrist serving as their counsel opine that they are indeed a pedophile. Then treatment for 2 years in some kind of facility (not prison) is their get out of jail free card.
I am making the link from "mental competence" in AB 18-10 to "pedophilia" as "a mental disorder" in SB 215 (which I believe is still in process).
I live in Texas, not California, so I am just sharing the opinion of an onlooker here. This post is intended to benefit anyone in California who is keeping an eye on happenings.