Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
A controversial California law intended to support individuals grappling with mental illness is reportedly enabling some violent criminals and repeat offenders to evade imprisonment. Sacramento County Sheriff Jim Cooper spoke out against this policy, describing it as a “terrible” loophole exploited by career criminals.
Cooper expressed his concerns in an interview, indicating that these “terrible laws” have supplanted accountability with a spectrum of excuses. He emphasized, “There’s room for diversion somewhere, especially for individuals struggling with addiction issues. But currently, the gates are wide open. Many criminals are abusing the system, taking advantage of this unfortunate situation.”
In a post shared on the department’s official social media platform last week, Cooper highlighted how state diversion policies allow career criminals to use mental health as a pretext to escape consequences.
The mental health diversion law, enacted in 2018 under AB 1810 and SB 215, grants defendants the opportunity to suspend their criminal cases, opting instead for a court-sanctioned treatment program that prevents them from serving jail time. Successful completion of this treatment results in the dismissal of charges and the expungement of their criminal record.
This legislation was originally crafted to assist those whose mental health issues contributed to their criminal behavior, transitioning them toward treatment rather than punishment. However, the scope of the law extends far beyond its initial intent, raising alarm among law enforcement and community leaders.
Most concerning is the minimal exclusion list for the offenses that qualify for this diversion. Serious crimes such as murder, voluntary manslaughter, rape, and certain sex crimes are disallowed, yet crimes including child abuse and armed robbery can still qualify for this leniency.
Equally broad is the classification of mental health conditions eligible for diversion. Under state guidelines, nearly any diagnosis from the DSM-5, which serves as a guide for mental disorder classifications, could allow a defendant to enter the diversion program. Notably, only disorders like borderline personality disorder, antisocial personality disorder, and pedophilia remain excluded.
In response to rising concerns, lawmakers have attempted to impose stricter regulations. Assembly Bill 433, introduced by Assemblymember Maggy Krell, seeks to bar defendants facing charges of child abuse, endangerment, or serious injury from qualifying for diversion. Sheriff Cooper’s office viewed this as a significant step but asserted that further action is necessary.
Cooper remarked that some of the most egregious cases witnessed in his career have entered California’s mental health diversion system. Disturbing incidents, involving the abuse or death of infants, have been met with diversion approval instead of incarceration.
“If you beat your child to death, you shouldn’t be allowed near children,” Cooper stated. He expressed fear regarding the erasure of criminal records, allowing offenders to pursue roles like teaching or coaching.
Recent cases from Sacramento County exemplify the troubling patterns emerging from this policy. For instance, brothers Adam and Juan Velasquez, members of the Howe Park Sureño gang, faced charges for a violent, unprovoked assault on an innocent victim. Despite their severe actions, Juan Velasquez still qualified for mental health diversion.
While on probation, the brothers allegedly attacked another man dining with his family, using gang slurs and attempting to stab him before fleeing the scene. Such incidents signal a growing issue with the law’s application, leaving judges powerless to deny diversion requests.
In another case, 44-year-old Darren Campoy was arrested for robbing a Sacramento credit union, despite a past record that included another bank robbery and serious criminal behavior. Following his mental health diversion, his previous offenses were erased, allowing for repeat criminal activity.
“If they complete treatment successfully, their charges are dismissed,” Cooper explained, highlighting the policy’s potential to obliterate a defendant’s criminal history.
Despite his extensive criminal background, including armed robbery and reckless behavior, Campoy returned to bank robbery less than a year after being granted diversion. The sheriff attributed these outcomes to the flawed legal framework that allows individuals to evade accountability.
Cooper emphasized that the current situation creates a revolving door of crime and jeopardizes public safety. He stated, “People must be held accountable for their acts. Currently, it seems anyone in jail can apply for mental health diversion, and many succeed because the system lacks the necessary checks and balances.”
Authorities have found that suspects frequently discuss strategies for exploiting mental health claims to seek leniency from the court system. This reality complicates law enforcement efforts, with criminals aware they may face little to no repercussions.
When contacted for comment, a spokesperson for Governor Gavin Newsom clarified that diversion policies fall under judicial discretion rather than executive authority. Under California Penal Code section 1001.36, the determination to refer a defendant for mental health diversion resides solely with the presiding judge.
The spokesperson reiterated Governor Newsom’s commitment to ensuring public safety, asserting that the diversion law aims to facilitate treatment for those whose criminal behavior stems from mental health disorders. The spokesperson noted that the governor would consider any relevant legislative proposals that arise.
Despite assertions that serious offenses remain ineligible for diversion, concerns persist regarding the expansive application of these laws. As California’s legislative session approaches, Sheriff Cooper plans to advocate for substantial reforms to address the challenges posed by the current mental health diversion system.
Until legislative changes occur, Cooper vowed to continue spotlighting instances illustrating the system’s failings. He stated, “We will keep holding individuals accountable to the best of our ability. We will not stay silent when things go wrong.”
Ultimately, the original intention of California’s mental health diversion law was to assist individuals whose mental illness contributed to low-level criminal acts. However, as Cooper noted, this has morphed into a scenario where career criminals manipulate the system, using mental health claims to escape justice and potentially threatening public safety.
