Aug. 13
Los Angeles Times on the mental health diversion law:
Earlier this summer, Gov. Jerry Brown signed a law allowing judges, at their discretion, to order community mental health treatment in lieu of prosecution for people accused of crimes. Some prosecutors and radio talk show hosts went nearly berserk, claiming that murderers and rapists would now go free simply by telling some gullible judge that whatever they did was due to health problems.
It’s tempting to dismiss the criticism of the bill, AB 1810, as just another groundless rant of the type that backward-looking, tough-on-crime critics have thrown at criminal justice reforms like AB 109 realignment and Propositions 47 and 57.
In this case, though, the critics have a point. Although it seems inconceivable that a judge would ever dismiss murder or rape charges just because the defendant claims mental illness, the law does, in theory, make such a thing possible. It’s a flaw that ought to be fixed.
Unfortunately, fixing it opens the door to wider efforts to entirely scrap a law that at its core is smart and badly needed. The task for lawmakers is to fine-tune the legislation that they passed and Brown signed just a few weeks ago without undermining its central purpose - the expanded diversion of mentally ill defendants from the criminal justice system - and to do it in the final weeks of the legislative session, when legislators are dealing with competing demands for their attention. It won’t be easy. But it’s important.
The legislation addresses a crisis in both mental health and criminal justice. California jails are increasingly filling up with mentally ill people who have been accused of crimes. Many are so sick they have been deemed incompetent to stand trial. So what do we do with them?
Ideally, they are sent to one of the limited number of California state hospitals where they are treated until finally fit to be tried for their alleged crimes. It may sound counterintuitive, but most patients who are hospitalized actually do get better and do go to court for further proceedings.
But those state hospitals are packed. With virtually every bed full, a growing number of ISTs (the state’s lingo for accused criminals who are incompetent to stand trial) are kept in local jails, where their mental condition is far less likely to improve and they are far less likely to proceed to trial. There they sit, taking up badly needed space, neither convicted of any crime (because they haven’t gone to trial) nor free to go home (because they have been charged).
Many of those defendants are chronically homeless. Because of their mental conditions they require close (and costly) observation. If they become competent to stand trial and they are convicted of a misdemeanor or a less-serious felony, they will often not return to jail because of overcrowding, but will instead go back to the street - until their illness again affects their behavior and they are again arrested, found incompetent to stand trial and returned to jail. It’s a foolish, costly, merry-go-round system.
Counties have responded with a variety of programs that collectively are known as diversion. In Los Angeles County, hundreds of patients who are incompetent to stand trial have been diverted from jail into community treatment programs until they are fit for court. Hundreds of others - but still too few - who proceed to trial and are convicted go into community treatment in lieu of jail.
But it’s still not enough. The worthy goal of AB 1810 is to divert mentally ill people (including those likely to be found incompetent to stand trial) into treatment at the earliest point. Defendants who can present sufficient evidence that they suffer from a mental disorder - and who can show that that they do not pose an unreasonable risk to the public - would be able to ask judges to suspend criminal proceedings in favor of mental health treatment, which could last up to two years. After treatment, a judge, finding the defendant no longer a danger to the community, could dismiss the charge. Otherwise, there would be a hearing to determine whether to reinstate the prosecution.
It’s likely that even most prosecutors who are unhappy with the new law don’t honestly believe that judges will allow accused murderers and rapists to go free without trial. The real issue is who gets the power in the courtroom - the prosecutor or the judge - to decide between prosecution and treatment. Recent criminal justice reforms have begun to return to judges some discretion that had previously been transferred to prosecutors through excessive tough-on-crime legislation and ballot measures. Generally, discretion in the courtroom properly belongs with the judge, but it must be balanced so as to protect the public. To achieve that balance, AB 1810 needs a little work.
___
Aug. 13
The Modesto Bee on Trump’s tariffs hurting California farmers:
It’s a good thing U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue has two ears. On the subject of Donald Trump’s reckless and destructive trade war, Perdue has already gotten one earful and today we hope he gets another.
This trade war is hurting farmers across America, but it’s especially painful in Stanislaus, Merced and south San Joaquin counties.
After Trump threatened tariffs on Chinese steel and aluminum, China retaliated by targeting almonds, wine, walnuts and more products grown here. China imports $2 billion in ag products from California alone - mostly fruit, nuts and wine. That’s what we grow.
Farmers were urged to sit tight as the master deal-maker worked his magic. Since then, more tariffs and more retaliation. It’s so bad that Trump is now asking for a $12 billion to help farmers who grow corn, cotton, pork and soybeans. We grow those things, too, but they’re insignificant compared to our fruits, nuts, vegetables and wines. And those who grow our most important products are eligible only for federal government purchases of surplus produce.
The California Farm Bureau Federation wants equal treatment. So do some California Republicans in Congress, who sent a July 31 letter to Perdue. Chinese tariffs, they wrote, are “making fruits, vegetables and tree nuts in our districts significantly more expensive than their competitors” and “threatening the economic livelihood of our businesses and communities.”
Valley Republicans Jeff Denham, Devin Nunes and David Valadao signed it; Democrats Jim Costa, Ami Bera and four others did, too.
Tuesday, Denham and Costa can explain it in person as Perdue spends the day in Modesto and Oakdale. (Times and locations are provided if you RSVP.)
Are politics involved? Of course, and they should be. Republicans want to be seen as doing something for farmers. But it’s tough when the problem is your guy in the White House. Trump’s immigration policies have pulled workers out of fields and intimidated others from coming north to work while his bungling of trade policies have made our products more expensive and increased the costs of farm machinery.
Republicans insist they’re well positioned to influence the president. But Trump ignored them when he curtailed protections under the DREAM Act, then worked against their efforts to fix it. He’s ignored their entreaties to help poor constituents he was depriving of health insurance. Now he’s ignoring their pleas on trade. He’s even calling them names for complaining.
Trump tweeted last week that China “is spending a fortune on ads and P.R. trying to convince and scare our politicians to fight me.” Then he added, “Tariffs will make our country much richer than it is today. Only fools would disagree.”
So California Republicans are “fools”?
Demand for California almonds has plummeted 47 percent, according to Beacon Economics. California wine exports fell 15 percent and cherries 36 percent. China is the sixth-largest importer of California walnuts at $106 million, and they’re getting a 20 percent tariff along with pistachios.
Wednesday, China announced additional tariffs on $16 billion on U.S. goods, including on Chinese-made Apple products (which isn’t ag, but it is important here).
Growing more angry, Trump has threatened even higher tariffs on $200 billion worth of Chinese goods. He’ll show ’em. But he’s not. China’s trade surplus with the U.S. dipped to $28.09 billion in July from a record $28.97 billion in June.
Trump’s impetuous, intemperate tweets have real consequences in our Valley. Secretary Perdue should hear all about them.
___
Aug. 11
Eureka Times-Standard on Trump’s tweets on California wildfires:
Whatever your opinion of Donald Trump’s presidency, surely Californians can all agree that it’s a good thing he didn’t go into firefighting.
Although he’s been kind enough to declare our wildfire-plagued state a federal disaster, eligible for emergency funds to help cure our ills, he also sent us his diagnosis via Twitter:
“California wildfires are being magnified & made so much worse by the bad environmental laws which aren’t allowing massive amounts of readily available water to be properly utilized. It is being diverted into the Pacific Ocean. Must also tree clear to stop fire from spreading!”
Brace yourselves: He’s wrong.
As California fire officials helpfully pointed out this week, firefighters weren’t lacking for water - some of the state’s biggest blazes were burning alongside brimming lakes and reservoirs.
Also, fire retardant works better than water. That’s why they drop the red stuff from airplanes. Also why we don’t drink from fire extinguishers.
The president’s fact-free outburst drew comment on social media from North Coast lawmakers.
Some of what Congressman Jared Huffman had to say on Twitter in response to Trump could be reprinted here, unlike his assessment of the contents of the president’s cranium. We don’t want to start fighting fires with that, either, Congressman - but we do agree that tweeting nonsense while firefighters are putting their lives on the line to protect lives and property isn’t helping.
Assemblyman Jim Wood, in turn, used his Twitter account to implore the president to “#Stop #Tweeting” - but this, too, is a categorical error. Unlike wildfire or pestilence, this president’s enthusiasm for twiddling his thumbs on Twitter cannot be contained.
___
Aug. 10
The San Diego Union-Tribune on three big state issues that Sacramento must handle with care:
The California Legislature has a long history of making rash decisions in the final weeks of its annual sessions that wind up haunting state residents. As CALmatters columnist Dan Walters recently noted, the granddaddy of all such mistakes was the Legislature’s late-session embrace in 1996 of a bill meant to “deregulate” the state electricity sector, which created chaos and cost ratepayers dearly.
Now the Legislature - under intense pressure from legacy-hunting lame-duck Gov. Jerry Brown - is considering several issues that have the potential to be policy fiascoes on a similar grand scale. Every Californian should hope and pray that lawmakers sweat the details before taking any bold action.
On the governor’s push for a bill to insulate the state’s giant investor-owned utilities from paying for wildfire costs blamed on their equipment, lawmakers on Thursday seemed inclined to take a pass. This is a relief. Neither Brown nor the utilities have cogently explained how utilities with a history of cutting corners on safety measures should be given de facto incentives to cut corners even more. Despite a series of reforms, ratepayers shouldn’t blindly trust the governor to come up with a fair approach, as The San Diego Union-Tribune Editorial Board noted last month. Brown and his appointees on the California Public Utilities Commission have long blocked or limited attempts to hold utilities accountable for mistakes and to be more transparent about CPUC regulatory decisions.
On the governor’s push for legislation that would make California part of a multistate Western electricity power grid, lawmakers have so far seemed more supportive. But neither Brown nor other supporters have been able to answer valid questions about the wisdom of surrendering state autonomy over its grid in favor of an arrangement in which the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission would have far more authority than it does now over Golden State energy decisions. The Trump administration’s hostility to efforts to address climate change - most recently by seeking an end to the long-established practice of letting California set its own vehicle emission-control rules - shouldn’t be seen as a red flag. It should be seen as a slug to the jaw.
On the governor’s push for his $16.7 billion WaterFix project - building two 35-mile-long, 40-foot-high tunnels to transfer water south from the Sacramento River to the State Water Project pumps in San Joaquin County - it is unclear how lawmakers will act. Brown’s goal of stabilizing the state’s water transmission system and improving the health of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta is wise. But plenty of stakeholders are skeptical WaterFix will live up to its hype. This has so frustrated the governor that his tactics now include an attempt to use nearly 60-year-old covenants related to the State Water Project to commit the state to construction “without the approval of the state Legislature, the voters or ratepayers who would be footing the bill,” as the San Jose Mercury News’ editorial board recently detailed. This is absurd.
Brown’s legacy hunt on these issues should hurt, not help, his legacy. Instead of thoroughly responding to skeptics, the governor seems to expect pliant lawmakers to “implement my vision,” as Gov. Gray Davis described the Legislature’s job in 1999.
Don’t do it, Legislature. Legislators should think for themselves. Neither they nor Brown should make huge decisions without careful consideration.
___
Aug. 9
The Mercury News on ending California secrecy on police conduct:
It’s time to end the secrecy surrounding police behavior in California.
At a time when the nation is clamoring for more transparency about officer-involved shootings and misconduct, this state has some of nation’s most secretive laws to shield cops from public accountability.
That’s why the Legislature should pass, and Gov. Jerry Brown should sign, two bills that would help lift the veil on police conduct while at the same time protecting the privacy interests of officers and integrity of ongoing investigations.
Currently, police departments fire officers. We’re never told why, or even who. State law, created under pressure of a strong public safety lobby, prohibits releasing investigation records that pertain to, for example, officer-involved shootings, sexual assaults by cops or their lying under oath.
The rules for body-camera recordings are slightly different. But the bottom line is that when police shoot citizens on the streets, the video footage is often shielded from public view - unless, as in the Jan. 3 shooting by a BART police officer, it serves the interest of the department to release it.
The constant secrecy undermines confidence in police, who carry deadly weapons and are entrusted with tremendous power. That responsibility should be accompanied by strict public accountability.
“Access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state.” That’s what the California’s Public Records Act says.
And the California Supreme Court has declared that “The public’s legitimate interest in the identity and activities of peace officers is even greater than its interest in those of the average public servant.”
Yet, state law carves out strict secrecy protections for cops. No other public employees enjoy such shielding of their misbehavior.
It’s time for sunshine.
The first bill, SB 1421, introduced by Sen. Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley, directly addresses the ridiculous confidentiality surrounding police personnel records.
The bill would require disclosure of records involving an officer’s use of a firearm or Taser, sexual assault on a member of the public or dishonesty when reporting a crime or misconduct of another officer.
There are provisions for delaying release of the records to protect ongoing investigations. But, eventually, the records would have to be released in most cases.
The second bill, AB 748, introduced by Assemblyman Phil Ting, D-San Francisco, pertains to video recordings from officer body cameras, which have been widely deployed by police departments across the state.
It’s absurd that California currently has no statewide standard for release of body-camera recordings, even when they pertain to police use of force.
The bill would require release of video or audio recordings that depict officers using force, including discharging their firearms, breaking the law or violating department policy.
The police departments could delay release for up to 45 days from the date of the incident if disclosure would impede an investigation. And it could further extend the delay in 15-day increments if essential.
That’s more lenient than we would like, but it’s an acceptable balance of competing interests. And it’s certainly far better than the strict secrecy that departments frequently employ.
Even with these two bills, police would enjoy personnel protections beyond those of other public employees. For example, theft by an officer still could not be made public, but reports of the same transgression by other government employees would be a public record.
As a starting point, these are commonsense reforms. Again, from the Supreme Court, “In order to maintain trust in its police department, the public must be kept fully informed of the activities of its peace officers.”
The time to start is now.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.