BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1925
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 13, 2010
Counsel: Nicole J. Hanson
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Tom Ammiano, Chair
AB 1925 (Salas) - As Introduced: February 16, 2010
As Proposed to be Amended in Committee
SUMMARY : Promotes the development and implementation of
veterans courts within superior courts. Specifically, this
bill :
1)Encourages superior courts to develop and implement veterans
courts.
2)Provides that a veterans court shall have the following
objectives:
a) Increase cooperation between the courts, criminal
justice, veterans, and substance abuse systems;
b) Creation of a dedicated calendar or a locally developed
collaborative court-supervised veterans mental health
program that will lead to placement of as many mentally ill
offenders who are veterans of the United States military,
including those with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD),
traumatic brain injury, military sexual trauma, substance
abuse, or any mental health problem stemming from United
States military service, in community treatment, as is
feasible and consistent with public safety;
c) Improve access to necessary services and support;
d) Reduce recidivism; and,
e) Reduce the involvement of veterans in the criminal
justice system and time in jail by making mental health
service for veterans available in the least restrictive
environment possible while promoting public safety.
3)Requires veterans courts to have the following
characteristics:
AB 1925
Page 2
a) Leadership by a superior court judicial officer assigned
by the presiding judge;
b) Enhanced accountability by combining judicial
supervision with rehabilitation services that are
rigorously monitored and focused on recovery;
c) A problem-solving focus;
d) A team approach to decision making;
e) Integration of social and treatment services;
f) Judicial supervision of the treatment process, as
appropriate;
g) Community outreach efforts; and,
h) Direct interaction between defendant and judicial
officer.
4)Mandates that in developing a veterans court, the presiding
judge or his or her designee shall contact the county board of
supervisors, the county administrative officer, or their
designee to convene the county and court stakeholders and,
through a collaborative process with these stakeholders,
develop a plan that is consistent with this section. At least
one stakeholder should be a criminal justice client who is a
veteran who has lived with the experience of mental illness.
The plan shall address at a minimum all of the following
components:
a) The method by which the veterans court ensures that the
target population of defendants are identified and referred
to the veterans court.
b) The method for assessing defendants who are veterans for
serious mental illness and co-occurring disorders.
c) Eligibility criteria specifying what factors make the
defendant eligible to participate in the veterans court,
including service in the United States military, the
amenability of the defendant to treatment and the facts of
the case, as well as prior criminal history, United States
AB 1925
Page 3
military service history, and mental health and substance
abuse treatment history.
d) The elements of the treatment and supervision in
programs.
e) Standards for continuing participation in, and
successful completion of, the veterans court program.
f) The need for the county mental health department and the
drug and alcohol department to provide initial and ongoing
training for designated staff on the nature of serious
mental illness and on the treatment and supportive services
available in the community.
g) The process to ensure defendants will receive the
appropriate level of treatment services, the county and
other local agencies shall be obligated to provide mental
health treatment services only to the extent that resources
are available for that purpose.
h) The process for developing or modifying a treatment plan
for each defendant, based on a formal assessment of the
defendant's mental health, United States military service
history, and substance abuse treatment needs. Participation
in the veterans court shall require defendants to complete
the recommended treatment plan, and comply with any other
terms and conditions that optimizes the likelihood that the
defendant completes the program.
i) The process for referring cases to the veterans court.
j) A defendant's voluntary entry into the veterans court,
the right of a defendant to withdraw from the veterans
court, and the process for explaining these rights to the
defendant.
5)Requires veterans programs to be led by a judicial officer and
shall include, but not be limited to, a judicial officer to
preside over the court, prosecutor, public defender, county
mental health liaison, substance abuse liaison, county
veterans' service officer, and probation officer. The
veterans court team will determine the frequency of ongoing
reviews of the progress of the offender in community treatment
in order to ensure the offender adheres to the treatment plan
AB 1925
Page 4
as recommended, remains in treatment, and completes treatment.
EXISTING LAW :
1)States that in the case of any person convicted of a criminal
offense who would otherwise be sentenced to county jail or
state prison and who alleges that he or she committed the
offense as a result of PTSD, substance abuse, or psychological
problems stemming from service in a combat theater in the
United States military, the court shall, prior to sentencing,
hold a hearing to determine whether the defendant was a member
of the military forces of the United States who served in
combat and shall assess whether the defendant suffers from
PTSD, substance abuse, or psychological problems as a result
of that service. [Penal Code Section 1170.9(a).]
2)Allows a defendant convicted of a criminal offense who
committed the offense as a result of PTSD substance abuse, or
psychological problems stemming from service in a combat
theater in the United States military, and if the defendant is
otherwise eligible for probation and the court places the
defendant on probation, the court may order the defendant into
a local, state, federal, or private nonprofit treatment
program for a period not to exceed that which the defendant
would have served in state prison or county jail, provided the
defendant agrees to participate in the program and the court
determines that an appropriate treatment program exists.
[Penal Code Section 1170.9(b).]
3)Provides for diversion from criminal prosecution through a
deferred entry of judgement (DEJ) and sentence when an open
case is before any court for specified violations of drug
possession, paraphernalia possession, being in the presence of
drug use, misdemeanor transportation of marijuana, or
harvesting of marijuana for personal use and it appears to the
prosecuting attorney that, all of the following apply to the
defendant (Penal Code Section 1000):
a) The defendant has no conviction for any offense
involving controlled substances prior to the alleged
commission of the charged offense;
AB 1925
Page 5
b) The offense charged did not involve a crime of violence
or threatened violence;
c) There is no evidence of a violation relating to
narcotics or restricted dangerous drugs other than a
violation of the sections listed in this subdivision;
d) The defendant's record does not indicate that probation
or parole has ever been revoked without thereafter being
completed;
e) The defendant's record does not indicate that he or she
has successfully completed or been terminated from
diversion or DEJ pursuant to this chapter within five years
prior to the alleged commission of the charged offense;
and,
f) The defendant has no prior felony conviction within five
years prior to the alleged commission of the charged
offense.
4)Effectuates July 1, 2001, except as specified, a person
convicted of a non-violent drug possession offense shall
receive probation with completion of a drug treatment program
as a condition of probation. (Penal Code Section 1210,
1210.1, added by Proposition 36, approved November 7, 2000.)
5)Provides that certain defendants and parolees are ineligible
for the Substance Abuse Treatment Crime Prevention Act of 2000
(SACPA), enacted by Proposition 36. These ineligible persons
include persons who possessed drugs other than for personal
use; committed other offenses along with a drug possession
AB 1925
Page 6
offense; used a firearm while in possession or under the
influence of heroin, cocaine or PCP; previously convicted of a
serious felony and have not been free of custody or commission
of felonies or dangerous misdemeanors within five years
(parolees may not have ever been convicted of a serious
felony); participated in two prior Proposition 36 treatment
programs; and refused treatment. (Penal Code Section 1210.03.)
6)Allows a superior court, with the concurrence of the
prosecuting attorney of the county, may create a "Back on
Track" deferred entry of judgment reentry program aimed at
preventing recidivism among first-time nonviolent felony drug
offenders. No defendant who has been convicted of a violation
of a sex offense shall be eligible for the program established
in this chapter. When creating this program, the prosecuting
attorney, together with the presiding judge and a
representative of the criminal defense bar selected by the
presiding judge of the superior court may agree to establish a
"Back on Track" deferred entry of judgment program pursuant to
the provisions, as specified. The agreement shall specify
which low-level nonviolent felony drug offenses under the
Health and Safety Code will be eligible for the program and a
process for selecting participants. The program shall have
the following characteristics:
a) A dedicated calendar;
b) Leadership by a superior court judicial officer who is
assigned by the presiding judge;
c) Clearly defined eligibility criteria to enter the
program and clearly defined criteria for completion of the
program;
d) Legal incentives for defendants to successfully complete
the program, including dismissal or reduction of criminal
charges upon successful completion of the program; and,
e) Close supervision to hold participants accountable to
program compliance, including the use of graduated
sanctions and frequent, ongoing appearances before the
court regarding participants' program progress and
compliance with all program terms and conditions. The court
may use available legal mechanisms, including return to
custody if necessary, for failure to comply with the
AB 1925
Page 7
supervised plan.
f) Appropriate transitional programming for participants,
based on available resources from county and community
service providers and other agencies. The transitional
programming may include, but is not limited to, any of the
following:
i) Vocational training, readiness, and placement;
ii) Educational training, including assistance with
acquiring a G.E.D. or high school diploma and assistance
with admission to college;
iii) Substance abuse treatment;
iv) Assistance with obtaining identification cards and
driver's licenses;
v) Parenting skills training and assistance in becoming
compliant with child support obligations; and,
vi) The program may develop a local, public-private
partnership between law enforcement, government agencies,
private employers, and community-based organizations for
the purpose of creating meaningful employment
opportunities for participants and to take advantage of
incentives for hiring program participants. (Penal Code
Section 1000.8.)
7)Applies this chapter whenever a case is before any court upon
an accusatory pleading at any stage of the criminal
proceedings, for any person who has been evaluated by a
regional center for the developmentally disabled and who is
determined to be a person with a cognitive developmental
disability by the regional center, and who therefore is
eligible for its services. This chapter applies to any
offense which is charged as or reduced to a misdemeanor,
except that diversion shall not be ordered when the defendant
previously has been diverted under this chapter within two
years prior to the present criminal proceedings. [Penal Code
Section 1001.21(a) and (b).]
8)Mandates in any case in which a defendant has fulfilled the
conditions of probation for the entire period of probation, or
AB 1925
Page 8
has been discharged prior to the termination of the period of
probation, or in any other case in which a court, in its
discretion and the interests of justice, determines that a
defendant should be granted the relief available under this
section, the defendant shall, at any time after the
termination of the period of probation, if he or she is not
then serving a sentence for any offense, on probation for any
offense, or charged with the commission of any offense, be
permitted by the court to withdraw his or her plea of guilty
or plea of nolo contendere and enter a plea of not guilty; or,
if he or she has been convicted after a plea of not guilty,
the court shall set aside the verdict of guilty; and, in
either case, the court shall thereupon dismiss the accusations
or information against the defendant and except as noted
below, he or she shall thereafter be released from all
penalties and disabilities resulting from the offense of which
he or she has been convicted, except as provided in existing
law. The probationer shall be informed, in his or her
probation papers, of this right and privilege and his or her
right, if any, to petition for a certificate of rehabilitation
and pardon. The probationer may make the application and
change of plea in person or by attorney, or by the probation
officer authorized in writing. However, in any subsequent
prosecution of the defendant for any other offense, the prior
conviction may be pleaded and proved and shall have the same
effect as if probation had not been granted or the accusation
or information dismissed. The order shall state, and the
probationer shall be informed, that the order does not relieve
him or her of the obligation to disclose the conviction in
response to any direct question contained in any questionnaire
or application for public office, for licensure by any state
or local agency, or for contracting with the California State
Lottery. [Penal Code Section 1203.4(a).]
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Author's Statement : According to the author, "Veterans with
combat-related mental illness in the criminal justice system
often face unique challenges which traditional courts are
often ill-equipped to address. AB 1925 modifies the
California Penal Code to better address the particular needs
of veterans by providing a template for the creation of new
veterans courts throughout the state. AB 1925 sets the stage
AB 1925
Page 9
for the formalization of relationships between judges,
district attorneys, public defenders, veterans' service
agencies, residential treatment organizations, and others. AB
1925 standardizes the structure of veterans' courts and
establishes a clear process for the formation of new courts,
while maintaining local control over the establishment of
these courts."
2)Background : According to information provided by the author,
"Communities throughout the state that struggle with
developing Veterans Treatment Courts need guiding statutory
language that gives a judge flexibility in responding to the
specialized needs of a case involving a veteran with
psychological war wounds.
"Penal Code 1170.9 can be seen as too restrictive in its
definition of eligible defendants and, because it is a
post-guilty plea relief, it precludes effective relief for
those majority of defendants who initially become involved in
the criminal justice system because treatment is either
unavailable or the already existing requirements are
overwhelming (i.e. a veteran could have domestic violence
classes, as well as substance abuse classes, and potentially
PTSD treatments). AB 1925 enables a judicial officer to
personalize the sentence or monitoring plan so that any
particular defendant gets the type of help/correction he or
she needs instead of statutorily required programs that are
irrelevant or even contribute to further avoidance of the
underlying problems the veteran defendant has.
"AB 1925 will better ensure public safety in that more
defendants involved in the criminal justice system, who have
excellent potential for returning to their pre-war condition
of being a law abiding, contributing member of society will
have the chance to do so. The practice of treating the
symptoms of a surface criminal offense only precludes real
treatment for them, especially when these defendants are first
involved in criminal activity.
"AB 1925 also saves scarce dollars that would be used to
incarcerate these individuals again and again over their
lifetime because it deals with the underlying cause of their
criminality at a time when treatment has the greatest chance
to succeed."
AB 1925
Page 10
3)Veterans and PTSD : A study conducted by the University of
California-San Francisco and the San Francisco Veterans
Affairs Medical Center has shown that approximately one-third
of veterans returning from Iraq received one or more mental
health or psychosocial diagnoses. [Journal of the American
Medical Association and Archives Journals, Mental Illnesses
Appear Common Among Veterans Returning From Iraq and
Afghanistan (Mar. 13, 2008) Science Daily
(as of Mar. 27, 2009).]
Another study reported in the New England Journal of Medicine
indicates that the rate of PTSD among Iraq and Afghanistan
veterans increased in a linear manner with increased exposure
to combat. [See Hoge, M.D., Combat Duty in Iraq and
Afghanistan, Mental Health Problems, and Barriers to Care
(2004) 351 N. Engl. J. Med. 13-22.] Studies also indicate
that PTSD may result in drug and alcohol abuse by veterans.
[See Stress & Substance Abuse: A Special Report, National
Institute on Drug Abuse (Sept. 12, 2005)
(as of Mar.
27, 2009).]
Mental health and substance abuse problems experienced by
veterans are linked to future incarceration. In a Bureau of
Justice study, 35% to 45% of incarcerated veterans reported
symptoms of mental health disorders in the previous 12 months,
including mania, psychotic disorders, and major depressive
episodes. [Noonan & Mumola, U.S. Dep't of Just., Veterans in
State and Federal Prison, 2004 (2007), p. 6.] Three-quarters
of veterans in state prisons reported past drug use and
one-quarter reported being on drugs at the time of the offense
for which they were incarcerated. (Id. at 5.) Veterans are
also more likely than non-veterans to report past intravenous
drug use. [Ibid;, see also Badkhen, Shelters Take Many Vets
of Iraq, Afghan Wars, Boston Globe (Aug. 7, 2007) (detailing
the experience of an Iraq veteran who suffered a traumatic
brain injury and mental health issues as a result of his
combat experience, who reported that he was using heroin and
engaging in criminal activity to support his drug habit within
two months of his return home from the war).] It is likely
that a significant number of veterans with substance abuse
issues may be self-medicating as a means of dealing with
mental illness. [See Wynn, Dual Diagnosis, Journal of
Addictive Disorders (2002),
(as of March 23, 2009).]
AB 1925
Page 11
The reality is that veterans are disproportionately represented
in the prison population as compared to the population of the
United States as a whole. According to the Department of
Veterans Affairs, in July 2007, there were an estimated
23,977,000 veterans in the United States. [See United States
Department of Veterans Affairs (Jul. 25, 2007) table
(as of March 23, 2009).] In contrast, veterans make up 10% of
state prisoners. (See Noonan & Mumola, supra, at p. 1.) By
2004, veterans of the current conflicts in Iraq and
Afghanistan already comprised 4% of the veterans in state and
federal prisons. (Ibid.)
Veterans are more likely than non-veterans to be incarcerated
for a violent offense, "including over a third who were
serving sentences for homicide (15%) or rape/sexual assault
(23%)." (Id. at 4.) Veterans were also more likely to have
victimized women and children than were other offenders.
(Ibid.)
The current reality is that once incarcerated almost two-thirds
of mentally ill prisoners do not receive any form of
treatment. [James & Glaze, U.S. Dep't of Just., Bureau of
Just. Stats., Mental Health Problems of Prison and Jail
Inmates (Sept. 2006) pp. 1,9.] Mentally ill prisoners who
receive little or no treatment are at great risk of harm; are
particularly "vulnerable to assault, sexual abuse,
exploitation, and extortion"; and are more likely to engage in
self-harm, such as self-mutilation and suicide. [Abramsky &
Fellner, Ill- Equipped: U.S. Prisons and Offenders with
Mental Illness, Human Rights Watch (Oct. 21, 2003) p. 56
(as of March 23,
2009).] Mentally ill prisoners are often severely punished
for behaviors that stem from their mental illnesses, including
placement in solitary confinement. (Id. at 56-69.) Isolation
can cause the mentally ill to rapidly decompensate and has
been described as "the mental equivalent of putting an
asthmatic in a place with little air to breathe." [Madrid v.
Gomez (N.D. Cal. 1995) 889 F. Supp. 1146, 1265.]
Providing meaningful mental health treatment has been shown to
significantly reduce recidivism rates, with studies showing
decreases of over 20%. [Aos, Wash. State Inst. For Pub.
Pol'y, Evidence-Based Policy Options to Reduce Future Prison
AB 1925
Page 12
Construction, Criminal Justice Costs, and Crime Rates (2006).]
Likewise, studies have shown a reduction of more than 6% in
recidivism rates where meaningful chemical dependency services
are provided to prisoners. (Id. at pp. 3, 19.) Chemical
dependency treatment has also been shown to decrease, at least
in the short term, the probability of alcohol dependency by
15% and drug dependency by 22%. (Id. at p.4.)
This is not to say that mental illness stemming from military
service should be discounted in the commission of crimes.
PTSD can, and has been used to, prove existing criminal law
defenses since 1978. [Menefee, The "Vietnam Syndrome"
Defense: A "G.I. Bill of Criminal Rights"? (1985) 1985 Army
Law. 1, 27.] PTSD, traumatic brain injury, or any mental
health problem may be used to prove a defense of insanity,
diminished capacity, or self-defense and can also be used as a
mitigating factor in sentencing proceedings.
4)The Insanity Defense, Diminished Capacity, and Imperfect
Self-Defense : California follows the test of insanity laid
down in M'Naghten's Case (1843) 8 Eng.Rep. 718, under which
the accused must have been "incapable of knowing or
understanding the nature and quality of his or her act and of
distinguishing right from wrong at the time of the commission
of the offense." [Penal Code Section 25(b).] It has long
been the rule in California that "insanity may not be used as
a basis for extending leniency. It is either a complete
defense or none at all. There is no degree of insanity which
may be established to affect the degree of crime." [People v.
Cordova (1939) 14 Cal.2d 308, 311.] Thus, " 'there is no
degree of insanity sufficient to acquit of murder but not of
manslaughter.' " [People v. Phillips (1929) 102 Cal.App. 705,
708.]
At least in part to "ameliorate the law governing criminal
responsibility" prescribed by the M'Naghten rule two doctrines
emerged: diminished capacity and imperfect self-defense.
[See People v. Saille (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1103, 1109 (reviewing
history of diminished capacity doctrine); People v. Flannel
(1979) 25 Cal.3d 668, 675-677 (reviewing history of imperfect
self-defense doctrine).] Under the diminished capacity
doctrine, "evidence of diminished mental capacity, whether
caused by intoxication, trauma, or disease, [could] be used to
show that a defendant did not have a specific mental state
[including malice] essential to an offense." [People v.
AB 1925
Page 13
Conley (1966) 64 Cal.2d 310, 316.] Under the doctrine of
imperfect self-defense, a defendant can seek to negate malice
by introducing evidence that he or she actually, albeit
unreasonably, believed it was necessary to defend himself or
herself from imminent peril to life or great bodily injury.
(Flannel, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 674.)
The insanity defense and the doctrines of diminished capacity
and imperfect self-defense may be used by veterans with PTSD,
traumatic brain injury, military sexual trauma, substance
abuse, or any mental health problem when faced with criminal
charges.
5)Equal Protection and Purposeful Discrimination : The Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1,
commands that no state shall "deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Despite this,
however, many federal and state laws give veterans preference
in hiring and promotion decisions for civil service jobs.
[E.g., 38 U.S.C.A. 4214 (1998) (noting in subsection (a)(1)
that the United States "has an obligation to assist veterans
of the Armed Forces in readjusting to civilian life" and
advancing the policy of "promit[ing] the maximum employment
and job advancement opportunities [for qualified veterans]
within the Federal Government."] Generally, these laws
provide that a specified number of points be added to the test
scores of veterans thereby allowing lower scoring veterans to
be hired ahead of higher scoring non-veterans. [E.g., AZ.
Rev. Stats. 38-492 (authorizing the addition of five points
to civil service examinations of veterans achieving passing
scores); AR. Code Ann. 21-3-302 (same); Colo. Rev. Stat.
Ann. Const. Art. 12, 15 (same); Conn. Gov. Stat. Ann. 7-415
(same).] These preference programs are instances of
discrimination - using the term "discrimination" in the
non-pejorative sense. The law targets the veteran qua veteran
and treats him or her differently than the civilian.
The defining constitutional case in this area, Personnel
Administrator v. Feeney (1979) 42 U.S. 256, has been taken as
the authoritative statement that veterans' preferences are
constitutional. It must be noted, however, that this case
actually addressed the question whether such a preference
unconstitutionally discriminates on the basis of sex. The
Supreme Court held that the distinction in the law was "simply
between veterans and non veterans, not between men and women."
AB 1925
Page 14
(Id. at 275.) The Court upheld the preference on this
ground, not on whether the veteran versus non-veteran
preferential treatment violated equal protection.
The Court did recognize that a status-based distinction between
veterans and non-veterans was in play, noting that it was an
"unusual" case because it involved a law which, by design, was
not neutral. (Id. at 277.) The statute "overtly preferr[ed]
veterans as such." (Ibid.) The Court did not address whether
this status distinction itself was permissible because "the
appellee ha[d] not disputed, that this legislative choice was
legitimate." (Ibid.)
Absent from the case law is an analysis of whether and on what
basis the "head start" for a "specifically described" and
"particularly deserving" group described in Feeney is
permissible. So far, this gap in the case law has evaded
notice.
In the 1983 case, Regan v. Taxation with Representation (1983)
461 U.S. 540, the Court upheld a tax provision giving
favorable treatment to veterans groups engaged in lobbying
while denying such favor to other charitable groups that lobby
on the basis that "our country has a longstanding policy of
compensating veterans for their past contributions by
providing them with numerous advantages." (Id. at 551.) In
the Court's view, review of this "longstanding" status
discrimination was unnecessary because, quoting Feeney, "this
policy has 'always been deemed to be legitimate.' " (Ibid.)
Using the language of the case law as a guide, it appears that
the meaning of veterans' preferences to judges is an
expression of honor, gratitude, and compensation. As the
Court explains in Feeney, "the veterans' hiring preference in
Massachusetts, as in other jurisdictions, has traditionally
been justified as a measure designed to reward veterans for
the sacrifice of military service." (Feeney, supra, 42 U.S.
256, p. 265.) The Court in Regan emphasizes the hardships of
military service that warrant "compensating veterans for their
past contributions." (Regan, supra, 461 U.S. 540, p. 551.)
Not only do the hardships of military service, particularly
wartime service, require honor and compensation, in the words
of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, "it is the greatest service
a citizen can perform, and it comes with ill grace for those
of us not in such wars to deny them just consideration."
AB 1925
Page 15
[Commonwealth ex rel. Graham v. Schmid (Pa. 1939) 3 A.2d 701,
704.]
The laws above express this country's appreciation for the
sacrifices of military service and mark the fact that this
contribution to the country is different from the
contributions to the economy and communal life that civilians
make.
Similar to the laws above, this bill recognizes that veterans
have made sacrifices and contributions that are different from
those of civilians. This contribution can be attributed to
the high correlation of mental health problems and the
substance abuse. This bill creates a veterans courts to
address these issues. In creating such courts, it is
important that California does not create a separate, more
lenient standard of justice. As written, this bill does not
give veterans special treatment; they are provided with the
same remedies as civilians under the Penal Code. This bill
simply creates a forum for encouraged support and treatment of
veterans with service related mental health issues.
6)Argument in Support : According to the California Public
Defenders Association , "AB 1925 acknowledges the tremendous,
ongoing sacrifices of those who have served in the United
States military and would authorize superior courts to
establish veterans courts . . .
"A Rand Corp. study last year found that almost 20% of Iraq and
Afghanistan veterans report PTSD or depression. AB 1925 would
allow for the creation of a dedicated calendar or a locally
developed collaborative court-supervised veterans mental
health program or problem solving model with direct contact
between the court and the defendant that will lead to
placement of as many mentally ill offenders who are veterans
of the United States military, including those with
post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injury,
military sexual trauma, substance abuse, or any mental health
problem stemming form United States military service in
community treatment, as is feasible and consistent with public
safety.
" . . . The April 20, 2009 Veterans Health Administration
Information and Recommendations for Services by VHA Facilities
to Veterans in the Criminal Justice System (IL-10-2009-005)
AB 1925
Page 16
reinforces VHA's commitment to the principal that when
eligible veterans' offenses are the produce of mental illness,
Veterans and their communities are often better served by
mental health treatment than incarceration. It also
identified police encounters and court proceedings involving
Veterans as potential avenues for improved access to mental
health services, calling them "often-missed opportunities to
connect eligible Veterans with VA mental health services as a
negotiated alternative to incarceration or other criminal
sanctions."
"A February 2009 Department of Veterans Affairs Fact Sheet
describing the Veterans Justice Outreach Initiative, states
that the controlling offense for 70% of all veterans in the
jail population was a non-violent crime. Three in five of
these veterans have substance dependency problems, almost one
in three have serious mental illness, one in five was
homeless, and 60% had a serious medical problem. Psychological
trauma is likely a common occurrence in this population; and
20% were in combat. The Department of Veterans Affairs
acknowledges that there are substantial numbers of veterans in
jail eligible for VA services, with high levels of health and
mental health service need, and many of them are potentially
eligible for referral to, and are good candidates for, drug or
mental health court intervention as an alternative to
incarceration.
" . . . Members of the military are faced with repeated
deprivation in the face of the ongoing threat of loss of not
just one's own life but the lives and well being of fellow
military as well as civilians including adults and children.
Such a population is trained not to show weakness or admit
that they are overwhelmed by the gravity of the life
threatening and all consuming situations in which they are
placed. Military suicides are soaring - last year, the Army
reported a record 133, and the suicide rate among soldiers in
Iraq is 11% higher than in Vietnam. AB 1925 offers a beacon
of light for those whose training and experience in the
military has often left them feeling at times utterly hopeless
and with no will to live."
7)Related Legislation :
a) AB 674 (Salas) allows a court to order a defendant who
suffers from sexual trauma, traumatic brain injury, PTSD,
AB 1925
Page 17
substance abuse, or mental health problems as a result of
military service into a treatment program or veteran's
court for a period not to exceed that which the defendant
would have served in state prison or jail. AB 674 is
pending hearing by the Senate Committee on Public Safety.
b) AB 1013 (Block) would have required CDCR to conduct
interdisciplinary assessments of new inmates who are
veterans and to develop a specialized treatment protocol
which includes PTSD. AB 1013 was held in the Assembly
Committee on Appropriations.
c) AB 2152 (Nielsen) would have exempted honorably
discharged member of the United States Armed Forces, the
National Guard, the Air National Guard, or active reserve
components of the United States from having to obtain a
handgun safety certificate in order to purchase a handgun.
AB 2152 failed passage in this Committee.
8)Prior Legislation : SB 851 (Steinberg), of the 2007-08
Legislative Session, would have authorized superior courts to
develop and implement mental health courts, which may operate
as a preguilty plea program, a deferred entry of judgment
program, and/or a parolee mental health court program. SB 851
was vetoed. In his veto message, the Governor stated:
"Although the provisions of this bill are to be implemented
contingent upon the availability of funds, this bill would
place a tremendous cost pressure on the General Fund to
increase mental health services provided to inmates and
parolees. The California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation estimates annual costs for the staff necessary
to implement this bill would exceed $14 million annually.
"While I agree that more efforts need to be made to ensure that
prisoners with mental health issues receive appropriate
treatment, this bill allows people who have committed crimes
to avoid punishment completely because of a mental health
issue. This bill would also enable a defendant to not enter a
plea or make an admission of guilt.
"The mental health courts model specified in this bill is an
important component of public safety and for managing our
criminal justice system and I hope that the author will
continue to work on mental health issues, especially as it
AB 1925
Page 18
relates to mentally ill criminal offenders so that California
can reduce recidivism rates and provide proper treatment for
healthier citizens."
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
American Legion, Department of California
AMVETS, Department of California
AMVETS Post 40 of Sonoma County
California Association of County Veterans Service Officers
California Public Defenders Association
Vietnam Veterans of America, California State Council
Public Counsel Law Center of Los Angeles
Swords to Plowshares
Veterans Village of San Diego
Opposition
Crime Victims United of California
Analysis Prepared by : Nicole J. Hanson / PUB. S. / (916)
319-3744