ReportWire

Tag: CBS13 Investigates

  • Ahead of Proposition 36 vote, state data show California retail theft suspects aren’t tracked after arrest

    Ahead of Proposition 36 vote, state data show California retail theft suspects aren’t tracked after arrest

    [ad_1]

    Ahead of Proposition 36 vote, state data show most arrested for retail theft are cited and released


    Ahead of Proposition 36 vote, state data show most arrested for retail theft are cited and released

    04:28

    SACRAMENTO — Governor Gavin Newsom announced last month that California’s Organized Retail Crime Task Force (ORCT) had made more than 1,000 arrests in 2024. For more than a month, CBS News California has been trying to find out what happened to those people after their arrests.

    No one – not the Governor’s Office, the attorney general, nor the California Highway Patrol (CHP), which runs California’s task force  – could tell us how many of the people arrested for retail theft were sentenced, let alone how many showed up to court, went to jail, received treatment, or re-offended. None of the agencies could even provide the names of those 1000+ people, so we could not independently track them down.

    The CHP did provide arrest statistics, which reveal that out of the 1,126 arrests made by the Organized Retail Crime Task Force as of early October, more than half (684) were cite-and-releases, which means those offenders received the equivalent of the ticket and a notice to appear in court. District Attorneys say many of those people never show up in court. 

    RELATED: 

    A week before California voters decide on the tougher-on-crime Proposition 36, Gov. Newsom held a virtual news conference Monday to announce that more than 10,000 arrests over the past year by local law enforcement agencies statewide. These arrests were for various crimes, but he attributed them to the hundreds of millions of dollars California invested in cracking down on organized retail theft (ORT) last year. 

    Newsom awarded approximately $267 million worth of grants to 55 California cities and counties in October 2023. The governor said that money “has generated 10,128 arrests and counting just from the local law enforcement efforts.” Of those arrests there were “nearly 8,000 for organized retail theft,” according to the governor’s office.

    However, what the governor couldn’t quantify for reporters on Monday is what happened after those arrests were made. CBS News California has learned that no one is keeping track. 

    What happens to the retail theft offenders? 

    “They come out with this big press release, they announce all these arrests, and then, poof, you don’t know what happens,” former Sacramento County District Attorney Anne Marie Schubert said in response to the Governor’s press release. 

    Schubert is the co-chair of the Yes on Proposition 36 campaign, a ballot measure that would strengthen penalties for certain theft and drug crimes. She has been critical of the state’s attempt to crack down on retail crime and points to the CHP data, which show more than 60% of people arrested by the retail crime task force were cited and released. 

    “When they’re given a ticket, 50-75% of them never even show up [to court],” Schubert said. She pointed to statistics cited by the Sacramento County Sheriff and District Attorney’s offices, which show the county currently has more than 30,000 bench warrants for people who don’t show up. 

    “That tells you 30,000 people have never come to court,” she explained. “If you took that number and expanded it statewide, we’re probably talking hundreds of thousands.” 

    “They spend all this money and get no consequences,” Schubert said, referring to the state money spent on these investigations and arrests.      

    “Crime does pay”

    In some cases, people are arrested, especially for large-scale organized retail theft crimes that can take years to investigate. 

    The infamous California Girls case quickly went viral earlier this year after Attorney General Rob Bonta publicized the story of a retail crime ringleader who was also a suburban mother of three. 

    Michelle Mack ran a 21-county, multi-million dollar retail crime ring out of her San Diego mansion. She paid women to steal high-end cosmetics and handbags from stores like Sephora and Ulta, which she then sold on Amazon. 

    Mack and her husband, Kenneth Mack, were among the thousands of arrests publicized by Newsom. 

    Both of the Macks pleaded guilty and faced up to five years in prison. The judge ordered the Macks to pay more than $3 million in restitution and stay away from Ulta and Sephora stores. 

    However, Michelle received a suspended sentence so she could stay home with her teenage daughters while Kenneth served his sentence, which he served in county jail, not prison. Jail records show that Kenneth Mack was booked in June and is set to be released in December. 

    It’s still not clear how much of Michelle’s suspended sentence she will ultimately serve, but she is expected to receive the same sentence as her husband.  It appears he’ll only serve six months of his five-year sentence.  

    CHP says the agency spent years and hundreds of man-hours investigating the crimes. 

    “Crime is paying for these folks, and they know it,” Schubert said. “You have to hold them accountable because if not, then guess what? Crime does pay.”

    However, Captain Jonathan Staricka, a CHP special operations commander, argues that there is value in the arrest alone. 

    “What we can’t see and what we can’t measure is how much did we prevent by making that arrest,” Staricka said. “Do you feel that there’s a success rate when we arrest this many individuals? Or was it better when we didn’t?“

    Schubert agreed with Staricka on that point. 

    “I give credit to CHP for the work that they’re doing,” Schubert stressed. “But if we’re going to spend these resources… [the state has] to follow through.”

    Schubert pointed to Lawrence Fountain, the alleged ring leader in a string of violent robberies terrorizing Target and Walmart employees.

    Fountain had two prior violent convictions and, according to state prison records, would have still been in prison on the date of his latest arrest if he’d served his full sentence for his previous crimes. However, he was released from prison with credits more than two years early under California’s prison crediting system.   

    He had several other new pending cases when the Attorney General’s office charged Fountain with 29 counts last year, including charges for violent felonies and organized retail theft. The Attorney General then dismissed all but one of those charges, including the charge of Organized Retail Theft.   

    We reached out to Bonta’s office to ask about his decision to dismiss the 28 charges. A spokesperson for the attorney general explained that several factors are weighed in prosecutorial decisions, including the public safety risk a defendant would pose, what the available evidence is, the interests of the victim, and any risk associated with probation or incarceration in a plea bargain. 

    “Based on all these factors, this state prison sentence was an appropriate disposition,” the spokesperson concluded. 

    Fountain pled guilty to just one robbery charge and received a six-year prison sentence, but it’s not clear how much time he’ll serve. 

    Records show Fountain is currently serving one year in county jail for a separate case prosecuted by the Los Angeles County District Attorney. When he is transferred to state prison at the end of that sentence, he’ll arrive with an eight-month credit for time served. Then, he’ll likely receive an additional one-third to one-half sentence reduction based on California’s current prison crediting system under Proposition 57, which was passed by voters in 2016.   

    “To give him one count and dismiss the rest is not only outrageous. That individual deserves probably no less than 20 years in state prison. He’s a dangerous human being, Schubert said, adding, “Crime is paying for these folks, and they know it.”

    Organize Retail Theft

    Many district attorneys argue that California’s Organized Retail Theft (ORT) statute, amended by California lawmakers in 2021, is not an effective tool to charge offenders because it’s too complicated to prove.

    Yolo County District Attorney Jeff Reisig called it a “junk statute,” explaining that it requires evidence of multiple complex elements that are rarely established by investigations and simply do not exist in the vast majority of retail crimes. 

    Data provided by the California District Attorneys Association indicates that most California counties had zero felony ORT convictions in 2023. Even large counties like Sacramento, San Bernadino, Santa Clara, and Ventura show single-digit ORT convictions. 

    Notably, in the Fountain case, the Attorney General’s office dismissed the one ORT charge.

    Of 36 recent organized retail theft defendants publicized by California Attorney General Rob Bonta in press releases from his office, CBS News California identified sentencing information for roughly half. 

    A CBS News California analysis found that roughly a quarter of those who were sentenced received probation without jail time. Sentences for the remaining defendants ranged from two days to 10 years. However, the one 10-year sentence was based on multiple carjacking and other violent convictions, not the organized retail theft conviction. 

    What happened to the others arrested this year for retail crime?

    Fountain and the Macks are just a few of the recent organized retail theft ring leaders who were arrested for their crimes. In most cases, tracking down the sentencing information is a complicated multi-agency process. 

    CBS News California spent weeks cross-referencing records through multiple agencies and sources to find out what happened to the three suspects featured in this story. Even officials at the agencies we worked with had difficulty finding accurate information. 

    So, what happened to the other 1000+ people arrested by California’s Organized Retail Crime Task Force? 

    CHP Captain Jonathan Staricka said that is “a complicated question.” 

    Staricka explained that after task force officers make an arrest, they hand the case off to prosecutors, and if there’s a conviction, the case is then tracked by the state prison system, county jails, or the probation department, depending on the sentence. Centralizing that data would be challenging, he noted. 

    Proposition 36 “is a separate conversation”

    Strengthening penalties for retail theft and cracking down on repeat offenders are part of what supporters of Proposition 36 hope the ballot measure will accomplish. 

    Specifically, they argue that increased penalties under Prop 36 will result in fewer people being cited and released and more people actually being arraigned for alleged crimes. 

    However, despite being questioned repeatedly Monday about the initiative, Newsom stressed that Proposition 36 “is a separate conversation” from organized retail theft and the statistics from the CHP task force. 

    “I hope you’ll take a good look at progress,” Newsom continued. “We hope that will continue again, separate and above anything that happens with that initiative.” 

    We wanted to ask the governor what it would take for him to direct one of his state agencies to publically track what happens to the thousands of people arrested for retail theft in California, including how many show up to court, are sentenced, receive treatment, or re-offend. However, his team did not select us to ask a question.

    “Why is it so difficult to get this information out of our attorney general or out of our governor, who’s taking this very proactive role saying that we’re cracking down on organized retail theft?” Schubert questioned. “Why is it so hard?” 

    Gov. Newsom’s office did not respond to our request for comment or to our repeated requests for an interview.

    Julie Watts


    julie-serious.png

    Julie Watts is a national-award-winning investigative correspondent for CBS News, covering California. Her investigations, Capitol accountability reports, and solutions-oriented journalism air weekly on CBS stations across California.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Fact-checking claims about California’s Proposition 36: What it means for drug arrests

    Fact-checking claims about California’s Proposition 36: What it means for drug arrests

    [ad_1]

    Fact-checking claims about California’s Proposition 36: What it means for drug arrests


    Fact-checking claims about California’s Proposition 36: What it means for drug arrests

    04:46

    Proposition 36 — also known as The Homelessness, Drug Addiction, and Theft Reduction Act — aims to revive drug court participation and increase penalties for certain theft and drug offenses in California. 

    Supporters of Proposition 36 say it will force people into treatment and get them off the street. Opponents, including Gov. Gavin Newsom, argue that it will fill up jails and mark a return to the 1980s war on drugs. 

    CBS News California took a closer look at the drug component of the high-profile ballot measure to fact-check those claims and analyze the concerns. 

    Will Proposition 36 revive drug treatment courts?

    To understand this debate, you must go back ten years to November 2014 when California voters passed a different ballot measure: Proposition 47. 

    Proposition 47 made hard drug possession a misdemeanor instead of a felony and, along with other reforms like Assembly Bill 109 and Proposition 57, helped reduce the state’s prison population. End-of-year data from the state Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation show that from December 2014 to December 2023, California’s prison population dropped by more than 40,000. 

    However, court data suggests there were also unintended consequences. CBS News California analyzed county data from across the state and found a consistent drop in drug court participation after Proposition 47 was approved. 

    For instance, Sacramento County saw more than an 80% drop in drug court participation between 2015 and 2023. However, much of that drop came after the pandemic. 

    Yolo County’s drug court caseload dropped from 270 cases in 2015 to just three in 2023. 

    In Santa Clara County, drug court participation dropped so low that the county stopped tracking drug court cases and merged its drug court and mental health court. 

    While there is no reliable statewide drug court data, a 2020 survey from the Center for Court Innovation examined 67 drug courts in California. The average participation rate across those drug courts dropped from 51% to 39%. 

    Research cited by the California court system suggests drug courts ultimately save money and do lead to fewer arrests. The National Institute of Justice said one study found that felony re-arrest rates among people participating in drug courts dropped 28% in one U.S. county and 15% in another county. 

    Sacramento County District Attorney Thien Ho and San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan are among a growing number of high-profile elected Democrats going against Newsom to support the new treatment-mandated felonies for hard drug possession under Proposition 36. 

    Mahan and Ho say that when California slashed sentences for drug possession, it also reduced the incentive for people to choose court-supervised treatment instead of jail time. 

    “If you get arrested, it’s a cite-and-release for possession of drugs. It’s a misdemeanor,” Ho said. “And when the judge tells you, ‘You can get two or three days in jail or you can go to a treatment program that’s going to be a year long,’ what are you going to take?” 

    Under Proposition 36, the first two convictions for drug possession would still be misdemeanors. The third is a treatment-mandated felony, which means the charges would be dismissed if treatment is completed. 

    With a fourth conviction, a judge could issue a maximum three-year sentence, but only if someone is not eligible for treatment. 

    “It focuses on repeat offenders, and it allows a judge to give someone a choice between engaging in treatment or detoxing in jail,” Mahan said. 

    However, opponents like the governor and former San Francisco prosecutor Cristine Soto DeBerry — who wrote the opposition argument to Proposition 36 — say that there simply aren’t enough treatment beds. 

    “No county in the state has enough treatment to deal with the people that are struggling with addiction issues,” Soto DeBerry said.  “None. Not one.” 

    A Rand Corporation study of five California counties — Sacramento, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced and Santa Clara — earlier this year found that the availability of treatment beds varies and, in some cases, facilities with available beds don’t accept people with criminal records. 

    In a statement sent to CBS News California, the No on Proposition 36 campaign claimed that “22 counties have no residential treatment facilities,” echoing a statement made by Newsom in August. 

    We reached out to the Governor’s Office for clarification on what 22 counties he was talking about. They could not tell us, and instead, we received a link to California Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) webinar slides from January 2022, based on information collected during the pandemic, which, according to the state, referenced 22 counties not participating in a specific drug delivery program. 

    The DHCS said it can confirm that “all but 15 counties (Alpine, Colusa, Del Norte, Glenn, Imperial, Inyo, Lassen, Madera, Mariposa, Modoc, Mono, Plumas, Sierra, Siskiyou, Trinity)” currently have state-licensed residential treatment facilities, and in those counties, “clinics, health facilities, community and residential care facilities, jails and prisons can also offer these services.” 

    “I also think the voters need to hold the state and county accountable for building the treatment capacity we need,” Mahan said. 

    The DHCS also said that every county except Madera offers state-certified outpatient services, but representatives for Madera County say it does offer outpatient services and makes referrals to nearby inpatient services when needed. 

    Soto DeBerry’s criticisms of Proposition 36 include that there is no funding attached to the ballot measure or a mandate to create sufficient treatment options. 

    Supporters of Proposition 36 point to a variety of funding sources ranging from Proposition 1’s mental health bonds to opioid settlement funds, but critics say that still won’t be enough. 

    Soto DeBerry also said that it often takes multiple attempts to successfully get an offender treatment, claiming that “under Prop 36, they won’t get a second chance; they’ll be sent to prison.” 

    Supporters of Proposition 36 say that is false and note that the proposition specifically states: 

    “A person shall not be sentenced to jail or prison pursuant to this section unless a court determines that the person is not eligible or suitable for treatment…” 

    That brings us back to the governor’s argument that Proposition 36 is about mass incarceration. 

    The nonpartisan California Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates that under Proposition 36, the “prison population could increase by around a few thousand people.” 

    For context, there are currently around 90,000 people in state prisons. At its peak in 2006, there were over 170,000 people incarcerated, according to CDCR data. 

    Getting arrested saved his life 

    On graduation day in Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Larry Brown’s mental health court, Cesar, whose last name we are omitting, had plenty to smile about. 

    Cesar was arrested in Sacramento County, which has a robust system of “Collaborative Courts”  — including drug court and mental health court — and related treatment programs. While in treatment, his case worker helped find him housing and work. 

    “I was homeless,” he said. “Nothing would stop me from getting high.” 

    Cesar attended all of his court-mandated treatment appointments. Completing his program resulted in his conviction being erased. 

    “I got a second chance in life,” he said. 

    Cesar’s story is a powerful example of the potential of California’s treatment courts. 

    “I didn’t know another life until I got arrested,” Cesar said. “And I quit cold turkey. Now, I’m sober. Now, I see how a real man feels.” 

    Proposition 36 supporters point to stories like Cesar’s in their argument that it will result in more people receiving treatment and getting off the streets. 

    “Being arrested saved my life,” Cesar said.

    Julie Watts


    julie-serious.png

    Julie Watts is a national-award-winning investigative correspondent for CBS News, covering California. Her investigations, Capitol accountability reports, and solutions-oriented journalism air weekly on CBS stations across California.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Doctor who drove family off cliff fuels legal debate: Should attempted-murder defendants get treatment instead of trial?

    Doctor who drove family off cliff fuels legal debate: Should attempted-murder defendants get treatment instead of trial?

    [ad_1]

    He’s accused of trying to kill his family by driving their Tesla off a cliff. If convicted on attempted murder charges, he could have faced life in prison. Instead, he’ll skip the trial altogether and get two years of mental health treatment at home.  

    Dr. Dharmesh Patel is the first high-profile defendant charged with *attempted-murder* to get Mental Health Diversion under California’s recently revised law. His case is fueling a legal debate and raising questions at the capitol.

    The unthinkable captured the country’s attention

    A Tesla plunged more than 250ft off a cliff at Devil’s Slide on a winding stretch of Highway 1 in Northern California. The story initially captured the country’s attention because the family of four inside survived. First responders said it was “nothing short of a miracle.”

    Extraordinary footage captured by rescuers showed what appeared to be Patel sticking his head out from the sheared-off top of the family Tesla as rescuers worked to free his wife and trapped children, a four-year-old boy and nine-year-old girl. 

    They used ropes to pull the two children up the cliff, and helicopters hoisted the parents out. 

    Then, the news broke that police were charging Dr. Patel with attempted murder and child abuse. 

    Prosecutors say he later admitted to intentionally trying to kill his family the day he drove his wife and two young children off the cliff. Therapists testified that Dr. Dharmesh Patel was having paranoid delusions about Jeffrey Epstein, the fentanyl crisis, and he feared that his kids could be sex trafficked. They said he told them he wanted to protect his family from a worse fate. 

    Treatment instead of trial

    If any one of them had died that day, Dr. Patel would be standing trial for murder.

    Because they survived against all odds, he’s facing attempted murder charges instead – and that makes him eligible for Mental Health Diversion under California law. 

    Instead of facing seven years to life in prison, the Pasadena doctor will get two years of mental health treatment while living at home with his parents in the Bay Area suburb of Belmont.

    If he completes a two-year program, Dr. Patel’s record will be wiped clean. Legally, it will be as if the crash never happened. 

    Should attempted murder defendants be eligible for diversion?

    “Doctor Patel did everything he could to carry out a murder,” argued San Mateo County District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe. “It was just that they survived the crash of the car.”

    Wagstaffe said he supports diversion in many cases but not for people charged with attempted murder. He opposed Mental Health Diversion for Dr. Patel.

    “I’m more than happy to take that gamble when you’re dealing with low-level type of offenses,” Wagstaffe said. “We don’t think for a crime like attempted murder, that diversion out of the system, meaning no accountability, no punishment should exist.”

    A newly revised law makes more Californians eligible for diversion. Defendants no longer have to prove a diagnosed mental illness was a “significant factor” causing them to commit the crime. 

    Judges must now presume nearly any one of these hundreds of listed mental disorders was responsible for nearly any crime.

    The list of eligible “mental disorders” ranges from Patel’s diagnosis – major depressive disorder – to ADHD, erectile disorder, anorexia, substance use disorder, and intoxication.

    “Diversion programs have been proven over and over again to have much better outcomes than traditional prosecutions when it comes to (preventing) new crimes,” said Mona Sahaf, a prosecution reform advocate.

    Sahaf is the director of the Reshaping Prosecution Initiative at the Vera Institute of Justice, which often advocates for criminal justice reform. 

    She points to national studies that show prosecutor-led diversion greatly reduced recidivism and the rate of rearrests after completing diversion.

    However, our recent CBS News California investigation found a lack of reliable data examining the success rates of California’s diversion programs under the recently revised laws. The state removed its success-rate data from the public portal following that report.

    “Really, the headline here is that a person’s getting the treatment they need to make sure that they can be a safe, thriving member of their community. And that this is aligning with the wishes of the survivors of this crime,” Sahaf said.

    She points to emotional testimony from Dr. Patel’s wife asking for diversion instead of trial.

    “I really miss my best friend … my partner in life,” Mrs. Patel said.  

    Mrs. Patel described how much her kids miss their father and she noted that her husband never had an episode like that before. She argued, “(His) mental health treatment … will not only restore him back to himself but … will restore the health and well-being of (their) entire family.”

    By all accounts, Dr. Patel was a loving father and upstanding doctor before his sudden mental illness prompted him to drive his family off a cliff.

    Doctors say, if properly medicated, he could go back to that life.

    “A diversion program might be the absolute best antidote to making sure that this person never commits a crime again,” Sahaf said.  

    The two-year Mental Health Diversion program

    “I would also disagree that you’re not being held accountable in diversion,” Sahaf said. “You have to go through a very rigorous program with lots of requirements, many, many more requirements indeed than being charged and put into jail,”  

    In Patel’s case, he must wear an ankle monitor and stay confined to his parent’s house except for weekly visits to court, doctors, and therapists. He’ll be tested to ensure he’s not using recreational drugs or alcohol and that he is taking his prescribed medication.

    He turned over his driver’s license and passport and, for now, he can’t see his wife and kids, practice medicine, or own a gun.

    “What do you say to the argument that he’s exactly the type of person that should get mental health diversion?” we asked Wagstaffe.

    “Nobody saw it coming. So how are we going to know in the future whether it’s coming?” he said. “How do we know he’s going to stay on medication after two years?”

    Wagstaffe also worries that Patel was misdiagnosed.

    He’s being treated for major depression disorder, but doctors for the prosecution argued he has Schizoaffective disorder – which requires a different treatment that they say Patel opposed.

    “You have to have the right medication,” Wagstaffe said.  “That’s why we think that the court should only take the chance, gamble, in cases where you’re a minimal danger to the public.”

    What happens after two years?

    Wagstaffe notes mental health diversion programs run a maximum of two years.

    “If mental health diversion were for 20 years, 30 years, that would be a different consideration. The maximum – the court has no discretion – is two years. That’s nowhere near enough to determine whether somebody has really changed,” Wagstaffe added.

    In Patel’s case, the medical board could attempt to revoke his license. But, legally, in two years, Patel can return to practicing medicine, driving, and even owning a gun.   

    “He will be the same as you, me, and every other law-abiding citizen out there in our community,” Wagstaffe said.  “At the end of two years, Mr. Patel can go out, on day one, and purchase a gun.”

    Wagstaffe’s office sponsored a bill, which is now state law, that prohibits gun possession during the two-year mental health diversion period.

    “Originally it was a lifetime ban that we proposed,” Wagstaffe said. “They would not even let it get to a vote in the committee unless we agreed to water it down … We decided to take that because that’s better than nothing.”

    Wagstaffe points to a dichotomy under California law.

    “If somebody has a mental illness and commits an attempted murder, at the end of the two years, we’re going to let them buy a gun,” Wagstaffe said. 

    That’s because at the end of diversion, the charges are dropped. There’s no felony and no record of a crime.

    “But if it’s somebody who has no mental health issues – [and] they stole $1,500 worth of goods, a felony – they are prohibited from possessing the gun the rest of their life. There’s no logic.”

    Questions at the Capitol

    The DA is among many who argue Mental Health Diversion should not be allowed in cases of attempted murder. 

    At the state capitol earlier this year, a bipartisan bill with widespread support within the legislature would have added attempted murder to the short list of charges – murder and sex crimes – that are not eligible for diversion.

    Defense attorneys and reform advocates opposed the bill, arguing that it is bad policy to categorically exclude one type of offense. “We want the best option to be available in every single case, no matter what the charges,” explained Shahf. 

    Still, the bill had 17 bipartisan co-authors and unanimously passed the Assembly Public Safety Committee, which is known for killing tough-on-crime legislation.

    “It is extraordinarily hard to get, pro-criminal justice bills out of the public safety. And this one flew through,” Wagstaffe said.

    But the rest of the Assembly never got the chance to vote because the Appropriations Committee killed the bill by holding it the so-called “suspense file.“

    “I find that as anti-democratic, and I don’t think the public if they knew it, would find that acceptable,” Wagstaffe said.

    The suspense file is where even popular bills can go to die without a public vote.

    In this case, the committee analysis suggested the bill was too expensive – highlighting how much it would cost the state annually ($133k) to send someone to prison for attempted murder instead of diversion.

    Except, their analysis fails to mention how much it currently costs ($123k+) to put the same person through diversion for a year.

    Our CBS News analysis of state data found that last year alone, California spent an estimated $67 million on people who failed to complete Mental Health Diversion programs and had charges reinstated anyway.

    In the first quarter of 2024 year, state data indicated the failure rate jumped to more than 50%. 

    Neither the Appropriations Committee Chair, Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, nor her committee staff responded to repeated requests for comment.

    “Poster child” for both sides of the diversion debate

    Patel is the first high-profile attempted murder defendant to get Mental Health Diversion since the bill died.

    “For us, he’s the poster child. We will use him in our efforts to try and bring that bill back,” Wagstaffe said.

    But Patel is also the so-called “poster child” for the other side.

    “Unfortunately, so many people believe that punishment is the way to make sure people don’t commit any crimes. But that’s not what the evidence shows,” Sahaf said. 

    Dr. Patel’s defense attorney declined an interview, but they hope Patel will be the model for how mental health diversion is supposed to work — even for those charged with attempted murder.   

    [ad_2]

    Source link