Ca Assembly Bill 1810 and fox"news": can you explain this?

[agnes]

So on FB, my resident conservative shared this video saying that AB1810 is basically going to let criminals free and the prosecution will have no say.  

www.facebook.com/billessayli/videos/2087471664852240/?hc_ref=ARSHTBCTCztbbAPPV01zrzqi6VuGqHznxbJtlR06PYAv124M79-ME_NAByds6tmki7c&fref=nf


How are they getting this? I'm guessing it's from this part? 

"(13) Existing law prohibits a person from being tried or adjudged to punishment while that person is mentally incompetent. Existing law establishes a process by which a defendant’s mental competency is evaluated and by which the defendant receives treatment with the goal of returning the defendant to competency. Existing law allows a mentally incompetent defendant to be committed to the State Department of State Hospitals or other public or private treatment facility.
This bill would authorize a court to appoint a psychiatrist or a licensed psychologist to opine as to whether the defendant has regained competence if counsel for the defendant, or a jail or medical or mental health staff provider provides the court with substantial evidence that the defendant’s psychiatric symptoms have changed to such a degree as to create a doubt in the mind of the judge as to the defendant’s current mental competence. The bill would require the court to proceed as if a certificate of restoration of competence had been returned if the opinion of the expert was that the defendant had regained competency, except that a hearing would be required for a final determination of competency."

webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:rAH-ytxUo7gJ:https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml%3Fbill_id%3D201720180AB1810+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Here's the cached version because the server is down right now. 

Are "conservatives" creating an issue where there isn't one?

[mrs.jacinthe]

I think it's this part:

"This bill would establish a procedure of diversion for defendants with mental disorders through which the court would be authorized to grant pretrial diversion, for a period no longer than 2 years, to a defendant suffering from a mental disorder, on an accusatory pleading alleging the commission of a misdemeanor or felony offense, in order to allow the defendant to undergo mental health treatment. The bill would condition eligibility on, among other criteria, a court finding that the defendant’s mental disorder played a significant role in the commission of the charged offense. The bill would authorize a referral for mental health treatment to be made to a county mental health agency, existing collaborative courts, or assisted outpatient treatment only if that entity has agreed to accept responsibility for the treatment of the defendant, as specified.

The bill would, among other things, require the court, after notice to the defendant, defense counsel, and the prosecution, to hold a hearing to determine whether the criminal proceedings should be reinstated, whether the treatment program should be modified, or whether the defendant should be conserved and referred to the conservatorship investigator, if the defendant is charged with, or is engaged in, certain criminal offenses, if the defendant is performing unsatisfactorily in diversion, or if the defendant is gravely disabled, as defined.

If the defendant has performed satisfactorily in diversion, the bill would require the court to dismiss the defendant’s criminal charges, with a record filed with the Department of Justice indicating the disposition of the case diverted, and the arrest deemed never to have occurred, and would require the court to order access to the record of the arrest restricted, except as specified.

By increasing the duties of local officials relating to diversion and the sealing of arrest records, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The bill would also authorize the State Department of State Hospitals, subject to appropriation by the Legislature, to solicit proposals from, and to contract with, a county to help fund the development or expansion of the above-described pretrial diversion for individuals with serious mental disorders who may otherwise be found incompetent to stand trial and committed to the department for restoration of competency. The bill would require participants to meet specified criteria, including, among others, that they suffer from certain mental disorders and have felony charges, and that there is a significant relationship between the serious mental disorders and the charged offense or between the individual’s conditions of homelessness and the charged offense."

Essentially, they're not wrong in that this section seems to allow for criminals to go free, but it's pending completion of a two year diversion program for crimes committed as a direct result of mental illness or homelessness. A read of the actual bill text, farther down the page, seems pretty limited in scope, but that's not what the "lock them up" crowd wants to hear.

[msmerymac]

It doesn't matter what it actually says. It just doesn't. This is a "news" organization that questioned the birthplace, citizenship status and religion of our former president. It "says" whatever they say it says, and they need more fodder to get their followers to believe California is a liberal hellhole.

[agnes]

Jul 10, 2018 11:00:01 GMT -5 msmerymac said:

It doesn't matter what it actually says. It just doesn't. This is a "news" organization that questioned the birthplace, citizenship status and religion of our former president. It "says" whatever they say it says, and they need more fodder to get their followers to believe California is a liberal hellhole.

even if I feel it’s a propaganda machine, I can’t just say this because I don’t think it will be productive to the conversation about the actual bill.

[msmerymac]

Jul 10, 2018 11:11:40 GMT -5 agnes said:

Jul 10, 2018 11:00:01 GMT -5 msmerymac said:

It doesn't matter what it actually says. It just doesn't. This is a "news" organization that questioned the birthplace, citizenship status and religion of our former president. It "says" whatever they say it says, and they need more fodder to get their followers to believe California is a liberal hellhole.

even if I feel it’s a propaganda machine, I can’t just say this because I don’t think it will be productive to the conversation about the actual bill.

I literally do not know how to have productive conversations with Fox News aficionados and I doubt they are interested in that anyway. 

We're at the point (and have been for a while) of trying to talk to people who think the sky is green, even though it's OBVIOUSLY blue, and you can't convince them otherwise.

[agnes]

Jul 10, 2018 12:58:25 GMT -5 msmerymac said:

Jul 10, 2018 11:11:40 GMT -5 agnes said:

even if I feel it’s a propaganda machine, I can’t just say this because I don’t think it will be productive to the conversation about the actual bill.

I literally do not know how to have productive conversations with Fox News aficionados and I doubt they are interested in that anyway. 

We're at the point (and have been for a while) of trying to talk to people who think the sky is green, even though it's OBVIOUSLY blue, and you can't convince them otherwise.

well, I think It depends on the particular situation and person. If there is someone I know IRL who I think I can have an actual thoguhtful discussion (and I’m not in a FUCK this mood) I will try to hopefully make them think for a second instead of just only listening to the fake news.

[nancybotwin]

Jul 10, 2018 12:58:25 GMT -5 msmerymac said:

Jul 10, 2018 11:11:40 GMT -5 agnes said:

even if I feel it’s a propaganda machine, I can’t just say this because I don’t think it will be productive to the conversation about the actual bill.

I literally do not know how to have productive conversations with Fox News aficionados and I doubt they are interested in that anyway. 

We're at the point (and have been for a while) of trying to talk to people who think the sky is green, even though it's OBVIOUSLY blue, and you can't convince them otherwise.

I agree AND:

Sometimes your comments are read by someone on the line; you may be commenting on person A’s page but person B is actually the one who learns something.

If someone is white, they better speak up. I don’t care if it goes into the abyss, the day we stay silent is the day that evil becomes acceptable.