Sacramento’s district attorneys just got a new tool in their playbook, and it’s stirring up real debate about what happens when criminal justice and mental health treatment collide.
Assembly Bill 46, which takes effect January 1, 2027, gives judges new authority to reject mental health diversion for people deemed a substantial risk to others. It sounds straightforward on paper—protect public safety, tighten the rules on a program some argue has been too lenient. But the nuance matters, and it’s already dividing criminal justice advocates in Northern California.
Here’s the situation: California’s mental health diversion program has allowed people facing charges to sidestep prosecution and jail time by pursuing treatment instead. The idea—get people help rather than locked up—sounds humane. But prosecutors like Sacramento DA Thien Ho argue the program has created a loophole for dangerous offenders. At a Capitol celebration of AB 46’s passage, Northern California district attorneys made their case for stricter gatekeeping. Ho acknowledged the current law still stands through the end of 2026, but signaled judges should start thinking about the new framework now.“Right now, judges have to act and view a case under the current prism of the law,”Ho said.“However, judges also understand as well that we have six, five months left in the year and at the end of that period of time, a new law.”
The backlash is swift. Criminal justice reform groups like the Ella Baker Center worry AB 46 narrows pathways to treatment precisely when mental health crises are spiking. Elk Grove Assemblymember Stephanie Nguyen framed it differently, arguing the program should serve the right individuals:“We believe the mental health diversion program is a good program but it needs to be good for the right individual and by granting it to individuals who can reoffend again in the worst possible way, it makes this program not so good of a program in the public’s eye.”
That tension—balancing accountability, rehabilitation, and public safety—sits at the heart of California’s ongoing struggle with its criminal justice system. And it won’t end with AB 46. When lawmakers return from summer break, they’re expected to consider SB 1373, which would allow courts evidentiary hearings on mental health diagnoses. The proposal is waiting for a hearing in the Assembly Appropriations Committee. Translation: Sacramento’s fight over who deserves a second chance is just heating up.
The real question isn’t whether the current program was perfect. It clearly wasn’t. The question is whether tighter rules close the door on people who genuinely need help—and whether judges and prosecutors can thread that needle responsibly.
About the Author
Andrew Johnson
Andrew Johnson is a contributor to LocalBeat, covering local news and community stories.
