Relates to judicial diversion programs; repealer

◆ The sponsor's argument

Why Jessica Ramos says this is needed

This bill will ensure that New Yorkers with substance use disorders, mental health concerns, and other disabilities have an off-ramp from the criminal legal system to obtain treatment and support in their communi- ties. Currently, mental health or other treatment courts are not avail- able in most counties in the state, and many treatment courts have significant barriers to access that ensure that, often, the people most in need of treatment and support are not able to get them. This bill will expand existing law authorizing drug treatment courts to accept people with mental health concerns, intellectual disabilities and other disabilities that impair their functioning in society. Important- ly, the bill also requires state courts to ensure that people with disa- bilities (as defined by the federal Americans with Disabilities Act) who participate in judicial diversion programs are afforded the protections they are entitled to, pursuant to OLMSTEAD V. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999), while undergoing treatment. This legislation amends Criminal Procedure Law Article 216 to create treatment court alternatives for people with disabilities. This means not only people with substance use disorders or mental illness, but also people with intellectual disabilities, traumat- ic brain injury, dementia, chronic diseases, significant physical impairments or other conditions that may have contributed to the defend- ant's involvement in the criminal legal system or that would make jail or prison a crueler outcome than for people without disabilities. The bill also removes significant barriers to entry that ensure that the people most in need of help can get it. The bill increases due process protections for people with cases in these courts to ensure that they are not jailed or remanded summarily. Finally, the bill extends treat- ment courts to people charged with misdemeanor offenses. There are thou- sands of people who are frequently targeted by police and/or arrested for low-level misdemeanors or violations. To the extent that people are likely to serve jail time related to these charges, these people should also have access to treat- ment courts if they so desire. All partic- ipants in judicial diversion programs will be entitled to robust privacy protections afforded by federal law with only limited exceptions. The Treatment Not Jail Act clarifies that admission to a judicial diver- sion program will no longer require a plea of guilty in New York State. A pre-plea, pre-adjudication pro gram preserves due process rights, allows accused people an opportunity to seek treatment, and provides a strong incentive for successful completion. If the participant success- fully completes the program, the charge is dismissed. If the participant does not succeed, the traditional court process can be pursued. This change recognizes the strong body of scientific evidence that shows that long-term success for treatment of addiction or mental illness requires buy-in from the participant. Courts that rely on coercive methods will not achieve the legislature's long-term goal of fostering lasting treat- ment success. Finally, the Treatment Not Jail Act does not exclude participants based on alleged offenses. Data indicates that a person with mental illness is more likely to be a victim of violent crime than the perpetrator. See Noman Ghiasi, Yusra Azhar & Jasbir Singh, "Psychiatric Illness and Criminality," StatPearls (2020). Additionally, studies show that diver- sion programs promote public safety and that people charged with "violent" offenses do just as well in treatment as those charged with "non-violent" ones. Michelle Naples & Henry J. Steadman "Can Persons with Co-occurring Disorders and Violent Charges Be Successfully Diverted?" 2 International Journal of Forensic Mental Health 137-143 (2003). Indeed, most acts of violence committed by people with serious mental illness are carried out when they are not being treated. Treat- ment Advocacy Center, Office

This is the sponsor's own case for the bill, quoted from their memorandum. It is not Agora's description of what the bill does.