Sacramento County Sheriff Jim Cooper shared a story this week on X highlighting the case of Jason Hankins, a 46-year-old man with a rap sheet going back almost three decades.
Months ago, I made my concerns known about the dangers of the broken Mental Health Diversion law. Last week, another incident proved those concerns are justified and are routinely playing out.
My detectives arrested 46-year-old Jason Hankins for a drive-by shooting that left a… pic.twitter.com/RQsTFfDMPm
— Jim Cooper (@SheriffJCooper) August 18, 2025
Hankins had been arrested over the years for robberies, shootings, and other crimes. Yet thanks to California’s “Mental Health Diversion Program,” his record was wiped clean.
Just two weeks after finishing that program, Hankins committed a fatal drive-by shooting.
Sheriff Cooper called the program a “failed experiment” that puts violent criminals right back into neighborhoods.
And looking at Hankins’ history, it’s hard to argue.
California’s Experiment with Diversion
California’s law, Penal Code 1001.36, allows judges to dismiss felony charges if someone goes through mental health treatment.
The problem, according to a 2021 RAND Corporation study, is that diversion programs only reduce repeat crimes by 10–15% for violent offenders.
In other words, they don’t work very well on hardened criminals.
Meanwhile, California’s prison population has dropped from 173,000 in 2006 to about 90,000 today. Governor Gavin Newsom has even closed five state prisons since 2019.
Critics say this focus on decarceration makes communities less safe – Hankins is now Exhibit A.
How Nevada Differs
So what does this have to do with us here in Nevada? Quite a bit, actually.
Nevada has its own diversion programs, but they are stricter.
Under Nevada law (NRS 176A.260), diversion is generally offered to nonviolent offenders who struggle with mental health or substance abuse. Violent felons, like Hankins, usually don’t qualify.
And here’s another key difference: California’s law erases convictions entirely, as if they never happened. Nevada, on the other hand, allows records to be sealed, but law enforcement can still see them.
That means a repeat offender’s history isn’t hidden from police and prosecutors.
This might seem like a small detail, but it makes a big difference. In fact, a 2024 report from the Nevada Sheriffs’ Association noted that sealed records helped officers in Reno stop a repeat offender before he committed another violent crime.
That kind of oversight is impossible under California’s “erase the record” approach.
The Recidivism Question
The big question is whether diversion actually prevents crime. Sheriff Cooper’s example suggests not; at least not for violent career criminals.
In Nevada, the Department of Corrections reported that diversion participants in 2024 had about a 12% recidivism rate, recidivism being the likelihood of a criminal to reoffend. That’s still concerning, but better than what we see in California.
Many argue it’s because Nevada screens out the worst offenders instead of giving everyone a second, third, or tenth chance.
Public Safety First
Nevada’s prison population has also declined, though not as sharply as California’s.
In 2010, Nevada housed about 13,500 inmates. By 2023, that number was down to about 10,200. Unlike California, however, Nevada hasn’t closed prisons.
Nevada lawmakers, even those who favor rehabilitation programs, haven’t gone as far down the “empty the prisons” path. Critics in California point to cases like Hankins’ as the natural outcome when politicians put ideology ahead of safety.
What Comes Next
In the 2025 Nevada legislative session, lawmakers are considering a bill (SB 142) that would further tighten diversion eligibility, making sure violent offenders can’t slip through the cracks.
Sheriff Cooper’s warning out of Sacramento should hit close to home for Nevadans. We’ve already seen crime rise in rural counties like Elko, where local police reported an 8% uptick last year, partly due to early release policies.
If Nevada expands diversion too far, we could find ourselves facing tragedies like the Hankins case.
Bottom Line
California’s “mental health diversion” system shows what happens when government puts experiments ahead of common sense.
A man with a violent history got his record erased, walked free, and killed someone just weeks later.
Nevada has taken a more cautious approach. We allow rehabilitation for those who truly need it, but we don’t erase the past for violent predators. That balance between compassion and accountability might just keep us from repeating California’s mistakes.
For lawmakers in Carson City, the Hankins case should be a flashing red warning light: public safety must always come first.
The opinions expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Nevada News & Views. This article was written with the assistance of AI. Please verify information and consult additional sources as needed.
