Site search
sponsored by
Home
News
A compromise has kept the battle going to maintain Laura’s Law, which passed in the wake of the infamous Jan. 10, 2001, shooting spree in western Nevada County.
The bill that would have eliminated the Jan. 1, 2008, sunset date for the law was amended in an assembly committee to push that date to Jan. 1, 2013. The amended bill also calls for a review of Laura’s Law programs.
Laura’s Law would allow California counties to involuntarily treat mental health patients with a court order if they are a threat to themselves or others. It is named after Laura Wilcox, one of three people fatally shot by mental health patient Scott Thorpe in Nevada City and Grass Valley five years ago.
The bill was introduced with a provision to eliminate the sunset date but a compromise was reached with opponents to extend it and review its programs, according to Dawn Adler, a representative of Assemblywoman Betty Karnette, D-Long Beach, Karnette is sponsoring the bill with Assembly Speaker pro Tem Leland Yee, D-San Francisco/Daly City.
They crafted the bill with Nick and Amanda Wilcox, the parents of 19-year-old Laura who live in Penn Valley and have become anti-gun violence advocates since her death.
Nick Wilcox said Wednesday he and his wife knew the full elimination of the sunset date might be compromised going in, and was not bothered by the move. The important thing, he said, is to get the bill in place so that counties can utilize it.
“Laura’s mother and I believe that if the court order and treatment envisioned under Laura’s Law had been available to her killer’s family, she might still be alive today,” he said.
Laura’s Law has only been mplemented for outgoing Los Angeles County jail inmates in a small, pilot program. The law was not funded after it passed in 2002, so no other county has utilized it.
Nevada County promised to implement the law in a lawsuit settled with the Wilcox family over Laura’s death. It remains to be seen if the new Prop. 63 funds for mental health services across the state can be used for Laura’s Law.
Those joining the Wilcox family to get the new bill passed include the California Psychiatric Association, California Medical Association and the California chapter of the National Alliance on Mental Illness. They contend the law would provide an alternative to putting seriously mentally ill patients in jails or medical hospitals, which is often the case in a crisis situation.
Opponents include California Network of Mental Health Clients, the California Psychological Association and Protection and Advocacy, Inc. Those groups contend hospitalizing people without their consent is wrong and stigmatizes the mentally ill.
The bill has moved to another committee and will have to be passed by the Assembly and the state Senate before it could get to the governor’s desk for signature into law.
<I>To contact senior staff writer Dave Moller, e-mail davem@theunion.com or call 477-4237.</I>
The bill that would have eliminated the Jan. 1, 2008, sunset date for the law was amended in an assembly committee to push that date to Jan. 1, 2013. The amended bill also calls for a review of Laura’s Law programs.
Laura’s Law would allow California counties to involuntarily treat mental health patients with a court order if they are a threat to themselves or others. It is named after Laura Wilcox, one of three people fatally shot by mental health patient Scott Thorpe in Nevada City and Grass Valley five years ago.
The bill was introduced with a provision to eliminate the sunset date but a compromise was reached with opponents to extend it and review its programs, according to Dawn Adler, a representative of Assemblywoman Betty Karnette, D-Long Beach, Karnette is sponsoring the bill with Assembly Speaker pro Tem Leland Yee, D-San Francisco/Daly City.
They crafted the bill with Nick and Amanda Wilcox, the parents of 19-year-old Laura who live in Penn Valley and have become anti-gun violence advocates since her death.
Nick Wilcox said Wednesday he and his wife knew the full elimination of the sunset date might be compromised going in, and was not bothered by the move. The important thing, he said, is to get the bill in place so that counties can utilize it.
“Laura’s mother and I believe that if the court order and treatment envisioned under Laura’s Law had been available to her killer’s family, she might still be alive today,” he said.
Laura’s Law has only been mplemented for outgoing Los Angeles County jail inmates in a small, pilot program. The law was not funded after it passed in 2002, so no other county has utilized it.
Nevada County promised to implement the law in a lawsuit settled with the Wilcox family over Laura’s death. It remains to be seen if the new Prop. 63 funds for mental health services across the state can be used for Laura’s Law.
Those joining the Wilcox family to get the new bill passed include the California Psychiatric Association, California Medical Association and the California chapter of the National Alliance on Mental Illness. They contend the law would provide an alternative to putting seriously mentally ill patients in jails or medical hospitals, which is often the case in a crisis situation.
Opponents include California Network of Mental Health Clients, the California Psychological Association and Protection and Advocacy, Inc. Those groups contend hospitalizing people without their consent is wrong and stigmatizes the mentally ill.
The bill has moved to another committee and will have to be passed by the Assembly and the state Senate before it could get to the governor’s desk for signature into law.
<I>To contact senior staff writer Dave Moller, e-mail davem@theunion.com or call 477-4237.</I>
