This week’s news events include the one-year anniversary of a crazy guy’s tragic, senseless killing of Las Cruces Police Officer Jonah Hernandez and the trial of Officer Brad Lunsford for the tragic (and perhaps unnecessary) death of Presley Eze, who was passing through town. Let me quickly add that I do not pre-judgee Officer Lunsford,. I damned sure pre-judge Hernandez’s killer, because the video leaves no room for reasonable doubt that his action was unjustifiable.
These are evidence that we need better criminal competency laws – and a citizen’s police oversight board. The Hernandez killing occurred in the context of a public demand for a better balance between defendants’ rights and the rights of citizens not to be victimized repeatedly by offenders who can’t be tried, because of their mental incompetency, but aren’t “dangerous” enough to commit, pending trial, to protect the public. The Eze killing occurred in the context of a disproportionate number of “questionable” officer killings of civilians, for which we have recently paid out tens of millions of dollars. (Wednesday, a jury found Lunsford guilty of voluntary manslaughter, a verdict sure to be appealed.)
There’s real progress toward a legislative reform of the competency issue. Since lawyer Joe Cervantes, a powerful state senator who strongly opposed the less thought-out bills that Governor Lujan-Grisham urged a 2024 special session to consider, is a sponsor of this legislation, I like its chances.
H.B. 4 would provide for “community-based competency restoration” for non-dangerous defendants, while expanding the list of crimes that could spark involuntary commitment. It would smooth out the legal process to treat rather than punish non-dangerous defendants whose mental limitations mean they can’t legally be tried, but also that jailing them may not help. This follows pilot-program experience, including here, with improving how we bring people needing treatment together with people providing treatment. That’s gotta help.
It’ll help more if we also pass three bills intended to rebuild New Mexico’s behavioral health system, savaged by then-Governor Susana Martinez ten years ago. Legislative leaders have noted that better laws regarding therapy for defendants can’t do much if therapy isn’t readily available.
We should deep-six a stupid bill that’d increase fentanyl-trafficking sentences. Jailing people often makes things worse, and the feds tried something similar that didn’t work. Too, I suspect some people selling small amounts do so to feed their own habit – and don’t deserve a huge sentence. With marijuana isn’t, I remember college friends saying “If you find some weed, buy a lid for me too.” That’d make someone a “trafficker.”
Meanwhile, we must take such sensible actions as we can to minimize chances of deaths like Eze’s, Amelia Baca’s, Antonio Valenzuela’s, and Teresa ($20 million) Gomez’s. One important step is an oversight commission. In ___, the City Council directed that proponents and city staff, including law enforcement, discuss and refine a citizens’ proposal and bring it back on the agenda. Mayor Ken Miyagashima, who’d opposed the commission’s action, slyly sabotaged the project by assigning discussions to a semi-secret committee he and fellow opponent Tessa Abeyta controlled, and permitting no discussion. The council should insist that staff follow the council’s command by having the City Attorney, Police Chief Jeremy Story, and others meet with citizens to refine the proposal for a yea-or-nay vote. Lives matter – and so do millions of public bucks.
We should all mourn Jonah Hernandez, a good guy who did NOTHING to deserve getting slaughtered.
– 30 --
[The above column appeared Sunday, 16 February, in the Las Cruces Sun-News and should be posted soon on the newspaper’s website, as well as on the KRWG website under Local Viewpoints. A shortened and sharpened radio commentary version will air during the week on KRWG (90.1 FM) and on KTAL-LP (101.5 FM / http://www.lccommunityradio.org/). ]
[One stray thought: reading about Lunsford’s possible sentence, it startled me to find mention of a possible firearm enhancement. Maybe the law touches on this, but my first thought was that Lunsford should NOT be subject to that. Firearm enhancement exists because firearms are especially dangerous and most of us aren’t carrrying one during most of our interactions with others. Often, we would need to bring one specially. It ain’t so, for a cop. He’s carrying the damned thing almost always, certainly when in uniform. Therefore it’s always within reach, if there’s a dispute or he’s in danger, or thinks he is. So, I don’t think he should suffer extra punishment. It ain’t like he carried a gun specially into a discussion with an ex-girlfriend, or whatever. (This isn’t anything I’ve thought-out or researched, but a first impression.) ]