Criminal Threats: schools and places of religious worship.
If enacted, AB 2768 would create a new category of crime specifically for threats made against school administrators and members of religious organizations. This addition to the Penal Code is intended to reinforce the legal framework surrounding safety in these critical social institutions by holding offenders accountable. Furthermore, the bill emphasizes that any communication—whether verbal, written, or electronic—that instills fear in its victims could lead to penalties including imprisonment, thereby potentially serving as a deterrent against such threats.
Assembly Bill 2768, introduced by Assembly Member Melendez, seeks to amend Section 422 of the Penal Code concerning criminal threats, specifically targeting threats made against individuals at schools and places of religious worship. The bill aims to establish that any willful threat of committing a crime resulting in death or serious injury within these settings, even if the intent to carry out the act is not present, constitutes a criminal act. This provision aims to address escalating safety concerns in educational and religious environments, where individuals may reasonably fear for their safety due to such threats.
The general sentiment regarding AB 2768 appears to be supportive among lawmakers and community members concerned about safety in schools and places of worship. Proponents argue that the bill is necessary to enhance the protection of vulnerable populations, particularly students and congregants, from threats that can cause lasting emotional and psychological distress. However, there may be concerns about the scope of the law and how it will be enforced, particularly regarding what constitutes a credible threat and its implications for free speech.
Despite the support for AB 2768, there are potential points of contention regarding its implementation. Critics may raise concerns about the vagueness of what constitutes a threat, risking unnecessary criminalization of individuals who may not genuinely intend harm. Additionally, the lack of a state reimbursement for local agencies incurring costs associated with this new crime may lead to pushback from communities worried about unfunded mandates impacting local budgets. Balancing the need for safety with fair legal practices will be an essential discussion point as the bill moves through the legislative process.