Posted on Dec 2, 2014
Should Veterans receive special treatment in Court after committing a crime?
25.9K
635
387
29
29
0
In most states, the Court is recognizing Veterans that have committed a crime and offering a different type of program to them. (In line with the probation that they may already be granted). How do the masses feel about it?
I understand the specialized need for treatment for certain Veterans and that everyone should be treated as an individual, on a case by case basis, which I hope is how this would be carried out by all, but for those with significant criminal histories, should they get the specialized options?
I understand the specialized need for treatment for certain Veterans and that everyone should be treated as an individual, on a case by case basis, which I hope is how this would be carried out by all, but for those with significant criminal histories, should they get the specialized options?
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 195
2
2
0
I too feel that it needs to be decided on a case by case basis. I do not believe that a veteran that is otherwise normal and does not have PTSD or Brain Injuries from combat should be treated and anyone else that committed the offense they are accused of. For those that are not familiar with the old axiom, if you can't do the time, don't do the crime holds for everyone!
I don't really believe that giving a wounded warrior, especially with PTSD, the benefit of the doubt and working to get them help they have earned and deserve rather than throwing them into a prison because it is easier to sweep under the carpet than deal with. I also do not think it is fair for a veteran, active or not, to receive higher levels of punishment for protecting themselves in violent situations just because of the training they received.
I don't really believe that giving a wounded warrior, especially with PTSD, the benefit of the doubt and working to get them help they have earned and deserve rather than throwing them into a prison because it is easier to sweep under the carpet than deal with. I also do not think it is fair for a veteran, active or not, to receive higher levels of punishment for protecting themselves in violent situations just because of the training they received.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
I see the answers to your question go off on several tangents. I see this as fairly simple.
(1) If in a civilian court, no. Equal justice for all. If the crime was committed because of some psychological factor, it should have the same attention as a civilian who had psychological factors. Some judges have been know to go lighter on a veteran than a civilian because of their contribution in a combat zone or even for serving when others have not, but that is normally on lesser charges.
(2) In a military court . . . yes . . . Isn't that why we have our own special laws and codes such as the Uniform Code of Military Justice. We have various level of justice such as Office Hours or Article 15 and different levels of Courts Martials?
(1) If in a civilian court, no. Equal justice for all. If the crime was committed because of some psychological factor, it should have the same attention as a civilian who had psychological factors. Some judges have been know to go lighter on a veteran than a civilian because of their contribution in a combat zone or even for serving when others have not, but that is normally on lesser charges.
(2) In a military court . . . yes . . . Isn't that why we have our own special laws and codes such as the Uniform Code of Military Justice. We have various level of justice such as Office Hours or Article 15 and different levels of Courts Martials?
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
I have always felt that the best form of discipline was to use the minimum force necessary to alter the behavior. I use that with my children; I use that with my Soldiers.
In the case of crime, a judge needs to decide what kind of cat stands in front of them. My personal opinion:
1. First-time offender who made a mistake - this person is probably embarrassed by their behavior and wants to make amends. Most effective response: a mentor who can guide them away from making mistakes and give them alternatives.
2. First-time offender who is on a bad path - this person might not understand that their life is at a crossroads. Most effective response: some sort of "scared straight" program. This person needs to look into the abyss and decide to turn away... or not.
3. Repeat offender with an addiction problem (ie drugs, kleptomania, sexual offenders) - need professional help, not jail. They may struggle forever with their disorders, but with correct treatment, may be functional and not dangerous to society.
4. Repeat offenders that commit crimes for "entertainment" or some kind of "getting even with those who have things that I don't"- most likely, these people are running with the wrong crowd. Most effective: hook them up with the "right crowd". This is something the military excels at - and a reason that once upon a time enlisting was an alternative sentence.
5. Repeat offenders who are genuine sociopaths - people who have a problem and act out by attacking others. Most effective: lock them up and throw away the key.
I realize that this is a bit simplistic, but a judge has to measure what will be most effective at ending the behavior. In my opinion, mandatory sentences are wrong-headed.
In the case of veterans, there is a very high probability that they fall into a category where prison is not the right answer. A court that specializes in common veterans' issues will have a better chance to find the right solutions.
In the case of crime, a judge needs to decide what kind of cat stands in front of them. My personal opinion:
1. First-time offender who made a mistake - this person is probably embarrassed by their behavior and wants to make amends. Most effective response: a mentor who can guide them away from making mistakes and give them alternatives.
2. First-time offender who is on a bad path - this person might not understand that their life is at a crossroads. Most effective response: some sort of "scared straight" program. This person needs to look into the abyss and decide to turn away... or not.
3. Repeat offender with an addiction problem (ie drugs, kleptomania, sexual offenders) - need professional help, not jail. They may struggle forever with their disorders, but with correct treatment, may be functional and not dangerous to society.
4. Repeat offenders that commit crimes for "entertainment" or some kind of "getting even with those who have things that I don't"- most likely, these people are running with the wrong crowd. Most effective: hook them up with the "right crowd". This is something the military excels at - and a reason that once upon a time enlisting was an alternative sentence.
5. Repeat offenders who are genuine sociopaths - people who have a problem and act out by attacking others. Most effective: lock them up and throw away the key.
I realize that this is a bit simplistic, but a judge has to measure what will be most effective at ending the behavior. In my opinion, mandatory sentences are wrong-headed.
In the case of veterans, there is a very high probability that they fall into a category where prison is not the right answer. A court that specializes in common veterans' issues will have a better chance to find the right solutions.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Yes, by all means! The need to fix the underlying behavior will make that veteran less of a drain of resources and by virtue of their service, it is the least we can do.
(2)
(0)
SSG Buddy Kemper
Was working patrol last week and got into a conversation with our Captain over corrections in our County jail. He's a Vietnam vet/Marine chopper pilot. He was commenting to me that a VA rep had been visiting the jail...seems we have a significant number of vets in the inmate population. Made me sad on New Years eve day.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
No. They committed a crime. They should get the same punishment as our civilian counterparts. But there should be some consideration due to there may be some under lying issues (PTSD, drug/alcohol abuse).
But to give them a pass because they put the uniform on is no reason for special privileges.
But to give them a pass because they put the uniform on is no reason for special privileges.
(2)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
No one is saying a pass, there are always consequences but most deserve that chance at being productive citizens and not outcasts needing a handout. Do we sweep HUMANS under a rug, If you were born in Africa and starving would you be so quick to judge who you do not know? Something to ponder.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
I think we all can agree to an extent that we must keep in mind the enduring debt we owe our country’s military Veterans. There are serious challenges our men and women face when returning home. Sadly some of the challenges they face are substance abuse, psychological health issues. Even sadder is that it can often lead to destructive and criminal behaviors.
Let's not kid ourselves, many of these issues have a direct connection to combat trauma, MST, and other service related connections. Does it require appropriate measure to address them? most certainly. Unlike most courts, veteran's courts were modeled after drug courts. Their inception (Veteran Courts) in 2008 were to do just that, to treat Veterans who suffered from substance abuse(alcohol or drug) and mental health issues. The courts are designed to address the particular needs when Veterans are entering the criminal justice system. Is it a perfect system? no, it's far from perfect but it's start.
Like most Veteran Treatment Courts(VTCs), in the 30 or so states that have I have researched so far, there is startling theme. Judicial, correctional, drug/alcohol treatment centers, mental health providers, faith based counseling and other community support groups collaborate with one another to make sure these veterans get the treatment they need. With the help of VTCs, Veterans get sober, they recover, they get some stability to get back on the right track to becoming responsible citizens in their community. This program also promotes public safety. We've all heard the bad stuff concerning Veterans, PTS/PTSD and the media blows it so way out of proportion and its so negative, of course there's always a stigma about Veterans.
Drawbacks, sure there's drawbacks, this is a court system that is still new, not every state has a court in each county. Some states are talking about having a court in major cities where there is heavy Veteran population. One of the unique things about VTCs is there's a screening process before they see the inside of one. Each state has a different requirement. Most courts I found share certain prerequisites, for example:
that the Veteran has been charged with a non-violent crime only
that the Veteran had been diagnosed with substance abuse and or mental health problems
as of result of their military service
In some courts, they only accept Veterans with issue directly related to their combat experiences only.
One very unique detail is that the veteran must admit guilt, there is no "plea agreement", there is no "not guilty", the veteran must admit their guilt before admitted into the program; there is accountability.
In the history of the drug and mental health courts there is precedent that holds true to today, violent offenders are excluded form the program and that framework has been applied to the VTCs. So consider this, do we exclude treatment for Veterans who commit violent crimes? Is there not some correlation between violent crimes and a Veteran's combat experiences which is inherently violent? I can't speak for everyone's combat experiences, as to how violent they were. But isn't it feasible? How many cases of domestic violence occurred on the base/post after units(s) returned from deployment did you hear about?
Ladies & gentlemen, this issue is far bigger than us. It will take time to get where we need to be. The problem can't be solved overnight as it wasn't created overnight. I'll be bluntly honest, it's hard for me to accept that someones dishonorable or other than honorable discharge is somehow less deserving of treatment from someone who served honorably. I disagree with a system that cherry picks not taking into account of set of bad circumstances have driven someone so far down a rabbit hole and for them there is no light as they look above them, no hope, I want to have hope for that someone. I know, someone may say "SSG Garza, you can't save everyone", I can't accept that, I may be the odd one here that thinks that, if so, then so be it.
Let's not kid ourselves, many of these issues have a direct connection to combat trauma, MST, and other service related connections. Does it require appropriate measure to address them? most certainly. Unlike most courts, veteran's courts were modeled after drug courts. Their inception (Veteran Courts) in 2008 were to do just that, to treat Veterans who suffered from substance abuse(alcohol or drug) and mental health issues. The courts are designed to address the particular needs when Veterans are entering the criminal justice system. Is it a perfect system? no, it's far from perfect but it's start.
Like most Veteran Treatment Courts(VTCs), in the 30 or so states that have I have researched so far, there is startling theme. Judicial, correctional, drug/alcohol treatment centers, mental health providers, faith based counseling and other community support groups collaborate with one another to make sure these veterans get the treatment they need. With the help of VTCs, Veterans get sober, they recover, they get some stability to get back on the right track to becoming responsible citizens in their community. This program also promotes public safety. We've all heard the bad stuff concerning Veterans, PTS/PTSD and the media blows it so way out of proportion and its so negative, of course there's always a stigma about Veterans.
Drawbacks, sure there's drawbacks, this is a court system that is still new, not every state has a court in each county. Some states are talking about having a court in major cities where there is heavy Veteran population. One of the unique things about VTCs is there's a screening process before they see the inside of one. Each state has a different requirement. Most courts I found share certain prerequisites, for example:
that the Veteran has been charged with a non-violent crime only
that the Veteran had been diagnosed with substance abuse and or mental health problems
as of result of their military service
In some courts, they only accept Veterans with issue directly related to their combat experiences only.
One very unique detail is that the veteran must admit guilt, there is no "plea agreement", there is no "not guilty", the veteran must admit their guilt before admitted into the program; there is accountability.
In the history of the drug and mental health courts there is precedent that holds true to today, violent offenders are excluded form the program and that framework has been applied to the VTCs. So consider this, do we exclude treatment for Veterans who commit violent crimes? Is there not some correlation between violent crimes and a Veteran's combat experiences which is inherently violent? I can't speak for everyone's combat experiences, as to how violent they were. But isn't it feasible? How many cases of domestic violence occurred on the base/post after units(s) returned from deployment did you hear about?
Ladies & gentlemen, this issue is far bigger than us. It will take time to get where we need to be. The problem can't be solved overnight as it wasn't created overnight. I'll be bluntly honest, it's hard for me to accept that someones dishonorable or other than honorable discharge is somehow less deserving of treatment from someone who served honorably. I disagree with a system that cherry picks not taking into account of set of bad circumstances have driven someone so far down a rabbit hole and for them there is no light as they look above them, no hope, I want to have hope for that someone. I know, someone may say "SSG Garza, you can't save everyone", I can't accept that, I may be the odd one here that thinks that, if so, then so be it.
(2)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
SMSgt Robert Healy, I agree there should be some type of standard prerequisites and they should operate similarly in some form. Also, could a Veteran transfer his/her court case if they had to move out of state, different county? I am sure there would have to be some interstate compacts and also depending on the level of charges on the Veteran.
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
Thank for sharing your experiences and involvement as a mentor. This sheds light and provides hope for any Veteran that may run into trouble.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
2
2
0
Nope. You're a citizen like anyone else. UCMJ provides for uniquely military issues, but your career choice does not grant you special privileges in terms of civil crimes. We all live under the same social contract.
(2)
(0)
SPC Leisel Luman
MSgt Jim Pollock. I I'm no way think I'm "Special" but I did share my personal experience for consideration. I do think a Vet Rep would have helped instead of compounding the problem. I posted my personnel experience on this thread to be considered.
(1)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
MSgt Jim Pollock Regardless, if a veteran has an issue and if that issued is not rectified what next? Let him remain homeless? Let he or she become a larger drain on society? You know, sometimes compassion is not a weakness for by the Grace of God go we.
(1)
(0)
MSgt Jim Pollock
Agreed regarding compassion. Where there are special circumstances eg PTSD, homelessness, etc. a helping hand should be extended. IMO, that's applicable regardless of someone's veteran status. If a person ends up in a criminal court due to these types of issues, that's a societal failure that extends beyond this issue.
That said, I stand by my position that veteran status alone does not place anyone above the law. I'll concede that honorable service can be a mitigating factor in sentencing, but nothing more.
Scofflaw veterans damage a tremendous benefit of service. Veterans are typically granted benefit of the doubt in terms of personal integrity and honor. Post-service, that is extremely valuable.
That said, I stand by my position that veteran status alone does not place anyone above the law. I'll concede that honorable service can be a mitigating factor in sentencing, but nothing more.
Scofflaw veterans damage a tremendous benefit of service. Veterans are typically granted benefit of the doubt in terms of personal integrity and honor. Post-service, that is extremely valuable.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
No! Period. Although I would stand behind stiffer punishment.
I recognize that there are exceptions to every rule, and that sometimes there might be a lot of gray around crime circumstances. However, a soldier, sailor, or airman have all been trained to achieve higher results, to act with honor and courage, and to defend the constitution. Breaking a law is simply not acceptable, and should be punished. And when the trust that has been bestowed upon us is violated, the punishment should be more stern IMHO.
I recognize that there are exceptions to every rule, and that sometimes there might be a lot of gray around crime circumstances. However, a soldier, sailor, or airman have all been trained to achieve higher results, to act with honor and courage, and to defend the constitution. Breaking a law is simply not acceptable, and should be punished. And when the trust that has been bestowed upon us is violated, the punishment should be more stern IMHO.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Here is an example of the a Veterans Court working for the veteran and not necessarily punishing him. http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/story/news/local/2015/01/31/ex-marines-path-sobriety-began-veterans-court/22657959/
Ex-Marine's path to sobriety began with Veterans Court
Participating in Brown County specialty treatment court may have saved his life, he says.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google