Should Veterans receive special treatment in Court after committing a crime?

As a veteran that personally went through a veterans court, I feel that I was very fortunate to have such an experience. I got a DUI on New Years 2012, Austin TX luckily has a vet court program that I was accepted into. Due to my BAC, I had to participate in the program for 18 months. During that time, I was required to attend multiple drug and alcohol classes as well as counseling. Much like Marine bootcamp there are 3 phases within the court and within the drug and alcohol classes. I am glad that the DUI happened since it made me realize that I was an alcoholic (like many other service members) and the court made sure that I received the correct treatment to get me on a better path. Upon SUCCESSFUL completion of the vet court program the charges are dropped and the case is expunged. There are monthly meetings with a case worker and they also require random urinalyses as well. Much like the service, you get what you get out of it. I am very thankful for veterans court and it helped me get the help that I thought I didn't need.

I have a hard time viewing this as "special treatment" when, for the most part, there are mitigating factors that coincide with the issue. If there are LOD issues that preclude the behavior, then this is just another way of dealing with the problem and trying to find the answers. I think this is just different and not special.

absolutely not

It would depend on the crime and the vets background. PTS and TBI should be considered.

I am a ret Tsgt and have been a corrections officer for 14 years. I have seen many people come in and out through my jail, many are veterans. These inmates have done amazing things for this country in Iraq/Afgahnastan, but di not recieve the help form the service upon there dishcharge from the service. I feel as though Veterans court is a good start bur alot more needs to be done. Many of these individuals are in for PTSD related crimes, they try to help through the DOD/VA can't so they keep ending up in jail.

Of course everything has to be determined on a case by case basis so the crime and the severity has to figure in the sentencing.

One point of consideration is that several generations have grown up without military service and the concept seems very distant, much like the conflicts in faraway lands, but the demands made on our service members are far too real. Even the majority of our leadership have been unwilling to accept responsibility to service even as they are being handed the reins of authority.

Veterans are the ones who have shouldered the responsibility and in many cases carry the "scars" associated with the awesome responsibility.

This is not to imply that veterans are maladjusted or pose greater risks to civil society rather we should be cognizant that in many instances "unresolved issues" as a result of service could sometimes lead to extemporaneous circumstance.

Having veterans specifically empaneled to sit in on juries associated with veteran crimes may be useful in determining the level of consideration that may be warranted as a consequence of their service.

No...I believe that there should be no differential treatment for veterans...If and when we commit a crime we should be punished as everyone else. The dishonor and shame itself is even greater....

When I saw this question, some names quickly came to mind. They are Timothy McVeigh, John Wayne Muhammad, Jeffrey Dahmer and Lee Harvey Oswald. These are some of the most infamous men in American history; all veterans. The answer to the question is NO! Every service branch has a set of core values that if adhered to will distance anyone, veteran or not, from interaction with the criminal justice system.

As a retired veteran (20 years Navy), I committed a crime 4 years after retirement mainly out of anger and frustration, and was put on probation, then about 18 months later was charged with another crime. Since I violated my probation, I was sentenced to 6 months in the county prison. I did not receive any special treatment even though the circumstances for the second crime and the way it occurred were an accident.

I did my time and am a better person for it even though it has separated mefrom living with my family.

I'm of two minds about this one.

I object to "Veterans" getting special treatment, but support treatment based on the convicted person's actual condition.

If that means that "Veterans" with PTSD get the same treatment as non-veterans with PTSD, I'm for it. If that means that "Veterans" without PTSD get the same treatment as non-veterans without PTSD, I'm for it. If that means that people with PTSD get different treatment (designed to assist them in coping with PTSD) than people without PTSD, I'm for it. If what is actually meant is that "Veterans" get free "Get Out Of Jail" cards simply because they are veterans - I'm AGAINST it.

As far as "those with significant criminal histories" are concerned, the real question is whether the PTSD is a causative factor which has to be taken into account (and it may well be).

[ASIDE - Although the medical establishment doesn't agree with me, I believe that the acronym PTSD is an inaccuracy and the condition should be called Post Stress Traumatic Disorder (PSTD). This might seem to be a picky and pedantic distinction, but I believe that it is actually a more accurate description of the condition since the "trauma" can be caused by long duration low level stressors just as easily as it can be caused by short duration high level stressors and limiting any discussion to the "SDHLS" precludes the identification and remediation of conditions brought on by the "LDLLS". This is just the opinion of a ground-pounder so any input from the medical side on whether misidentifying a medical/psychological condition interferes with treatment and/or whether this semantic change might be beneficial, would be appreciated.]