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

It depends on the circumstances but I do believe veterans courts are beneficial. Vets with mental illness or PTSD may not really comprehend the seriousness of their crimes. They really need to be understood and helped. And we can't just treat everyone the same. Because some people just indiscriminately, intentionally with no remorse commit crimes against property and persons. They know what they have done planned it and carried it out. Those are individuals that do not deserve reasonable doubt.

If a veteran does have PTSD or some other mitigating condition then that should be taken into account and the vet get the proper treatment. A good example would be a vet with PTSD and a problem in crowds gets bumped hard and goes off. That would be a mitigating circumstance to me.

Continued... City judge barely thumbed through the documents. The little Podunk city got thousands of dollars into the city coffers and I got labeled for life. My license was suspend for 6 months. I chose not to get my license back because of fear of being pulled over with my daughter in the car. My closest family is 7 hours away and that would put my kid in child protective services nightmare. My dad said that city has such a history of corruption that they all should be put under the jail. To answer your question yes vets need help but not because we are SPECIAL. A veteran legal representative may have been able to see that I was it least treated fairly. Think about what that label would do to your life, your career, your volunteer opportunities. I have to stop here before I go into all the things that would get me Baker Acted.

If a person has a significant criminal history no they should not receive special consideration. A SM who made a mistake should (depending on the charge) receive special consideration depending on the circumstances.

I believe that it should be considered. PTSD, Depression, Self treatment, these can all lead to actions that can be criminal.

As a retried veteran and criminal defense attorney, I can tell you that Veteran Courts do make a difference in allowing for individual treatment of veteran defendants. Even in courts that do not offer veteran deferral programs, I often raise the issue of the effects of war, combat, and the everyday stress of military service during allocution at sentencing. Many judges seek to understand the background of a person and exercise discretion during sentencing after they understand the person's history. I recently had a Viet Nam veteran with a 40-year history of law enforcement contact from '67 to '07, I showed that in '07 he finally made contact with the VA and started getting treatment for his PTSD. 7 years later, the doctors changed his drug protocol and it resulted in a charge - this judge routinely gives the maximum sentence with that kind of criminal history - this case results in 14 days of jail time rather than a year, because I was able to bring the history into play. I believe that in many cases, a referral to Veteran's Court is appropriate and I believe that veterans have earned at least some consideration.

I would say that it should be handled on a case by case basis; I do not believe that there should be a double standard just because an individual served. Case in point: Should Timothy McVey have received leniency in his sentencing for the OK City bombing just because he served? Should Pvt Manning receive special dispensation for having leaked national security information, just because he served. I hope everyone agrees that the answer should definitely be NO!

No one here is getting a free pass based on their Veterans status. Veterans Court, like a Drug Court, is intended to help individuals that have been in trouble with the law that need and want it. Each Veterans Court is different. Some exclude certain crimes, some exclude certain discharge statuses. But overall, it is a bit of special treatment- if they are successful, most offenses are wiped from the record like they never happened. Joe Civilian may not have that option with a matching offense. I would call that a bit of special treatment- not that I am opposed to it since it includes ALOT of hard work from the defendant/veteran.

This got me thinking, and contradicting myself too. If a soldier committed a crime they ought to be held to a higher standard, therefore a slightly more strict sentence (instead of 5-8 months in jail, civilians get 5 and we get 7-8). But if they acted put from PTSD, proven by diagnosis or not, ought to be granted help services and maybe inpatient. Otherwise refusal is jail or fine, whatever it may be. I'm not too savvy on policies nor had experienced much. A buddy vet of mine was killed by another vet. Tried to blame PTSD or insanity, ruled as just being an idiot (really, he is stupid as crap). So he should have been given a worse sentence. We represent a lot through our actions, committing a crime ought not to be taken lightly.

This article in not particularly informative as to the scope of inclusiveness into the Veterans Court program. This program is NOT intended for repeat violent offenders, nor is it "all inclusive." The program is a very selective system where the court and VA mental health professionals team up to provide more focused rehabilitation to veterans that (if left to serve out time in local jail systems like their civilian counterparts) would NOT receive proper rehabilitation or have the underlying causes of their problems addressed. It is administered by the Judge, all orders are handed down through the court and ANY violation of the imposed rules automatically terminates the veterans court program like any other probation violation and the offenders would then go directly to jail and not collect their $200. I would think if the article laid out the facts and administering guidelines of these programs (look them up they are all over the internet, by state) you would have less people thinking Veterans are getting some sort of free pass in the legal system just because they once or currently wear a uniform. That is NOT the case