Special Courts for Returning Vets? What Do We Owe Them?

by Diane Dimond

In America, everyone is supposed to be equal in the eyes of the law. But we’ve got a growing group, a particular class of defendants, entering American courtrooms who I believe need special consideration. They are soldiers returning from war.

Several studies conclude that between 30% to 40% of the approximately 1.6 million vets of Iraq and Afghanistan will "face serious mental-health injuries" like Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and problems from traumatic brain injuries. Experts in the field report both those conditions are linked to anti-social and criminal behavior.

Now, to me those numbers–up to 40% of the troops afflicted–seem high. But if it’s even half that number, that’s too many brave souls returning home needing special help. So, what do we do with soldiers, who put their lives on hold to go to a foreign land to fight for our liberty, when they come home and get into trouble with the law?

To be clear, I’m not referring to the highly publicized cases where a returning soldier has committed murder. Those cases have caused many to think, Well, you train these young men to kill . . . they come home and kill.

But there is no research, let me repeat that, there is no research, to indicate vets commit violent crimes more often than civilians. In fact, if you extrapolate government statistics for murders committed by men ages 18 to 24, it’s the civilian who is more likely to kill someone, not the vet. I’m referring here to those anti-social, behavioral problems experts report that so many of our returning soldiers suffer from in silence. Problems with substance abuse, paranoia, flashbacks, and bursts of unexplained temper, problems so debilitating the vet takes out their frustrations on loved ones or commits suicide.

Judge Robert Russell in Buffalo, New York (below right) noticed the trend last year. Disturbed after seeing some 300 vets come through his court, he started what’s believed to be the nation’s very first “Veteran’s Court” for those having problems re-adjusting to civilian life. The charges against these defendants range from public drunkenness and assault, driving while intoxicated, drug-related offenses, disturbing the peace, theft, domestic violence, and other emotion-driven violations.

The goal of this specialized court is to intercept troubled veterans before they spiral down and get lost in our already overwhelmed criminal justice system.

The soft-spoken Judge Russell figured everyone would benefit if the vets could answer for their crimes in a special place that offered treatment not just punishment and a courtroom staff that included veteran advocates and assigned mentors. No veteran who appears can fall back on the self pitying thought that, "No one here knows what I’ve been through," because everyone in the room completely understands. Judge Russell is firm, however, demanding atonement and adherence to a one- to two-year individualized treatment plan. He meets regularly with each veteran face-to-face to follow the progress. Failures get the original sentence for their crime.

“Many of our vets have a warrior mentality,” Judge Russell explained in a radio interview. “Some perceive that treatment may be for the weak and we’re working to change that paradigm.” Judge Russell instills the idea that “the real courage and strength comes from the warrior who asks for help.” He’s encouraged by the progress he’s seen.

Criminal justice professionals all across America realize when the soldiers start streaming home they will also have to grapple with the problem of their re-adjustment to society. So, Judge Russell’s special Veteran’s Court idea has been studied nationwide and has now either been adopted in or is being considered by several other states including Alaska, Pennsylvania, California, and Arizona.

One supporter is retired Air Force Colonel and Attorney Billy Little, who told the Arizona Republic, "One of the things that [has] offended me is seeing a veteran who is self-medicating with alcohol or marijuana or meth and going to court and standing side by side with some gangbanger or lifetime criminal and being treated the same as them."

I can’t think of a bigger travesty. To answer the soldier’s service with a jail sentence for behavior that might very well stem from their service makes a mockery of their bravery. To toss the offending veteran in prison alongside the truly hardened criminal is akin to society saying they aren’t worth the trouble.

We already have about 2,000 Special Treatment Courts in America to help those struggling with addiction. There are another 200 Mental Health Courts and both have been successful in strategic support and treatment for Americans in need. Don’t our returning soldiers deserve a special place too?

It really all comes down to this: By the very virtue of these veterans sacrifice for our freedom does the country owe them something extra upon their return? Of course we do.

Tweet

Jury Duty: Drama and Trauma

by Donna Pendergast

The paperwork has arrived, the die has been cast: You have been summoned for jury duty. Unless you are excused by the court because you fit one of a few limited exceptions, you will be pulled away from your daily routine to report to the courthouse at the date and time indicated, ready to fulfill your civic duty. But are you really prepared for what fulfilling your civic responsibility may entail?

Imagine being the juror who has to listen to testimony about a serial murderer and his/her path of death and destruction. Try to comprehend being a juror in the trial of Jeffrey Dahmer (mugshot right) and having to listen to testimony about multiple murders and cannibalism.

The juror experience is a unique one, especially in a criminal case involving death or violent physical injury. Unlike television, in a courtroom, the horror and gore are for real. Jurors in a way become victims of the crime. They have front row seats where they see the blood, hear disturbing testimony, view the horrific photographs, and become a part of the crime scene in a way that becomes very real to them.

Those horrific details can leave jurors emotionally depleted. Crimes involving physical violence to children or the death of a child can be especially traumatic to jurors who are not prepared to deal with the emotional impact of that sort of grizzly testimony.

In death penalty cases where jurors have a life in their hands the stress factor is usually considerably magnified. Jurors watch as defendants' families and friends beg for mercy while weighing those pleas against horrific and brutal facts. They then contemplate taking the life of another human being and ultimately render a life or death judgment.

Studies have found that trial-induced stress—related to disturbing testimony, concern over personal safety issues (especially in violent gang-related crimes), and the court's prohibiting jurors from discussing troubling issues with their normal support network—can affect mental health and cause post-trial psychological problems. While some jurors may go away from the jury experience relatively unscathed, others may have a much harder time dealing with what they have seen and heard. Stress-related maladies ranging from anxiety and sleeplessness to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder have been reported by jurors.

Traditionally, jurors end their jury service by coming to an exhausting and usually emotionally charged decision. They are then sent home to resume their daily routines without any assessment of whether or not the events of the trial might have had any impact on their mental and emotional health.

Increasingly, courts are recognizing that compelling jurors to take part in a gruesome or high-profile trial situation can result in juror trauma and are offering counseling to jurors who might want help sorting through issues related to the trial. This trend, known as jury debriefing, is usually offered to jurors by professional counselors immediately following the trial.

The debriefing counseling can take many forms—ranging from a group talk session where jurors are reassured that their feelings are normal, to more intensive individualized counseling sessions. The counselors are also adept at spotting individuals who might be more severely affected by the impact of what they have seen and heard and can assist them in accessing more resources in the future if necessary.

In Washington State, Seattle's King County Court system was one of the first jurisdictions to offer juror counseling beginning in 1998. They have an ongoing contract with a local mental health center to provide services to jurors who may be traumatized by the juror experience. In Texas, a bill offering up to ten hours of juror counseling was approved by the legislature and signed into law on September 1, 2008. Other jurisdictions, including Florida, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, and Wisconsin, have implemented programs which give jurors access to counseling services to help counteract the negative psychological effects which may result from jury service.

Despite a demonstrated need, the implementation of programs offering counseling services to jurors has been hampered by a lack of funding sources necessary to pay for those services. The economic recession has resulted in lean state and local government budgets leaving no room for discretionary services.

Which leaves us asking the question: What is the judicial system's responsibility to jurors who have fulfilled their civic duty by serving on a jury and paid a high psychological price in the process?

That question is still being answered.

Statements made in this post are my own and are not intended to reflect the views, opinions, or position of the Michigan Attorney General or the Michigan Department of Attorney General.

Tweet