Veterans' Court -- yea or nay?

[Aimless]

I heard in a TED-talk some time ago about veterans' courts, and at the time it struck me as a good way to help the law do good. What do you think about the concept? What's good about it? What's bad or problematic?



While trying to find more info about such courts, I came across this article:

http://www.good.is/post/why-aren-t-a...terans-courts/

Is this a position you can agree with? Do your attitudes towards crimes committed by veterans differ from your attitudes towards crimes committed by civilians? If so, why?

[Loki]

The whole piece is based on a flawed premise: the reason we have these veteran's courts is not because we think someone who experienced trauma should get special treatment, but rather that someone who experienced trauma serving the country should get special treatment.

[Aimless]

What would you say about position?

[Loki]

I'm generally opposed to treating two groups of people differently, but as long as these courts are for relatively minor crimes, I don't really mind too much. I think a better solution would be to provide veterans better mental health services as soon as they come back to the US.

[CitizenCain]

As dumb an idea as this is, I think it illustrates that pretty much nothing could do a worse job than the system we have in place now. Throw open the floodgates and let everyone have a shot at something resembling justice, instead of the system of popular sociopaths upholding the decrees of other popular sociopaths and sending people to jail for the rest of their lives for hurting no one but themselves.

Like I say, you really want to serve your country, you fight to the death when they come for you. It won't take many bloodbaths until the cost outweighs the benefit and our politicians have to take a hard look at whether or not our legislated morality is worth the blood. This calculus is appearantly absent when it's just millions of civilian lives ruined... maybe war hero lives and cop lives senselessly wasted will shift the equation.

[wiggin]

I don't get it - why shouldn't a judge in a normal court be able to take the offender's history into account during sentencing? Why have a special court for what can (and should) be done as a matter of course? Furthermore, shouldn't we focus on making sure our veterans receive adequate services to deal with PTSD/etc. rather than just being easy on them when things go wrong?

[CitizenCain]

I don't get it - why shouldn't a judge in a normal court be able to take the offender's history into account during sentencing?

Laws aimed at the effective elimination of anything resembling discretion, usually.

[wiggin]

Mandatory sentencing guidelines are an issue, of course, but the solution isn't to make special case courts, but to change the guidelines to give judges more latitude. For that matter, it's my understanding that most of the crimes dealt with here were non-violent, which would eliminate most of the (non-drug) cases with mandatory sentencing anyways. These courts are not solving the underlying issue, so should not be adopted as a band-aid.

[Flixy]

Mandatory sentencing guidelines are an issue, of course, but the solution isn't to make special case courts, but to change the guidelines to give judges more latitude. For that matter, it's my understanding that most of the crimes dealt with here were non-violent, which would eliminate most of the (non-drug) cases with mandatory sentencing anyways. These courts are not solving the underlying issue, so should not be adopted as a band-aid.

Yes, but people like the tough-on-crime-mandatory-sentencing bullshit, but love veterans. This is probably easier to sell?

Which reminds me, there are people advocating mandatory sentencing here as well And last week or so there was a big report done on sentencing. Contrary to popular belief, judges have not been more lenient lately, average sentencing for murder and manslaughter has risen by about two years in the past 5 years, complying with sentencing guidance. The piece also yet again showed the stupidity of certain politicians again.. Turns out that sentences are on average about two years lower than what the prosecutors asked for. When asked, politicians expressed surprise, outrage, and want this to be looked into. On the contrary, the prosecutors (who, of all people, would be upset about this if there was any reason), said they'd be more worried if there was no difference at all, because that would indicate serious issues with criminal defense system.