How to treat emotionally wounded veterans?

John - please!!  The last thing MOST returning Vets need is to be treated differently - especially as it relates to things legal.  Yes - our guys and gals have gone through hell in this ugly war.  Yes - we owe them our unending gratitude and support.  But no - we don't owe them a free pass or blue stress card because they can't live within the definition and confines or our society.  Every soldier coming out of theater, and especially those who are returning to civilian life, goes through a battery of deflate and decompress counseling sessions.  That is where we need to ensure we identify the possible problems.  With the lack of evidence available, and not having personal knowledge of this case, I can only surmise that this was probably not this soldier's first brush with the loco weed.  It's just the first time he got caught.  I am sorry for his severe wounds, and grateful for his sacrifice, but that doesn't mean he is above or beyond the law and that a charity should look past his offense.  You and I have taken life and know that there is sometimes an adjustment to be made when dealing with that reality.  But handling Veterans with kid gloves when what is required is direction and disciplne, is akin to tax-payers paying the mortgage for people who are losing their homes due to their own fiscal irresponsibility.  But that's another story.  So -- let the fragging begin!!  ML

And before anybody with ties to the VA chimes in I do know of what I speak. I have spent some time in a few of these warehouses and I would not have my dog treated in any of them. Prescott AZ, yes this means you too. My wost VA story? Sitting next to a man in the waiting room for a few hours. He was sitting in a puddle of urine and spraying his underarms with a can of lysol every ten minutes on the dot. I nearly wept. I tried to talk with him but had no luck. I had no better responce from the charge nurse. Then I went in to have my tooth extracted by a half drunk Lt.Cmdr who was so busy flirting with a nurse that he didn't notice he let the novacaine wear off before he started chopping away with a chisel. Well once I got over the infection and lockjaw ..........
"Shot", out.

Mental health is a valid consideration for "special Treatment" in the courts of Massachusetts. When ever someone comes before a judge at the initial hearing they are asked a series of questions regarding mental health treatment.

Self medication is a well known outcome of mental illness. Now whether this wounded warrior was intending to sell or was stockpiling, is a question that has not been answered here. But had he received any kind of treatment or was he on medication? That is relevant. No, don't treat war survivors differently UNLESS they are being treated for a mental illness. I have 15 years of experience in the mental health field and have seen some pretty gamey activity from people when under treatment are some of the most kind, considerate, compassionate souls that you would ever meet. Off of or out of treatment, it is like seeing a completely different person. Aggressive, homicidal, suicidal, self injurious, a completely different person. Someone who will act in ways that the treated individual would never even consider doing. Just because you can't see these wound from the outside, does not mean that they don't exist and are not just as large of a wound (if not worse) than those that are visible.

I cannot judge whether the vet should have been out of the program completely, or put on a waiting list or type of "probation" until he demonstrated that he was in treatment. With the demand and many organizations being supported by private funds, well, they probably have criteria to follow. I feel bad for the guy, but that is because of my experience in the Mental Health field. You really cannot see the extent of the damage from the outside, whether we are talking about PTSD or a closed head injury. All that these disorders or injuries display as is a series of "behaviors" that sadly, most in our society, do not understand at all.

If this soldier was on probation, participating in drug treatment programs and mental health services, well, he is paying his debt to society, again.  In my humble opinion.

Guessing that Lisa has perhaps had *experience* being fried for defending/explaining the VA, I'll take this chance to reiterate the Rulez for Commenting here at Castle Argghhh!

1. Keep it PG-17 or less.  No F-bombs, gratuitous profanity, etc.

2. Attack the message, not the messenger.  No gratuitious snark during an issues discussion.  I snipe at Bill, and Bill snipes at me, and Heinrichs snarks at everybody... but in ways that are apt to a fun comment thread.  Getting personal during an issues-based thread simply distracts from the discussion and ruins it.

3. Godwin's Law (and it's corollaries) applies.

I've only deleted something along the lines of 8 comments in 5 years, but I've thrown yellow flags/held up yellow cards many times.  Pay attention to those, else you get a Red Card (which has only happened once, and that to a blog-stalker of SWWBO's).

Thank you for your observance of the Rulez.

That being said (twice, apparently.. heh)... I agree with both Mike and Mongo.
Simply being a veteran doesn't earn you a "get out of jail free" card for life.  It earns respect in many ways, but breaking the law and getting away with it isn't one of them.

@Mike L., you write,  "John - Please!! The last thing MOST returning Vets need is to be treated differently - especially as it relates to things legal." I think it would be more accurate to say "MOST returning Vets do not WANT to be treated differently, but they may need it.

As I look at the problem, any answer could be perceived as punitive, rather than long term corrective. I do  not see this as giving the Vet a pass on illegal behavior. How do we deal with this? At a criminal or civil court, either the jury or the judge has come to a verdict. After this, there is a process to determine the sentence. The judge looks at aggravating and mitigating factors. This is the place the VA could enter any reports on either side. If there has been treatment suggested, but refused. It is at this point, the Judge calls in all of the VA Reports. After the decision, the Vet begins to see the benefits and consequences of compliance or non-compliance. This is just a place to start to help the Vet be the responsible person of their training. 

@Olga, an attorney! You have been patient with us.

As always,
"Grumpy"

Oh, I don't that's the case, Olga - that was me addressing the issue I raised in my lead-in where I said that either way the charity chose, they could alienate a portion of their donor base - and then said that I wasn't one of the people who might be affected that way.

Thi is a minefield topic and I was tempted to let it go because really who needs the aggravation of incoming antagonism.  But then this is also an important topic and I am quite certain it needs addressing.  The main things are;

1) The military do get very good mental health support compared to civilian which isn;t saying anything very good at all.  Civilian mental health support is attrocious leading to many civilians being unable to properly manage their condition and robbing them of a chance to get better if that's possible.  So before complaining give that some thought.  Veterans get better support is fair though because they are more exposed to causes via war and there is a duty of care or 'social contract' as John often says.

2)  I rather believe the problem for veterans and soldiers is not the support per se but rather the underlying attitudes to mental illness in the military.  Attitudes which prevent those with problems from facing it and starting treatment and making the treatment more effective.  Also peer support is very important and with such attitudes that can well evaporate for a soldier who may primarily only know people in the military.  A core goal of your military medics should be to change this attitude but that needs your help.

3) Mental illness is often pooh poohed away as not a real illness.  However it is quite real and often quite serious.  It's not obvious because there's no gaping wound but that actually makes it worse in some ways.  You can easily face the existance of such a physical wound and operate/dress etc it.  How do you bind up a wound in your head?  It's not easy I assure you.

4) The issue of 'special treatment' and law is very difficult.  Most hate the idea of being treated differently due to denial and/or the social consequences (change the attitudes!)  but that's the core problem, because they do have a difference.  Ultimately mental illness causes behavioural issues of differing severity depending on the condition of the individual with the issue.  There is a need for a softer approach to mistakes made.  However the freedom/responsibility basics can't be ignored, nor the consequences of such criminal activities on others so there's only so much softening that is reasonable.  Behavioural issues also stem from many other sources than mental illness.  There must still be appropriate consequences for such actions.  'Gaming' the system by using mental illness as a legal shield for deliberately embarking on criminal activity is a problem cost related to softening the approach.  There needs to be a plan to deal with such people but I don't have any brilliant ideas and most of them aren't very nice anyway.

5) One of the reasons support for mental illness stinks is because it's expensive and mental illness is rather more common than most people like to think.  The approach has to be very broad.  In the military's case there needs to be smart moves from before recruitment right up until death to reduce the issue to the minimum level practicable.  This will be no panacea but will greatly improve the overall result.

6) Another angle is family.  Mental illness can strain relationships in family quite easily beyond breaking point.  Living with a person with mental illness can be rather challenging and many have no idea how hard it can be.  Yet support from the family for the ill person is usually the most crucial, just as for physical illness.  At times of stress the family as a whole unit also needs lots of support from outside.

So they are going to deny this hero a house. Because he smoke some weed, he lost both his legs in service to his country nowhere in this story did it say he was a user before he went to war, He was not caught selling drugs it takes very little Pot to get a distributing charge it can just be 1 OZ. it depends on the way it is packaged in some states. We are giving billions of dollars to people who have never lifted a finger to defend this country, to people who have done just the opposite folks who are tearing the very fabric of this country down. To keep them in homes they can't afford that they never worked for and never intend to pay for . I for one have no problem with this hero getting his house and smoking a little pot if it eases his pain and the memory of seeing his brothers in arms being killed and having to relive his wounds everyday the rest of his life. I don't smoke pot myself and don't promote its use. But I don't judge this hero he is a much better man than me.

Spanky

One of the underlying principles of America is 'the rule of law'.  One of the most important corollaries of this is that the same law applies to everyone, at all times.  This is why Bill Clinton was impeached: he was held to the same standard of veracity that the assistant manager of a hamburger joint was held to. 

A disabled veteran should be held to no higher nor lower standard of law. 

Yes, I know our system of public defenders suck.  But it is a far superior system to most other countries where no such system exists.  This fellow did NOT have to have a public defender.

A wounded veteran has benefits.  Every lawyer in America will work out terms to permit payment over time--usually interest-free--for legal services rendered.  If his defender was a public and a bad one, it is because of a choice he made. 

If he were truly innocent of the crime, he should have had the moral courage to fight the issue in court and be acquitted.  Legally, he is guilty of the crime now.  Nothing can be done to change this: it is too late.  He PLED guilty and this has the same effect as being found guilty. 

Its normal to blame the lawyer.  But technically, HE is guilty of the crime, not the lawyer.  

His actions and decisions have consequences.  He has lost a significant benefit as one of these consequences.   I am sympathetic to any man who has served our country and paid such a horrible price for it.  But beyond that, he is a moral man who made some moral decisions.  I do not see that his status as a disabled veteran give him any preferential status in Law.

@Olga - ... From what I've seen and read (not just here), you guys judge your wayward brothers harsher than we, civilians, do....  You're right - and for a reason.  Most of us are sheep dogs, and we don't want to see any other sheep dog become a coyote or wolf.  When the reputation is marred, so is our ability to do our job.  I have titanium plates, rods and screws instead of discs in most of my neck, and I pretty much drag my right leg along for the ride wherever I go.  But life is good because I am alive, and injuries, no matter how severe, excuse me from being a lawful, contributing citizen.  So the public defense system in the US is broken - okay.  Stop doing things that would put you at the behest of the system!!  As a commander in the early '80's, I put 30 soldiers out of the Army in 14 months - 22 of them left because of marijuana.  Fifteen of those were "good soldiers".  But to maintain discipline and order, they had to go.  This guy may have very well been a good soldier, but that does not dismiss the fact that he broke the law.  He should have considered the consequences associated with the decisions he made.  Just sayin'.  ML

There are two issues being conflated here, as I noted earlier, and tha's really my fault.

1. The specific case of Scott West.

2. Olga's concern that West's case represents a failure in representation in general, aside from the specifics, and that possibly because the people involved don't have a good understanding of veteran's issues and services.

I don't see Olga as proposing the courts create a more lenient standard for veterans, as much as proposing a system by which veteran's cases be handled by people with a better understanding of veterans issues and what options are available to them within the legal and veteran's support systems, just as jurisdictions have special drug courts and juvenile courts, because both those sub-groups have differing benefits and services available to them not always known to Joe and Jane Average Lawyer.

If we separate out West from this, and leave it just at my last paragraph there above, does that make a difference?

@Olga, I have a great respect for your vision as an advocate  for Veterans.

@To the rest of us, we look at many of the issues involved, I can understand and respect those who have respectfully backed away from the discussion. I agree with you it is very difficult to grasp, the important thing is this, you are wise enough to know it and the courage to admit it. Many have served in the Military for many years and yet have no experiential background with this issue. There is an unbelievable difference between "knowing about or read about" and "been there and done that"

I have read all of the comments about the law. Now many have spoken of the responsibility of Veterans to live in compliance with the law. But the Government, all of it, is equally responsible. Many laws are written in such a way that most judges and attorneys just don't understand. The laws in some cases does not say, "The Court MAY consider...", but instead it says, "The Court SHALL consider...". The one word difference requires the Court to consider the Veteran's Status. Remember, this is not  GIVEN, it is EARNED! Remember, your dues are PAID IN FULL!

@Lisa, it is my honor, to say this, THANK YOU, for your service to the Vets. I've spent a fair amount of time in a VA facility. Yeah, I'm guilty of harassing the staff. Define harass. Any action that has a desired response, The question becomes this,what if my "desired response" is a simple smile, giggle, chuckle or even a laugh. It was the most selfish thing I could do.