Worthy of Justice: A Veterans Treatment Court in Practice

• Author: Jamie Rowen
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/lapo.12142
• Published date: 01 January 2020
• Date: 01 January 2020

Worthy of Justice: A Veterans Treatment

Court in Practice

JAMIE ROWEN

This article examines the purpose and practice of a Veterans Treatment Court (VTC), a new

type of problem-solving court designed to connect qualifying former service members in the

criminal justice system with social services. While existing studies of VTCs explain these

courts by focusing on veterans’ distinct needs or deservingness based on their military ser-

vice, this article argues that these courts are being created because of societal beliefs about

veteran worth. By revealing how court staff, participants, and volunteers in one VTC invoke

beliefs about veteran worth, the findings of this study show that VTCs link worth to veteran

identity, leaving participants suspended in conflicting notions of state and individual respon-

sibility for criminal behavior.

Beginning in 2008, Veterans Treatment Courts (VTCs) emerged as a policy response to a

growing concern that US veterans have unique needs that are not being met by the crimi-

nal justice system.

1

By 2018, there were nearly 500 VTCs or specialized court programs

for veteran defendants throughout thecountry, each focused on connecting qualifying vet-

erans with social services such as therapy, housing, and employment (Tsai et al. 2018).

These new courts represent a variation of “problem-solving” treatment courts, such as

drug, mental health, prostitution, and domestic violence courts, developed to reduce recid-

ivism and work toward offender rehabilitation (Winick and Wexler 2003; Winick 2014).

VTCs signify a departure from earlier courts that focus on particular behaviors and activi-

ties, such as drug use or prostitution, toward a population deemed deserving of this crimi-

nal justice option because of their military experience (see Russell 2009).

2

Scholars often explain these courts by noting that some aspects of military service

and/or training lead directly or indirectly to criminal activity, and that veterans have

special medical needs, such as posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), that only a special-

ized court exclusively for veterans can address (see Douds and Ahlin 2018). However,

these explanations are difficult to reconcile with the realities of VTC practice. Notably,

I would like to thank Michael Musheno, Keramet Reiter, Nicholas Rush, Timothy Pachirat, Rebecca Hamlin,

Lauren McCarthy, Jennifer Lundquist, Paul Collins, Christopher Klimmek, Ashley Rubin, and the Conflict,

Violence and Security Working Group at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, for their thoughtful com-

ments. I would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers at Law & Policy, and other venues, for their incisive

and thoughtful comments. This research was approved by Institutional Review Board 2016-3211 and was

supported by the UMass Center for Racial Justice and Urban Affairs, the University of Massachusetts Healy

Endowment Grant, the School of Behavioral and Social Sciences Dean’s Research Council, and the National

Science Foundation CAREER Award 1845165.

Address correspondence to: Jamie Rowen; University of Massachusetts Amherst—Legal Studies and Politi-

cal Science; 200 Hicks Way Amherst, Amherst, MA 01003, USA. Email: jrowen@umass.edu.

LAW & POLICY, Vol. 42, No. 1, January 2020

©2020 The Author

Law & Policy ©2020 University of Denver and Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

doi: 10.1111/lapo.12142

ISSN 0265-8240

many of the veterans in the criminal justice system did not experience combat, the

majority of participants in VTCs do not suffer from PTSD, and many have come to

VTCs after many years of substance abuse and criminal activity (Flatley et al. 2017; Tsai

et al. 2017). Additionally, veterans’ past and/or current substance use and mental health

challenges—which closely correlate with criminal behavior in the veteran population—

often stem from experiences that predate and/or are not directly related to their service

(Culp et al. 2013; Tsai and Rosenheck 2015).

These complex relationships between military service, the criminal justice system, and

social welfare benefits underscore the need for further examination of the justification

for these courts and how these justifications shape their practices. This article suggests

that VTCs are predicated on the notion that veterans are not just deserving—meaning

they are owed because of the service they provided—but worthy—meaning they have

distinct value or merit. This justification also shapes court practices in terms of how per-

sonnel and participants understand and represent court practices. Through a detailed

case study of a VTC, with a specific focus on court personnel, participants, and volun-

teers, this article illustrates how beliefs about veteran worth shape court practices. It

shows how court personnel and volunteers distinguish not only between veterans and

nonveterans, but also between worthy and unworthy veterans. The VTC’s emphasis on

veteran worth means that it also celebrates the value of military service and contributes

to feelings of conflicted gratitude on the part of participants.

Looking at how notions of worth inform the purpose and practice of these courts, this

study shows new dimensions of the double-edged nature of therapeutic jurisprudence,

which is both a normative theory and a movement to use law in order to enhance the psy-

chological well-being of criminal defendants (Wexler and Winick 1991). It also provides

insights into social welfare decision-making and procedural justice, shedding light on how

individual and group identity affect perceptions of, and compliance with, the criminal jus-

tice system (MacCoun 2005; Tyler 2005). Deciding who is worthy and unworthy of public

benefits is “moral work” that regulates vulnerable populations, rather than simply helping

them (Piven and Cloward 1993; Hasenfeld 2000; Maynard-Moody and Musheno 2003).

The findings of this study show that VTCs are more than just a new application of

therapeutic jurisprudence. VTCs link worth to veteran identity, leaving participants

suspended in conflicting notions of state and individual responsibility for criminal

behavior. Although they do aid people who are suffering, VTCs are also part of a deeply

problematic military and criminal justice system in which socially, economically, and

politically marginalized groups are more likely to find themselves in the criminal justice

system, just as they are more likely to enlist in the military, struggle during their service,

and face challenges when they return (Lutz 2008; Musheno and Ross 2008).

I. VTCS AS PART OF THE THERAPEUTIC JURISPRUDENCE MOVEMENT

VTCs, like other specialized courts designed to provide psychosocial services to certain

criminal defendants, are part of criminal justice reforms designed to blend retributive

and rehabilitative goals. These efforts draw from and contribute to therapeutic jurispru-

dence, a movement premised on the normative theory that courts should work to

enhance the psychological well-being of criminal defendants (see Wexler 1990; Wexler

and Winick 1991). These “problem-solving courts” frame particular criminal defendants

(e.g., those with diagnosable mental health disorders) or certain acts (e.g., prostitution)

as “problems” that a combination of criminal sanctions and social services can “solve.”

The first specialized courts were for juveniles in Cook County, Illinois. These courts

©2020 The Author

Law & Policy ©2020 University of Denver and Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Rowen WORTHY OF JUSTICE 79