Comments

Oral Argument Preview: Requiring Military-Service Related Disabilities in Mitigation when Sentencing Veterans. State v. Jeffrey Belew. — 1 Comment

  1. Good Afternoon Professor Bettman,

    I actually read the post yesterday and found it interesting. I printed and read the Court of Appeals opinion as well.

    My mind has been going a few different directions on this, and I did have a few thoughts I wanted to share.

    1) About two seconds into reading the case I thought “suicide by cop.” The military needs to strike a delicate balance in its focus on suicide. Right now, I counsel my Marines almost every time we get together about depression/suicide/stress. I do not know what the answer is, but I know Marines who have ended their lives. Some by suicide, more by doing stupid and dangerous things. After twelve years as a Marine, I am not sure if there is anything, as an institution, the military can do about it. I wonder if focusing more on the issue makes it worse. It is such a troubling reality, especially when I have 300 Marines of my own.

    2) I was a machinegunner for six years before becoming a communications officer. I saw a lot of combat on my deployment to Iraq (I did not see any during my tour in Afghanistan). Without a doubt, I have PTSD. I know I do, and I know many of my very good friends do. Everyone reacts to PTSD differently, but only in very rare circumstances does combat fundamentally change the character of a person. I think it draws a person’s thoughts and feelings closer to the surface. That said, most veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan have not seen combat. They have not seen or experienced actual fighting, shooting, and killing. It is difficult to explain, but I do not even like to use the word veteran because there is such a difference between what one veteran and another actually experiences. I say this, because I don’t know if Jeffrey Belew actually saw any combat. If he did, maybe my opinion of him would change, probably not.

    3) For better or worse, I have very little patience for veterans (especially Marines) who use PTSD as a shield for their conduct. Blaming PTSD is transposing blame from the individual on to an institution. Not unlike college athletics, the Marine Corps accepts young men (and women) who may come from troubled backgrounds. Both offer opportunity and seek to capitalize on young person’s potential, but who is to blame when either institution cannot fix what has already been broken? Jeffrey Belew was/is a very troubled kid (I use this word intentionally), and the Marine Corps could not change him. The Marine Corps gave Jeffrey Belew an opportunity to earn money and learn a plethora of valuable skills, but he threw that opportunity away. He was a bad Marine. But will twenty-seven years in prison solve the problem? I wonder what the responding officers would think if he was given treatment instead? What about every other 18-24 year old kid who had a terrible childhood, but did not sit in front of a recruiter before he found himself in front of a judge?

    I have a lot of sympathy for troubled kids. It is one reason why I love the Marine Corps so much. For every Jeffrey Belew, I know ten others who, but for the Marine Corps, would be in jail or dead. Basically, I simply wanted to say that I do not think PTSD should be any more of a mitigating factor than his troubled childhood. He should be given no more slack than a kid from Clifton who does something just as serious. A better question is whether twenty seven-years in prison will fix anything, for anyone. I feel badly for the police officers, for Jeffrey Belew, and for the trial court who had to decide what to do. It is troubling.

    Thank you for pointing me to the blog post.

    Erik Brinker is a 3L at the University of Cincinnati College of Law