Texas veterans courts an aggressive version of problem-solving jurisprudence

During the 81st Texas Legislature a little-noticed amendment to SB 1940 may have launched the most comprehensive, aggressive brand of "problem solving court" I've yet seen in the Lone Star State: "Veterans courts."

The bipartisan amendment authorizing them, which was essentially similar to SB 112 by Rodney Ellis, was proposed by Reps Frank Corte and Allen Vaught on third reading, accepted by bill sponsor Solomon Ortiz, then approved by the House 146-0.

If authorized by a county commissioners court, Texas veterans courts can be used for any misdemeanor or felony offense - with no limitation - when the veteran defendant has a brain injury, mental illness or mental disorder, including post-traumatic stress, that "resulted from" military service in a combat zone.

By contrast, a veterans court in Colorado Springs, CO - which was the first I've heard of this new breed of specialty court - opened earlier this year with only a misdemeanor caseload. According to the LA Times, veterans courts began in Buffalo, NY in 2008 and more are opening around the country.

In veterans court, Texas' statute mandates that the DA and criminal defense attorney participate in a "nonadversarial" fashion to create an "individualized treatment plan" for the offender. The prosecutor must agree to the approach and the defendant may also choose not to participate. If the veteran successfully completes the program, charges may be dismissed "in the best interest of justice."

Tarrant County plans to open a veterans court using federal grant money distributed through the Governor's office. I don't know how many other counties will establish veterans courts, how many defendants prosecutors might admit into such programs, for what offenses they might be used or even whether the idea will work. The bill says programs must notify the Governor's Criminal Justice Division before commencing, so I'll check with them in the coming week. But my gut tells me this will be a successful approach, though perhaps not for the reasons the amendment-authors conceived.

Recently I wrote about research on the relationship between mental health, criminality and community supervision by Dr. Jennifer Skeem. She concluded that specialty mental health caseloads succeeded not because mental health problems promoted crime per se, but rather because courts and probation officers in those settings were more likely to use evidence-based practices when dealing with the offender instead of more punitive, authoritarian approaches.

That analysis strikes me as likely applying to veterans courts as well, since at the end of the day they're basically specialized mental health courts. They are likely to succeed, based on Skeem's analysis, if only because they're mandated under this statute to use a best-practices approach aimed at helping the defendant succeed instead of only punishing them when they fail.

I also like that veterans courts would be open to any type of offense, not just drug and alcohol-related crimes. Drug court judges like John Creuzot in Dallas for years have said that a greater array of offenses should be included in problem-solving courts like his DIVERT court in Dallas; Texas' veterans courts, though, tear down that artificial barrier entirely. There is no offense, even murder, that's not in theory eligible for veterans court diversion (though I doubt any prosecutor would ever agree to it in that type of case).

The House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee was told to monitor the rollout of veterans courts as one of its "interim charges" assigned by the Speaker of the House, so there will be more opportunities next year to learn where and how these courts are being used.

RELATED: From Sentencing Law & Policy, "Judge suggests more sentencing options for war veterans."