An edit of the last sentence in my 9:09a post:

That distortion is exponentially ramp-up by the lazy, convenient, or even calculated, cinematic use of flashbacks by film makers who share the very political bent that created the official PTSD diagnosis.

vnvet7071, I agree. I was so happy to see that more serious criminal activity won't be getting a break from that court, that I overlooked the so-called less serious criminal activity that will benefit from it.

Selling drugs etc. is a calculated act that also deserves no mercy based on veterans status.

janesvillean, the first paragraph you cited is the very one I had in mind when I said: "Consistent with the article above,....."

And.,though the VA has a reputation for being stingy when it comes to awarding benefits, my second paragraph addresses the fact that a bent corrosive to the image of veterans, especially war veterans, has seeped into the VA by way of a politically designed psychiatric diagnosis. I am referring to how the politics of the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association has seeped into the VA by way of an unwieldy PTSD criteria.

Psychiatrists are medical doctors. And medicine is supposed to get its sanction from being based in science. Though its hundreds of diagnoses should be based in science, this is not necessarily the case with many of both APAs' diagnoses.

For example, there is no real science for the barely present, if they are ever present at all, PTSD symptom of flashbacks. The popular belief in flashbacks causes a severe distortion of how combat actually effects an individual. That distortion is exponentially ramp-up by the lazy, convenient cinematic use of film makers who share the very political bent that created the official PTSD diagnosis.

So a veteran that sells drugs to YOUR children is considered a " low level crime" and should get a break ? I bet you would be whistling a different tune if it were YOUR kids ! Sorry guys, but if you do the crime,do the time.You WERE taught to follow orders, right ?

gazettefan, the article states the following:
"Eligibility will not be offered to defendants convicted of violent and serious crimes such as homicide, armed robbery, sexual assault and arson. The program is intended for veterans convicted of such crimes as drug possession, lower-level drug dealing, burglary and theft."
.
These are low-level crimes, mostly misdemeanors, and are precisely the type of offender most amenable to rehabilitation through this type of program. It serves no one to further isolate offenders from the community and their families by deliberately favoring incarceration.
.
As for your second paragraph, what a strange thing to say. This is what the VA has to say:
http://www.ptsd.va.gov/public/pages/keep...
"Efforts such as Veterans Treatment Courts ... may prove helpful to Veterans who become involved in the justice system. The goals are to keep eligible Veterans out of jail or prison and to make sure they get needed treatment and support."

Consistent with the article above, I totally reject special favor for veterans who commit serious crimes against their families and others. And I submit that such crimes are not a result of military service, including combat service.

Further, I submit that any contradiction to the above paragraph is a hateful political ploy to disparage those who serve in the military, especially those who serve in combat.

ABA statement on veterans courts:
http://veteranscourt.blogspot.com/2011/0...
.
These are what is termed "collaborative justice" models, and are completely voluntary, but I still hope the concept continues to spread. Veterans automatically have access to a broader array of social services and a community of other veterans participating as mentors, but once a court like this is successful there is little reason the approach cannot be expanded. Walworth County will now be working with a cutting edge 21st century toolset.