WESTFIELD – Representative John Velis is urging his fellow lawmakers to approach any amendments to the VALOR Act with extreme caution. The VALOR Act of 2012 is a sweeping piece of legislation that established many programs for Veterans, such as housing and professional support. It also created a diversion program for Vets with no prior convictions to receive mental health treatment in lieu of prosecution. Following a controversial domestic abuse case in Bristol County, in which a New Bedford man accused of strangling his girlfriend avoided prosecution due to his military service 30 years ago, there have been several calls to re-examine parts of the law and potentially limit its power in criminal cases.
“The VALOR Act is an excellent piece of legislation. It’s not the statute that’s the problem, it’s the incorrect application of the law, in my opinion,” says Velis. “Our Veterans have sacrificed so much for this country, and unfortunately a lot of them come home with very serious, but invisible wounds. PTSD can often lead to reckless behavior, and sometimes self-medication with drugs and alcohol. Being a Veteran is not and never will be a ‘get out of jail free card’, but I do believe that military service and any resulting trauma should factor into a court’s decision to divert an offender, if it has any bearing on the matter. In this case, I don’t know that it did.”
The diversion program aims to lessen the number of Veterans serving time due to drug offenses or lesser crimes related to traumatic brain injuries and PTSD. In order to participate, the accused must have no prior convictions and receive a recommendation from a mental health program that can treat them effectively. They must also get the okay from the presiding judge, who has wide latitude to approve or deny the diversion based on the circumstances of the case.
The Rep continued, “Diversion is obviously not appropriate in all cases, but attempting to limit it with legislation is painting over the issue with too broad a brush. At the end of the day, no law is perfect- that’s why we have the court system to begin with. This really is a case-by-case decision, and we should leave it up to the trial court, even if we don’t always agree with the outcome. A knee-jerk reaction could have unintended consequences for our Vets.”
Even though Velis would like the legislature to steer clear of deciding who deserves diversion and who does not, he does agree that the process of figuring out who is eligible could be improved.
“I’ve had a few conversations with defense attorneys and prosecutors who agree that the process is not totally understood by everyone. On the whole, the system could do a better job of identifying Veterans from the get go. Who knows how many Vets have forgone this opportunity simply because no one thought to ask if he or she served,” says Velis. “More education is definitely needed, and potentially clearer judicial guidelines to assist in making these determinations, but neither of those solutions necessarily need to involve more legislation.”
Velis concluded by saying that he was eager to work with his fellow lawmakers and other interested parties to discuss any potential changes to the law, and reiterated his belief that legislation should be an absolute last resort.
“Massachusetts prides itself on the opportunities we provide our Vets, and the VALOR Act is a huge part of that. It has given countless Vets the opportunity and the tools to turn their lives around. There are 350,000 Veterans in the Commonwealth who have all earned, at the very least, the court’s consideration. It would be a disservice to every one of them to throw the baby out with the bathwater by limiting this program. When it comes to helping struggling Vets, we need to widen opportunities when we can, not close them.”
