Mississippi is set to execute a nearly 80-year-old man, Richard Jordan, on June 25th. This follows the execution of Jeffrey Hutchinson, a former Army sergeant in Florida, who was put to death on May 1st.
The application of the death penalty to U.S. veterans presents a troubling contradiction within American society. While there’s a general admiration for military service, along with widespread empathy for both mental and physical combat injuries, it appears that compassion tends to wane when it concerns the lives of veterans who are severely affected by their service.
Jordan and Hutchinson represent just the latest individuals in a long line of veterans grappling with post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of their experiences in combat. Unfortunately, they will likely not be the last, especially with the increasing frequency of executions involving those who have served in the military.
There’s a common belief that veterans represent a distinct group compared to civilians. In fact, around one-third of all veterans have been arrested—about twice the rate seen in non-veterans—which has led to the establishment of Veterans Treatment Courts for minor offenses.
In 2009, the Supreme Court case Porter v. McColm established that veterans are entitled to a reasonable investigation and presentation of their military backgrounds during death penalty cases. Yet, the effort to adhere to this standard has been inconsistent at best. During the trials of both Jordan and Hutchinson, their combat experiences and related trauma were not adequately presented.
The alarming rise in the execution of veterans suggests a need for thorough examination of the situations that bring them into the justice system leading up to their executions. Veterans’ experiences can differ markedly from those of their judges and juries.
The intense and often terrifying realities of combat have been well documented. They can include constant threats of death, devastating explosions that affect the brain, face-to-face encounters with enemies, and witnessing the horrors of modern warfare.
These ongoing exposures to violence and mortality can have lasting impacts. As writer Jose Narosky poignantly noted, “In war, there are no soldiers who come out unscathed.”
Only about 5% of the nation’s population consists of veterans, yet it’s often the case that the individual best acquainted with the trials of war in a courtroom setting is the veteran defendant.
Veterans account for 10% of death row inmates—a figure that reflects their population more than double that of the general populace—and this proportion continues to rise. A significant factor for this discrepancy is the mental health issues stemming from combat that many veterans face, issues that are less prevalent in civilian populations.
When considering the fate of a veteran convicted of a serious crime, it’s crucial to recognize that combat-related brain injuries and mental health challenges like PTSD are neither surprising nor unpredictable. PTSD, in various forms, has been associated with warfare since antiquity.
A 2014 study on veterans determined that nearly 30% of those who served in Iraq or Afghanistan suffered from PTSD at some stage. In my experience working with veterans in the justice system, it’s from this demographic that many death row veterans have emerged. Combat doesn’t mean that veterans will commit violent crimes, but it unfortunately marks a significant increase in the odds of mental health issues and cognitive impairments.
The Supreme Court has acknowledged that certain categories of defendants, like those under 18, are specifically exempt from the death penalty due to diminished mental capacity. These same considerations may apply to veterans dealing with mental health challenges. Given their voluntary service, their injuries might merit a reconsideration of their circumstances, either through legislative action or judicial review.
Rethinking how we treat our soldiers within the justice system calls for deep introspection. We owe it to our combat veterans to offer more support and understanding than what is currently available in our criminal justice framework.
