Veteran with PTSD won’t do time for robberies

Last month I wrote about the potentially landmark case in which an Army veteran was found insane in the armed robbery of a pharmacy. Sargent Binkley said he robbed that pharmacy and one other of painkillers to cope with his symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder.

Yesterday, Sargent pleaded no contest in a separate San Francisco Peninsula robbery committed during the same time period, in exchange for a promise of probation. He had faced at least 12 years in prison.

Binkley cannot be formally sentenced until state hospital doctors find him sane and no longer dangerous. The ability of the white West Point graduate and former Eagle Scout to garner sympathy among jurors and prosecutors bodes well for his stay at the hospital. If I had to bet, I would predict state hospital psychiatrists will agree to a quick release.

Armed robbers are rarely found insane when their crimes appear rational, goal-directed, and premeditated. Additionally, California law does not allow for an insanity verdict based on addiction alone.

The defense had argued that Binkley was traumatized by two events -- guarding a mass grave in Bosnia and shooting a teenager during a Honduran drug raid. Prosecutors countered that Binkley exaggerated his military service and that his claim of involvement in drug interdiction in Honduras was pure fantasy. Further, they said, his addiction to pain pills stemmed not from military-related activities but from a hip injury incurred while he was running away from a production assistant for the Fox reality TV show "Temptation Island" after a bar fight.

The trial featured dueling psychiatric experts who agreed that Binkley suffers from PTSD, but disagreed on whether his symptoms were of sufficient magnitude as to render him insane, or incapable of knowing right from wrong at the time of the robberies.

The case comes amid growing interest in the plight of veterans returning from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Military leaders acknowledge that multiple deployments in particular put a severe strain soldiers and their families, and can increase the likelihood of domestic violence, alcohol abuse, and symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder.

To handle a wave of arrests of soldiers, special courts for veterans are opening in several states, including Arizona.

Related stories:

Insanity verdict for soldier with PTSD: Case heralded as landmark for traumatized veterans (blog post, Jan. 14, 2009)

Ex-Army captain won't do time for two holdups (San Francisco Chronicle, Feb. 19, 2009)

Focus on violence by returning GIs (New York Times, Jan. 2, 2009)

New court is sought to aid vets charged with crimes (Arizona Republic, Jan. 6, 2009)

Reaching out to returning vets (Wisconsin Law Journal, Feb. 6, 2009 – subscription required)

Another ruling against federal sex offender law

From the Sacramento Bee:

In only the third such ruling in the nation, a Sacramento judge has found to be unconstitutional a statute that makes it a federal crime for someone to fail to register as a sex offender and relocate from one state to another.

U.S. District Judge Lawrence K. Karlton found that, in enacting the 2006 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, "Congress overstepped its authority under the (Constitution's) commerce clause…. This appears to be a plain usurpation of the state's police power."

Karlton made rulings this week in two prosecutions and threw them out, saying SORNA does not meet the U.S. Supreme Court's standard for congressional jurisdiction over interstate commerce.

At least 18 district judges have upheld SORNA, while only two others have found it is at cross-purposes with the commerce clause. Of the 12 federal appellate circuits, only two -- the 8th and 10th -- have addressed the issue, and both upheld the statute.

Related blog posts:

Court strikes down federal civil commitment law (January 9, 2009)

Challenge to juvenile sex offender risk prediction: Harsh federal law on shaky scientific ground (October 9, 2008)

Federal court strikes down portion of Adam Walsh Act (September 10, 2007)

International outrage: Czechs versus Saudis

In a good example of cross-cultural variations related to sexual behavior, international human rights groups are going after two countries for officially sanctioned policies that could not be more different:

Castrating prisoners . . .

In the Czech Republic, first-time, non-violent sex offenders such an exhibitionists can be imprisoned for life. Unless, that is, they agree to be castrated. In the past decade, at least 94 sex offenders have gone under the blade.

In a cleverly entitled article, "The unkindest cut," Time Magazine tackles the controversial issue of castration in that nation.

The Council of Europe, a human rights body, is demanding that the Czechs immediately stop the "degrading" punishment. But as the Dallas Morning News points out, although the Czech Republic may be the only country in Europe that allows the practice, it is certainly not unheard of in the United States. In Texas, for example, three prisoners have undergone voluntary surgical castration in recent years. Many more sex offenders around the country undergo "chemical castrations" that reduce their sex drive -- and potentially their legal sanctions.

Study findings are mixed as to whether castration, either surgical or chemical, is effective at curbing sex offender recidivism.

. . . vs. allowing child marriages

Meanwhile, a little bit to the southeast, Human Rights Watch is up in arms in the wake of a judge's refusal to annul the marriage of an 8-year-old girl to a 47-year-old man. The girl's father reportedly arranged the marriage to his friend in order to settle a debt; when the mother protested, the judge made the girl's husband sign a pledge that he would not have sex with the girl until she reaches puberty.

The nation's top cleric defended the practice, saying girls as young as 10 should be allowed to wed. "Those who think she's too young are wrong and they are being unfair to her," CNN News quoted Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al-Sheikh as saying.

Laws about what age children may marry, or have sexual relations, are complex and vary tremendously from nation to nation, and even within some nations (such as the United States). The median age at which a child can consent to sexual activity is somewhere around age 14-16, but varies from a low of about 9 to a high of 21.

At least the Saudi newlywed should be happy he does not live in the Czech Republic.

Postscript: In an out-of-court settlement, the 8-year-old has been allowed to divorce her husband.

Implications of PA case for juvenile courts

Today's New York Times has coverage of the astonishing case that I blogged about yesterday, on the two juvenile judges in Pennsylvania who were accepting kickbacks to send children to jail. Of interest to my readers, the case is calling public attention to juveniles' right to an attorney.

Children have a constitutional right to legal representation under a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 1967. But in Pennsylvania and at least 20 other states, they can waive this right. Some say juveniles should be required to have a lawyer when they appear in court, as is the law in three states (Illinois, New Mexico and North Carolina).

"The juvenile system, by design, is intended to be a less punitive system than the adult system, and yet here were scores of children with very minor infractions having their lives ruined," Marsha Levick, a lawyer with the Philadelphia-based Juvenile Law Center, told the Times. "There was a culture of intimidation surrounding this judge and no one was willing to speak up about the sentences he was handing down."

Last year, according to the Times story, Pennsylvania's Supreme Court rejected a petition filed by the Juvenile Law Center about more than 500 juveniles who had appeared before Judge Ciavarella without legal representation. The court originally rejected the petition, but recently reversed that decision.

Given the secrecy surrounding juvenile court proceedings, some are also calling for greater public access - a double-edged sword that may cause unintended negative consequences, in my opinion. As the former director of the state's Office of Juvenile Justice pointed out, probation officers, prosecutors, and defense attorneys are already present in court and sworn to protect the interests of children; "it’s pretty clear those people didn't do their jobs."

The excellent followup article is here.

Photo credit: publik16 (Creative Commons license)

Evil lurked in Luzerne County

Something scary was happening in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania. A kid who had never been in trouble would show up in juvenile court for writing a prank note or having drug paraphernalia and -- BOOM -- he would disappear.

Kids were locked up for months at a time even when probation officers recommended against it. Youth advocates complained, but no one listened.

Now, everyone knows why. Two of the judges were running a scheme in which they shunted kids to private jails in exchange for at least $2.6 million in kickbacks. In what the media are calling "one of the most stunning cases of judicial corruption on record," one of the two bad judges actually shut down the county juvenile hall so kids would have to go to PA Child Care LLC, which owned him.

A senior judge from a neighboring county will have the laborious task of going through all cases handled by the judges for the past six years, to "identify the affected juveniles and rectify the situation as fairly and swiftly as possible."

A first step in rectifying the situation -- or at least making the wronged kids feel a bit better about the world -- might be to lock up the offenders. But after the judges pleaded guilty in federal court Thursday to tax charges, they were allowed to remain free pending sentencing.

Too bad they didn't afford that same courtesy to the youngsters who came before them.

Photo credit: "The Fog" by Canon in 2D (Creative Commons license)

Recommended reading: Juvenile competency

I was just looking over Ivan Kruh and Tom Grisso's new book, Evaluation of Juveniles' Competence to Stand Trial, as I sat down to write a rather complex report on an 11-year-old child. Wow! This little book is such a great tool, I thought I should plug it to those of you who work with juveniles.

As I wrote in my Amazon review, "You will not find this much comprehensive, up-to-date information on juvenile competency to stand trial (CST) evaluations in any other single source." It's a tiny little book, but it is jam-packed with information, very clearly written, with the concepts clearly explained.

Also, unlike the volume on SVP evaluations in the same new Best Practices in Forensic Mental Health Assessment series from Oxford University Press, this one tackles the controversies and complexities in the field head-on, rather than shying away from them.

My complete Amazon review is here, with links to other relevant resources. (As always, if you like it please click on the "Yes" button at the bottom, as that helps the placement of my reviews on Amazon.)