By far one of the best legal blogs is Sentencing Law & Policy authored by Professor Douglas Berman. It can be found at http://sentencing.typepad.com   The blog covers  this local news piece, which is headlined “Judges to consider veteran experiences before sentencing.”  How judges should treat military service in bail or sentencing over the years has changed. For a while, there were those who said judges should not consider military service. When there was a draft, the effect of crediting military service in bail or sentencing decisions could introduce gender discrimination and was therefore disfavored among some. More recently, there has been heightened interest in doing right by military veterans. While prior military service may not have any predictive value in determining whether someone will show up if released without bail, there may be other approached judges can take to “credit” people for service to the country in the military. Veterans’ courts are growing around the country and are very successful.  Ohio appears poised to enact a bill to require consideration of military service at all sentencings.  As reported by Professor Berman, here are the details of the Ohio legislation: 

Before sentencing, veterans who commit a crime may soon be given consideration by a judge for their military service. The goal is rehabilitation instead of incarceration.

A bill unanimously passed by the Ohio Senate would require a court to consider a person’s military service as well as their emotional, mental and physical condition before being sentenced for a crime.

The legislation proposed by Senator Joe Schiavoni would apply to both misdemeanor and felony charges. “They have been through things that most of us haven’t,” Schiavoni said. “It’s so, so important we consider that before they get thrown into jail and their problems aren’t handled properly.” Schiavoni says the bill has bipartisan support from both legislators and judges.

Youngstown Municipal Judge Robert Milich supports the bill. He says judges shouldn’t only consider what role a veteran’s experiences overseas may have played in the crime, but how that experience could better their odds of rebuilding and becoming a productive part of society. “As soon as you start getting them to talk about their military experience, which I do, you can see they stand a little taller because it was a time when they did something they were proud of, they were respected, they controlled resources, and people,” said Judge Milich. “This brings it back, gives them something to build on, and you don’t find that in a lot of the defendants.”

The bill will now go to the Ohio House of Representatives, where it is expected to be voted on before the end of the lame duck session. 

The text of this bill is available at this link, with the provisions setting forth the change in Ohio’s sentencing law underlined.  Here is one version of the key language in the bill requiring consideration of military service at sentencing:

(F) The sentencing court shall consider the offender’s military service record and whether the offender has an emotional, mental, or physical condition that is traceable to the offender’s service in the armed forces of the United States and that was a contributing factor in the offender’s commission of the offense or offenses.

 In language typical of his blog Professor Berman reports,

Hard-core federal federal sentencing fans know that, effective November 2010, section 5H1.11 of the federal sentencing guidelines was amended to change a policy statement that  previously deemed military service “not ordinarily relevant” to a departure.  The current version of these guidelines now say military service “may be relevant in determining whether a departure is warranted,” but the proposed change to Ohio law goes further by requiring consideration of military service.

I am aware that North Carolina statutorily provides that having “been honorably discharged from the United States armed services” is a mitigating factor at sentencing, see N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15a-1340.16(e)(14), but this new Ohio law also goes further because it demands a broader consideration of factors and does not demand an honorable discharge.  Thus, I am pretty sure if and when this Ohio bill becomes law it will be breaking some new and valuable sentencing ground.” Many jurisdictions give judges great latitude in sentencing. Rarely are there imposed sentencing guidelines for misdemeanors. Even in states with well established sentencing guidelines there is some latitude for judges. So perhaps the discussion should not center upon a few legislative initiatives but a broader discussion among judges and others interested in fair sentencing.