Now that medical marijuana is legal in more than half the country, patients suffering from chronic pain or PTSD are flocking to marijuana dispensaries across the nation for symptom relief. But what if I told you that marijuana may not actually help with either ailment?

Apparently, there is little scientific evidence to draw conclusions about the benefits and harms of marijuana in patients with PTSD and chronic pain, according to two studies published Monday in the journal “Annals of Internal Medicine.”

In an editorial accompanying the research, Dr. Sachin Patel of Vanderbilt Psychiatric Hospital noted that the findings aren’t unique, and that “scientific evidence for the effectiveness and safety of cannabis and cannabinoid products in treating medical and psychiatric disease has recently come under substantial scrutiny.”

“The current studies highlight the real and urgent need for high-quality clinical trials in both of these areas,” Patel continued in an email to Reuters. “If cannabis is being considered for medical use, it should certainly be after all well-established treatments have failed.”

Both of the studies were conducted by researchers at the Veterans Affairs Portland Health Care System and funded by the U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs.

Is Marijuana Causing More Harm Than Good?

Twenty-eight states and the District of Columbia have legalized marijuana for medical use, and the number of medical and recreational users has nearly doubled between 2001 and 2013, with one in 10 adults saying they use it.

According to the researchers, more than one third of patients seeking cannabis for medical purposes in states where it is legal list PTSD as the primary reason for their request, and between 45 percent and 80 percent of people who seek medical cannabis do so for pain management.

For one of the studies, the team of researchers reviewed 27 studies examining marijuana use for chronic pain. While they weren’t able to conclude that it helped pain sufferers, they did find evidence that marijuana led to an increased risk of car accidents, psychotic symptoms, and short-term cognitive impairment.

When reviewing prior research on the effects of marijuana on PTSD, they “found low- to moderate-strength evidence that cannabis use is associated with an increased risk for psychotic symptoms, psychosis, mania, and–in active users–short-term cognitive dysfunction,” the authors noted.

In fact, one of the studies they examined involving veterans with PTSD showed a small but “significant” worsening of symptoms among veterans who either started or continued using cannabis during the study period.

It’s important to note again that the researchers maintained that there was insufficient evidence for them to draw firm conclusions about the effectiveness of cannabis in both patient populations.

Is This Fuel for Sessions?

Short answer: probably not.

It’s no secret that Attorney General Jeff Sessions is actively looking for research to support his disapproval of marijuana legalization. After his Task Force on Crime Reduction and Public Safety failed to offer up any new suggestions for dealing with marijuana in states that have legalized it, experts said that Sessions could still invoke federal law to push his anti-marijuana agenda.

While these new studies cast doubt on marijuana’s effectiveness at treating these particular ailments, the findings don’t definitively negate prior research attesting to the benefits of marijuana for patients suffering from chronic pain and PTSD. The effectiveness of marijuana treating these symptoms could also depend on potency and dose, Patel said in an email to CNN. Most studies use lower doses and lower potencies of medical marijuana than what is found in dispensaries.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Marijuana May Not Actually Help with PTSD or Chronic Pain appeared first on Law Street.

A House committee on Tuesday blocked an amendment in a VA spending bill that would have expanded access to medical marijuana for veterans. Because marijuana is classified as a Schedule I substance, it is banned by the federal government. Even as states legalize cannabis for medical and recreational purposes, veterans have struggled to gain access to medical marijuana through the VA.

Sponsored by Representative Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), the Veterans Equal Access amendment would bar federal funds from blocking veterans’ access to medical marijuana in states that have legalized it. The amendment, proposed as part of the 2018 Military Construction bill, would have permitted VA doctors to “make appropriate recommendations, fill out forms, or take steps to comply” with medical marijuana programs in states that have legalized it.

In the 29 states–plus D.C.–that have legalized medical marijuana, VA doctors cannot prescribe or recommend medical marijuana to their patients, because the VA is a federal agency. For veterans afflicted with psychiatric conditions, like PTSD, medical marijuana can be an effective tool–and is much less dangerous than opiates. The American Legion and other veterans groups support greater access to medical marijuana for veterans.

“Given that veterans are more likely to commit suicide or die from opiate overdoses than civilians, our fight to provide them safer alternatives won’t stop here,” Blumenauer, a founding member of the Congressional Cannabis Caucus, said in a statement. “We have stronger support in the House and Senate than ever before, and we will keep advocating for a more rational approach.”

For the last several years, a growing group of lawmakers from both parties have tried to tie the equal access amendment to the VA spending bill. Last year, both the House and the Senate passed the amendment, but it was dropped during conference discussions on the final bill. This year’s effort is not entirely dead. Earlier this month, the Senate Appropriations Committee easily passed a similar amendment, so when both chambers meet to hash out the final VA bill, it could still make the cut.

“All we want is equal treatment for our wounded warriors,” Blumenauer added. “This provision overwhelmingly passed on the House floor last year – and bipartisan support has only grown. It’s outrageous that the Rules Committee won’t even allow a vote for our veterans. They deserve better. They deserve compassion.”

Despite the federal government’s reluctance to reform marijuana laws, or to reclassify marijuana, a bipartisan chorus is growing in support of legalization–Blumenauer’s amendment was co-sponsored by nine Democrats and nine Republicans. And though the House committee did not pass the amendment, at least one Republican member publicly supported it.

“I’ve seen firsthand the benefit people can derive from medical marijuana,” Representative Dan Newhouse (R-WA) said. “It seems to me if it’s available and it works, we should make that available to our veterans as well.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post House Committee Blocks Medical Marijuana Access for Veterans appeared first on Law Street.

Last week, we took a look at New York’s proposed “Textalyzer,” a new PTSD report, and a first date from hell. ICYMI, check out some Law Street’s most talked about stories below!

New York May Legalize “Textalyzer” to Bust Distracted Drivers

Most of you have probably done it. You hear a ding or feel that all too familiar faint  buzz, and tell yourself there’s no harm in taking a quick glance at the screen–I mean it could be important. But as harmless as a quick text from behind the wheel might seem, texting while driving can be incredibly dangerous. Looking to put a stop to the trend, New York lawmakers are considering legalizing technology that would help police bust distracted drivers.

Soldiers Discharged for Misconduct Often Suffer from PTSD, Other Disorders

As many as three-fifths of soldiers that are discharged for misconduct actually have post-traumatic stress disorder or other types of brain injuries, according to a new report from the Government Accountability Office. The report confirms a suspicion that has been talked about for a long time. “It is everything many of us believed for years,” said Iraq veteran Kristopher Goldsmith, who is an assistant director at Vietnam Veterans of America. “Now I hope Congress will direct the resources to making it right.”

Texas Man Sues His Date for $17 After She Texted During a Movie

A man from Texas was not happy with how his first date was going, and sued the woman he went out with–all because she was texting at the movies. Brandon Vezmar, 37, met his date online and invited her to go see the 3D version of “Guardians of the Galaxy, Vol. 2” in Austin. But she apparently wasn’t as excited as he was to see the new blockbuster.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

As many as three-fifths of soldiers that are discharged for misconduct actually have post-traumatic stress disorder or other types of brain injuries, according to a new report from the Government Accountability Office.

The report confirms a suspicion that has been talked about for a long time. “It is everything many of us believed for years,” said Iraq veteran Kristopher Goldsmith, who is an assistant director at Vietnam Veterans of America. “Now I hope Congress will direct the resources to making it right.”

The report showed that 62 percent of all service members who were discharged for misconduct between 2011 and 2015 had been diagnosed with PTSD, a traumatic brain injury (TBI), or other conditions that can cause similar behavior. That totals over 57,000 soldiers. Out of the 57,000, 16 percent had PTSD or TBI.

The majority of the rest had adjustment and alcohol-related disorders. Those include depression, anxiety, personality disorders, different kinds of substance addictions, or bipolar disorder. Twenty-three percent of the soldiers discharged got an “other than honorable” discharge. This means they are, in most cases, not eligible for any military health care, disability pensions, or other benefits.

GAO Reports that 62% of Soldiers Separated for Misconduct Have PTSD or Other Disorders https://t.co/nwaqKoHH1A pic.twitter.com/5jFIvizWw5

— The Alt Standard (@TheAlt_Media) May 17, 2017

The military has long been criticized for not doing enough to help its veterans. Now experts are also criticizing President Donald Trump’s new health care bill; it passed the House earlier this month. The new bill categorizes PTSD as a pre-existing condition, which could make health insurance inaccessible to millions of veterans.

Given that Trump campaigned on the promise to do more for veterans, a lot of people slammed the new bill. Illinois Senator Tammy Duckworth lost her legs while serving in the Iraq war. She called the health care bill “stunning” for making it harder for veterans to get access to health care.

We need to reduce barriers to mental health care for service members & vets – not make PTSD a pre-existing condition #VeteransResist #NoAHCA

— Ruben Gallego (@RepRubenGallego) May 13, 2017

After speculations first broke that soldiers suffering from PTSD or TBI were frequently discharged, the military introduced regulations, screening soldiers to detect any such diseases before punishing them. But the GAO report showed that this rarely happened. And no one monitored the new regulations to check for compliance.

“Before, we were speculating. Now we have hard numbers to prove there are this vast numbers of combat veterans affected,” said Representative Mike Coffman, a Republican from Colorado and an Iraq War veteran. He said he believes that people want to do something about the problem, but that there has been a lack of understanding. Hopefully, this new information will lead to some change.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Soldiers Discharged for Misconduct Often Suffer from PTSD, Other Disorders appeared first on Law Street.

Post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD, is often the subject of daily life experiences and intense internet debates on topics such as trigger warnings or the United States’ use of drones. Rates of PTSD are known to be dramatically affected by racism, sexism, queerphobia, and other forms of oppression.

But what about people who witness extreme traumas without necessarily experiencing the trauma themselves? Lawyers, doctors, social workers, and teachers all are at a high risk of experiencing something variously called vicarious trauma, secondary trauma, or compassion fatigue.

How might legal office cultures leave people from law students to defense attorneys extremely susceptible to vicarious trauma? And, significantly, what impact does this have on clients?

When Trauma is Contagious

Vicarious trauma is often popularly defined in terms of professionals, like lawyers, who work with people who have been traumatized. A form of PTSD in its own right, people enduring vicarious trauma experience symptoms similar to more widely recognized PTSD. The National Child Traumatic Stress Network refers to vicarious trauma as “secondary traumatic stress,” and defines it in this way:

Secondary traumatic stress is the emotional duress that results when an individual hears about the firsthand trauma experiences of another. Its symptoms mimic those of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Accordingly, individuals affected by secondary stress may find themselves re-experiencing personal trauma or notice an increase in arousal and avoidance reactions related to the indirect trauma exposure. They may also experience changes in memory and perception; alterations in their sense of self-efficacy; a depletion of personal resources; and disruption in their perceptions of safety, trust, and independence.

All of these trauma responses often lead to more commonly known experiences, such as anxiety, depression, sleeping problems, substance abuse, procrastination, and low self-esteem. The Vicarious Trauma Institute highlights, crucially, one of the key differences between vicarious trauma and directly experienced trauma: the intensity of vicarious trauma is dictated by being exposed, first-hand, “to traumatic stories day after day or respond to traumatic situations while having to control your reaction.” Not only are people being exposed to stories or direct experiences of violence, then, but lawyers, social workers, school counselors, teachers, etc. are trained or otherwise expected to keep a straight face and remain a bastion of calm for their clients and/or students. Commonly referred to as “burnout,” many professionals who chronically endure these feelings of vicarious trauma are forced to stop working, leave their field of specialization, or switch professions entirely.

Many who identify as working in a “helping profession”–doctors, lawyers, social workers, etc.–are affected deeply by vicarious trauma. At the Annual Convening of Crisis Intervention in Chicago in 1996, social worker Terri Spahn Nelson contributed the following perspective on vicarious trauma:

Many of us, especially those of us in a helping profession, are secondary witnesses to trauma almost everyday. As we listen to our clients tell about their trauma of incest, rape, domestic violence, alcoholic families or memories of childhood abuse, we bear witness to their victimization. We listen, we support and we validate their feelings and their experience. We offer them the opportunity to let go of some of their burden. As witnesses and healers, we can’t help but to take in some of the emotional pain they have left with us. As the client releases some of their pain, we take it in. By the end of the day, we’ve collected bits and pieces of accounts of trauma. We may have pictures in our mind or intense feelings running through our body. We’ve become a witness to rape, child abuse, domestic violence and death… In simple terms, this vicarious trauma as experienced by professionals and volunteers in the helping field.

By positioning oneself as being a “helping” professional, the burden of “taking in” clients’ trauma becomes a nearly unavoidable expectation. The sense of responsibility for clients–and attendant guilt for not having endured what clients did, especially when client outcomes are not positive–often prove overwhelming for professionals who enter fields expecting to “help” or “fix” clients’ lives.

Legal Burnout

This form of trauma is particularly prevalent in lawyers, who often witness clients’ trauma on a daily basis. Especially when responsibility is placed on lawyers to alleviate that trauma somehow–whether through their efforts to win a criminal or civil case–vicarious trauma can set in.

The lack of control associated with many cases deeply contributes to lawyers’ experiences of vicarious trauma: as Abby Anna Batko-Taylor and Melissa L. Shearer of the Voice of the Defense Online highlight, “In addition to dealing with interpersonal relationships with challenging clients, lawyers also experience personal and institutional pressure to produce results that many times are outside of their control.” Given the relationship between loss of control and trauma in general–traumatic events generally involve survivors losing control of some enormous aspect of life, and can result in a need to control as much as possible in order to feel safe–the feeling of not having control over the outcome of a case can deeply aggravate feelings of vicarious trauma for lawyers.

While issues of vicarious traumatization are not exclusive to lawyers, legal professionals often experience higher rates of vicarious trauma than professionals with similarly traumatized clients. In a study of criminal defense attorneys, defense lawyers were found to experience even higher rates of vicarious traumatization than mental health providers and social workers. Bigger caseloads and lack of supervision around trauma were offered as possible explanations for these higher rates.

According to a Science Alert report on a Macquarie University study on vicarious trauma among those who work in the field of criminal law, these attorneys experience disproportionately higher impacts and intensities of trauma from client interactions. The report goes on:

While often presenting an image of toughness and emotional detachment, it would seem that criminal defense lawyers and prosecutors are significantly more vulnerable to developing depression, stress and vicarious trauma than their non-criminal law colleagues.

These vulnerabilities have tremendous negative impacts on not only legal professionals, but on their clients. In an article for Canadian Lawyer Magazine, which includes clips from lawyers who experience vicarious trauma, cover story author donalee Moulton reports that:

Withdrawal is one of the common symptoms of vicarious trauma. Other symptoms include difficulties solving problems, a sense of being disconnected from work and home, and feelings of powerlessness. In response, lawyers and judges may take on greater responsibility, work longer hours, and attempt to exert greater control over others. They may also become more distant and withdrawn, more cynical, and even more accident prone. It is not unusual for victims of vicarious trauma to develop chronic health problems.

Withdrawal, difficulty solving problems, and issues with control all carry enormous risk of negatively impacting clients both on a case and an interpersonal level.

Despite the fact that unaddressed vicarious trauma is known to negatively affect clients, not to mention its chronic health impacts on lawyers themselves, many legal professionals do not seek or have access to affirmative work environments that can both assist with and help prevent vicarious traumatization.

What does office culture have to do with it?

Not only do many lawyers lack access to assistance and preventive care, but many legal cultures are such that vicarious trauma can take hold. Lack of trauma-related supervision and extremely high case loads as a measure of a lawyers’ skill contribute to a masculinized culture in which addressing and preventing vicarious trauma is perceived as taking time away from the ‘real work.’ In a similar way that the macho, product-oriented culture of journalism is often cited as a cause of vicarious trauma among journalists, lawyers–especially women and people of color–are often actively discouraged from emotional expression in the workplace. This emotional suppression alone has negative impacts on lawyers’ health, and also facilitates a masculinized culture that makes it nearly impossible to treat, let alone prevent, vicarious trauma.

While many workshops and presentations on vicarious trauma focus on individualized healing plans, it is more rare that action plans to ease vicarious trauma focus on organizational cultures. However, research shows that the most effective way to assist professionals who are likely to experience vicarious trauma is through structural changes to office and professional cultures, such as reduced and/or more diverse case loads, comprehensive healthcare provisions, holistic approaches to work and clients, effective supervision, explicit group support, and education.

So, What Can Be Done?

It is clear, then, that vicarious trauma impacts a vast array of people, particularly lawyer–most often defense attorneys and those who specialize in domestic violence, immigration, or family court. Emphasizing the importance of self-care is an important move toward providing healthy, effective, and sustainable services to clients, but it seems that structural changes to office and professional cultures, which are often very cut-throat, can go the longest way toward reducing the negative impacts that vicarious trauma has on both lawyers and clients.

Resources

Primary

Legal Profession Assistance Conference: A Desk Manual on Vicarious Trauma

University of Washington Center for Public Service Law: Secondary Trauma and Compassion Fatigue When Working With Clients in Crisis

National Child Traumatic Stress Network: Secondary Traumatic Stress

Vicarious Trauma Institute: What is Vicarious Trauma?

Additional

Voice for the Defense Online: Representing the Traumatized Client: The Case, the Client, and You

Pyscholawlogy: Lessons About Emotion Suppression for Lawyers

Science Alert: Crime Can Traumatize Lawyers

Huffington Post: A Mental-Health Epidemic in the Newsroom

Good Men Project: Escape the “Act Like a Man” Box

I

Jennifer Polish

Jennifer Polish is an English PhD student at the CUNY Graduate Center in NYC, where she studies non/human animals and the racialization of dis/ability in young adult literature. When she’s not yelling at the computer because Netflix is loading too slowly, she is editing her novel, doing activist-y things, running, or giving the computer a break and yelling at books instead. Contact Jennifer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Vicarious Trauma: What is it and How Can Legal Culture Make it Worse? appeared first on Law Street.

It’s a relatively accepted “no no” for an adult to leave a child locked in a parked car in the scorching heat while they grab a latte, chat with a friend, take a yoga class, or basically do anything that doesn’t involve supervising their child. This type of abandonment is so taboo that states have even implemented laws allowing good samaritans to go full on Jazmine Sullivan and “bust the windows out ya car” to rescue trapped overheating kids. Unfortunately one Georgia man learned that these laws don’t extend to pets after he decided to save a panting pooch and was rewarded with handcuffs.

According to a story from USA Today, Michael Hammons, a Desert Storm veteran, used his wife’s wheelchair leg to smash the window of a parked car after hearing from bystanders that there was a dog inside in distress. Hammons told USA Today,

I’ve got PTSD, and I’ve seen enough death and destruction, and I didn’t want anything else to happen if I could prevent it.

One woman who witnessed the rescue claimed to reporters that “if it is 80 degrees outside, within 30 minutes, it will be 114 degrees inside a vehicle, even with the windows cracked.” Bystanders had reportedly already phoned 911 before and were waiting for police to arrive, but for Hammons there was no time to lose. Understandably so, as who wouldn’t want to save this face?

Man saves dog in hot car, but gets arrested http://t.co/us6hgullNh pic.twitter.com/SSwImry7js

— WBIR Channel 10 (@wbir) May 12, 2015

Police were forced to take action after the owner of both the dog and car came out of the store pissed and demanded police arrest him. Oconee County Chief Deputy Lee Weems told USA Today,

We would not have made those charges on our own. The deputies on scene say the owner of the car and of the dog was very insistent that he be charged with criminal trespassing.

The dog’s owner claimed that she had only been gone five minutes, even though witnesses said it was actually much longer. Regardless of how long her errand actually was, the decision to leave her dog susceptible to heat stroke in 80 degree weather wasn’t a bright decision on her part. Since there was no surveillance video proof of her alleged lengthy abandonment, deputies were only able to issue her a citation. Interestingly enough, USA Today reports that Georgia state law does allow for an individual to break a window to save a child in a hot or cold car, just not a pet.

As we approach summer and hotter temps, there will undoubtedly be more cases of naive people leaving young kids and pets being locked in hot cars, so if you’re considering your own rescue attempt consider what happened to Michael Hammons first, and maybe consider waiting for the police.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Man Saves Dog From Hot Car, Gets Arrested appeared first on Law Street.

Push a button, kill people thousands of miles away: who is surprised that PTSD is a result? United States pilots of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), more commonly known as drones, are not immune to the devastation of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), despite their relative physical distance from carnage.

Often framed as the ruggedly masculine problem of a “drone warrior,” the PTSD of drone pilots has a history of being valorized by journalists: GQ’s introduction to a piece on Airman First Class Brandon Bryant’s drone-induced PTSD describes him as having “hunted top terrorists, saved lives, but always from afar.” Writing about “terrorists” (many civilians are killed by drone attacks) like they are not human (“hunting”?!), much of the journalism surrounding drone pilots’ PTSD valorizes the suffering of white, straight men as being “for the sake of their country.”

There are exceptions, of course: some journalists slam drone attacks as murder (see video above). However, regarding drone pilots and PTSD, the glorification of American masculinity generally rules the day. Bryant, for instance, tugged at the sympathy of readers when his PTSD was framed by various news sources as being a burden on his sex and love life, turning women away from him and isolating him from potential peers. Even pieces covering PTSD that do sometimes challenge U.S. policy as opposed to glorifying the grit of traumatized male soldiers still leaves readers with the impression that, even if the public is not entitled to know all the details that make drone attacks “necessary,” drone pilots “probably know” (implying, of course, that there are, in fact, justifications for these strikes).

Now don’t get me wrong: PTSD is PTSD, and I would never, ever wish its horrific and suffocating grip on anyone, no matter what they’ve done.

And yet. And yet. Not all PTSD is created equal.

In the context of the U.S. engaging in another war in Iraq (to the tune of depressingly little [or little covered] organized public outrage), the coverage of PSTD in drone pilots is again—and again, and again–on the rise.

What purpose does this serve?

Focusing on U.S. drone pilots having PTSD is important: it is itself horrific and demands attention, and it also may help draw the attention of those who may otherwise find drone attacks unqualified successes. But focusing on the PTSD of U.S. pilots detracts focus from where it really needs to be: the traumas and horrendous death and psychological tolls that drone attacks inflict in countries of color. When “precise” drone strikes target 41 people but end 1,147 human lives, certainly the discussion should be broader than the (undeniably horrendous) pain of the (in media coverage) white American men who pulled the triggers. We must use this coverage of PTSD to expand the conversation to discuss the myriad ways that U.S.-inflicted terrorism in countries of color privileges the terrible traumas of U.S. soldiers at the expense of confronting the mass traumas and mass murders that the U.S. is inflicting through drone attacks.

Jennifer Polish

Jennifer Polish is an English PhD student at the CUNY Graduate Center in NYC, where she studies non/human animals and the racialization of dis/ability in young adult literature. When she’s not yelling at the computer because Netflix is loading too slowly, she is editing her novel, doing activist-y things, running, or giving the computer a break and yelling at books instead. Contact Jennifer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Drone Pilot PTSD is Awful, But Also Beside the Point appeared first on Law Street.

As Eddie Ray Routh’s trial continues in the high profile American Sniper murder case, two videos shown to the jurors by the prosecution may in fact aid the defense in trying to prove an insanity defense. This case highlights the difficult of using the insanity defense in real life–any defense based on someone’s state  of mind requires a lot of guesswork and interpretation.

Routh is accused of killing retired Navy Seal and author of the bestselling memoir “American Sniper” Chris Kyle and his neighbor Chad Littlefield. The killings took place at the Rough Creek Ranch-Lodge-Resort shooting range in Erath County, Texas. Routh, who fled the murder scene, pleaded not guilty to both murders in a Stephenville, Texas courtroom, but many wonder if he’ll be able to receive a fair trial just months after the film adaptation of “American Sniper” grossed millions in the box office .

Yesterday the prosecution rested, allowing the defense to begin using Routh’s history of mental illness to argue an insanity defense, in hopes of combatting a potential death penalty outcome. Routh had spent two years in mental hospitals suffering from schizophrenia and post traumatic stress disorder prior to the murders.

The prosecution, on the other hand, is arguing that Routh was not insane, but rather abused drugs and alcohol. They are arguing he knew right from wrong in spite of his schizophrenia diagnosis for which he was taking medication. Despite this, they seemingly managed to lay foundation for his defense team with a video submitted Tuesday into evidence that sheds light on the what kind of mental state he was in around the time of the murders.

The court is not allowing the audio to be released to the public until after the trial, but in the video Routh is seen in the back of a cop car after being arrested. He is breathing heavily and teary-eyed.

According to CNN, an officer asks if he’s okay. Routh replies:

I’m just so nervous about what’s been happening in my life today. I don’t know what’s been happening. I’ve been so paranoid schizophrenic all day. I don’t know what to even think of the world right now. I don’t know if I’m insane or sane.

Routh clearly sounds disturbed in his ramblings, making me question why the prosecution thought this would benefit them. You can watch brief scenes from the evidence in USA Today’s video account of the proceedings below.

In another video shown to jurors of his police interrogation the night of the murders, Routh is shown sounding even more unhinged. According to USA Today he confesses to the shootings saying:

I knew if I didn’t take out his soul, he was going to take mine. You can’t let people keep eating your soul, you know? Warlords aren’t happy with me.

However, the prosecution painted a different scene with recordings CNN reports were also released Tuesday of a jailhouse interview between Routh and a reporter from The New Yorker magazine. In the interview, he is heard saying several questionable phrases such as:

So we’re shooting pistols here huh? Hmmm, OK, Again, that’s pretty much saying duel motherf*****.

I was like what the f*** are you even doing here man? This isn’t a spectator sport, it’s a shooting sport, you shoot. And that’s what got me all, you know, wired up.

I took care of business and then I got in the truck and left.

In those recordings, he sounds somewhat confrontational and like he is lacking remorse. There are just a lot of questions about what was really going through Routh’s head at the time of the murders.

No one doubts that Routh was the one who shot Kyle and Littlefield, but understanding if he was mentally competent enough to understand what he was doing is the real question. Despite what legal procedurals would have you believe, insanity defenses are only used in less than 1 percent of felony cases, and only a fraction are successful. Keeping that in mind, Routh’s defense has only just begun to plead their case while Kyle’s entire community of Stephenville anxiously watches. Whether or not the insanity defense will succeed remains to be seen.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Videos of “American Sniper” Shooter Might Prove Insanity Defense appeared first on Law Street.

For the majority of my life, war has been the norm in the United States. We entered Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003. War is the new normal–and between 2004-2011 war was, as expected, mostly the leading cause of death for troops in the U.S. military. But for the last two years, that trend did not hold true. Suicide has surpassed war as the number one killer of American troops.

Suicide is also incredibly prevalent among veterans. According to a report released by the Department of Veterans Affairs, 22 veterans take their own lives every day. Given the way the VA collects that information it’s speculated that that number could be even higher. To put this in context, roughly 20 percent of suicides in the United States are committed by veterans, even though they make up just 10 percent of the population. That’s a startling and terrifying figure; as News21 put it:

Suicide rates within the veteran population often were double and sometimes triple the civilian suicide rate in several states. Arizona’s 2011 veteran suicide rate was 43.9 per 100,000 people, nearly tripling the civilian suicide rate of 14.4, according to the latest numbers from the state health department.

Now, the civilian suicide rate has also been rising. According to the New Yorker:

In the United States, suicide rates have risen, particularly among middle-aged people: between 1999 and 2010, the number of Americans between the ages of thirty-five and sixty-four who took their own lives rose by almost thirty percent.

Suicide is a gigantic issue among both our troops and our veterans. The ways in which we understand Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and the effects of war continue to evolve, but clearly we haven’t done enough. See the infographic below for just some of the ways in which veterans’ and active service peoples’ duties can affect them.

Courtesy of Blackwater Law.

PTSD is tricky because it can show up suddenly or gradually, sometimes a long time after the traumatic event. In addition, medical care for veterans hasn’t always been as top notch as it could be–we all remember the VA hospital scandals earlier this year. PTSD can fuel depression, alcoholism, and various other problems. There are other reasons that veterans and service members are at particular risk. For some, reacclimating to civilian life can be very difficult. While there’s no dispositive list of risk factors, it’s clear from statistics alone that this is a significant problem.

The argument that the suicide rate will go down once we’re fully out of Afghanistan and Iraq seems like it should make sense, but it’s not that simple. Even while those wars have been slowly de-escalated, suicide rates have remained pretty constant. That ties back to the fact that PTSD can develop over time along with those struggles that veterans face when they return. A troubling portion of our nation’s veterans become homeless, which makes getting them access to health care and help even more difficult. After all, since 2010, there has been a thirty-three percent increase in homeless veterans.

The fact is that anyone who is a member of our military forces–or former member–deserves the utmost respect, help, and care. But that simply isn’t happening–and until I started looking up these statistics today I didn’t quite realize how much we are failing them. Something has to change–and it starts with awareness.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post With 22 Veteran Suicides Each Day, Where Are Our Priorities? appeared first on Law Street.

Suicide is one of the ten most common causes of death in the United States. In fact, suicide is such a common  incident that locations to commit the act actually begin to trend. The New York Times reports that, “an estimated 1,600 people have committed suicide by jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge.” Are the many deaths a coincidence, or does that bridge serve as some sort of morbid invitation that pulls people to their deaths below? In a less publicized issue, a man recently shot himself at Arlington Cemetery–a well known final resting place for veterans. We all know that suicide is caused by untreated depression and mental illness, yet it is unclear why people choose similar or symbolic places to end their lives. Most importantly, how can this epidemic be stopped?

How Local Government Can Help  

Despite San Francisco’s typically moderate temperatures and sunny skies, the Golden Gate Bridge can be a dark and ominous site. It is the number one spot for suicides in the United States, with 46 suicides reported last year alone.

Recently, the directors of the Golden Gate Bridge Highway and Transportation District voted to erect a “suicide barrier,” in hopes of minimizing attempts and deaths. The “suicide barrier,” would be a 20 foot wide net, made from stainless steel, and located 20 feet below the bridge. The Empire State Building, the Eiffel Tower, and the Sydney Harbour Bridge all have barriers, so placing one in the top location for suicide in the U.S. is a comprehensible idea. In 2012, President Barack Obama signed a bill which allowed funds to be designated to the project. According to the Times-Herald, “under the funding plan Caltrans would contribute $22 million, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission $27 million and the state $7 million.”

There are several controversies that surround this innovation. Many people who are friends and family members of Golden Gate Bridge suicide victims support this effort, and would like to see the city take action to prevent more individuals from jumping to their deaths. Yet others feel that funds toward this development would be a waste. Their argument is that a person who has a suicide plan will commit the act one way or another, so why waste government funds on the safety net? But according to helpguide.org, “most suicidal people are deeply conflicted about ending their own lives.” Therefore if the impulse is caught, the victim may decide to abandon their plan.

A sign for the Suicide Hotline on the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Yellow Line.

Many popular places to commit suicide have taken initiative to place Suicide Hotline signs up, yet it has been proven that physical barriers are the most effective intervention technique, because suicide is impulsive in nature.

Suicide is a tough issue that affects roughly 38,364 people a year. A question that prevails is whether or not the government should interfere. In the case of the Golden Gate Bridge, the government stepped in and chose to use funds for preventative action toward the suicide epidemic in San Francisco. Little can be done to prevent a person from taking their own life, other than funding mental health facilities and programs, yet victims families, and mental health advocates remain hopeful.

How the Federal Government Can Help  

In a more recent case, the media chose to tread on the topic lightly to prevent a domino-effect from occurring. On Friday, June 20, a man was found in Arlington Cemetery, near the Pentagon Memorial–a memorial to honor the victims of the September 11 terrorist attacks. His method of suicide was a gunshot to the head. In an effort to discourage a trend from developing, newspapers have steered clear of heavily covering the June 20 occurrence; little has been reported on the motives for the suicide or the victim’s personal information other than he was a 92-year-old retired Air Force colonel.

Veteran suicides are on the rise–an average of 22 veterans commit suicide each day.

In order to address this issue, legislation requiring soldiers be examined before discharge was introduced in April of this year. According to the National Journal, this examination would include testing for, “nightmares, flashbacks, changes in personality, sleeping disorders, and suicidal thoughts.” Another provision to the bill allows for soldiers to be eligible for health care up to fifteen years after their service in the military has ended.

It’s a sad truth that suicide is becoming increasingly popular among Americans. Suicide is usually a result of depression and mental illness, yet there are steps that can be taken to increase the services offered to individuals suffering. Campaigns to increase awareness can be organized, services for individuals suffering can be improved and made more easily available to lower income families, and the availability of lethal medications and weapons can be more heavily monitored and withheld from precarious individuals. There’s still a lot of work to be done.

[The New York Times]

—

Madeleine Stern (@M3estern) is a student at George Mason University majoring in Journalism and minoring in Theater. Her writing on solitary confinement inspired her to pursue a graduate degree in clinical counseling after graduation. Madeleine is an avid runner, dedicated animal lover, and a children’s ballet instructor. Contact Madeleine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [rafael-castillo via Flickr]

Madeleine Stern

Madeleine Stern attended George Mason University majoring in Journalism and minoring in Theater. Her writing on solitary confinement inspired her to pursue a graduate degree in clinical counseling after graduation. Madeleine is an avid runner, dedicated animal lover, and a children’s ballet instructor. Contact Madeleine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Suicide Prevention: New Policies Hope to Slow Trends appeared first on Law Street.