Non-Uniform Justice: An Equal Protection Analysis of Veterans Treatment Courts’ Exclusionary Qualification Requirements
Non-Uniform Justice: An Equal Protection Analysis of Veterans Treatment Courts’ Exclusionary Qualification Requirements
复制标题
非统一司法：退伍军人待遇法院排除资格要求的平等保护分析
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2014
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
E. Merriam
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
E. Merriam
当一名退伍军人犯罪时，他是否应该得到一个单独的刑事司法系统--一个允许退伍军人避免监禁和可能完全定罪的系统--仅仅因为他是一名退伍军人？在美国越来越多的司法管辖区，这个问题的答案是肯定的。在短短六年内，美国的退伍军人治疗法院（VTC）的数量从零激增到170个，每年都有更多。与在同一司法管辖区内犯下相同罪行的非职训局学员相比，职训局学员在刑事失当行为方面享有较宽松和有利的裁决制度。本文剖析了VTC的排除性资格要求的平等保护后果。在简要介绍了VTC和其他解决问题的法院后，本文探讨了适当的审查水平，以平等保护为基础的挑战，排除VTC的参与。这一评估包括对是否存在一些人所建议的基于平等保护的“平等诉诸法院的基本权利”的深入分析，结论是不存在适用于与被排除在职业培训中心之外有关的问题的这种权利。然后，文章转向与VTC相关的政府利益和分类的评估，得出的结论是，每一个检查的分类生存合理的基础审查。文章最后简短地指出，VTC说明了基本权利法学的一个缺陷：宣布基于平等保护的广泛基本权利可能会产生意想不到的后果，即禁止平等保护条款从未被理解为解决的非歧视性国家努力。
When a military veteran commits a crime, should he be afforded a separate criminal justice system -- one that allows the veteran to avoid incarceration and possibly conviction altogether -- simply because he is a veteran? In an increasing number of jurisdictions in the United States, the answer to that question is yes. In just six years, the number of Veterans Treatment Courts (VTCs) in the United States has exploded from zero to 170, with more created each year. VTC participants enjoy a more lenient and beneficial system of adjudication of criminal misconduct than non-participants who commit identical crimes in the same jurisdiction. This article dissects the equal protection ramifications of VTCs’ exclusionary qualification requirements. After briefly describing VTCs and other problem-solving courts, the article examines the appropriate level of scrutiny for equal protection-based challenges to exclusion from VTC participation. This assessment includes an extended analysis of whether there is, as some have suggested, an equal protection-based “fundamental right to equal access to the courts,” concluding there is not such a right that applies to issues associated with exclusion from VTCs. The article then turns to an evaluation of the government interests and classifications associated with VTCs, concluding that each of the examined classifications survives rational basis review. The article closes with a brief argument that VTCs illustrate a flaw of fundamental rights jurisprudence: declaring broad fundamental rights based on equal protection can have the unintended consequence of prohibiting non-invidious state efforts the Equal Protection Clause has never been understood to address.