E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Staff / Reuters
British soldiers wait to be transported to a base in the provincial capital Lashkar Gar in Camp Bastion, Helmand, Feb. 5, 2010.
British soldiers who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan - particularly young men and those who have seen active combat - are more likely to commit violent crimes than their civilian counterparts, according to research published on Friday.
The study of almost 14,000 British soldiers deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan is the first to examine the link between military service and violent crime by using official criminal records.
Researchers said the findings could help military officials improve their risk assessment of violence among serving and ex-military personnel.
They stressed that although the study points to a serious problem for those affected, it does not mean all ex-soldiers will become violent criminals.
"Just as with post traumatic stress disorder, this is not a common outcome in military populations," said Professor Simon Wessely, co-director of the Centre for Military Health Research at King's College London, who co-led the study.
"Overall you must remember that of those who serve in combat, 94 percent of those who come back will not offend."
The study found that those in combat roles were more than 50 percent more likely than those in non-combat roles to commit assaults or threaten violence after returning.
The problem was particularly striking among young men. Of around 3,000 soldiers aged under 30, more than 20 percent had a conviction for violent offences, compared with only 6.7 percent of civilian men in the same age group.
The study also highlights mental health problems in the military, and issues of alcohol abuse, post-traumatic stress disorder and aggressive behaviour, the researchers said.
Violent offending was most common among young men from the lower ranks of the army, said Deirdre MacManus from King's College London, who led the work and presented the results at a briefing in London.
This behaviour was strongly associated with a history of violent offending before joining the military, she said.
The study's publication, in the Lancet medical journal on Friday, comes as military chiefs in the United States say a soldier charged with slaying 16 civilians in Afghanistan last year should undergo a sanity review.
Anecdotal evidence and media coverage of violence and assaults committed by ex-servicemen has focused attention on whether serving in combat makes soldiers less stable and more prone to violent outbursts.
The study's results found that men who had seen combat in Iraq and Afghanistan were 53 percent more likely to commit violent offences than their fellow soldiers in non-combat roles.
Men who had multiple traumatic combat experiences had a 70 to 80 percent higher risk of becoming violent criminals.
David Forbes, an expert in post-traumatic mental health from the University of Melbourne, Australia, said this study showed for the first time the link between combat and interpersonal violence, and the need for better understanding of the mechanisms behind how combat enhances the risk of violence.
"By understanding these factors, we might develop more informed prevention and intervention programmes for troops as they reintegrate into civilian life," he wrote in a commentary.
Wessely said that having naturally higher levels of aggression was likely to be an attribute for many soldiers.
"Some people with aggressive dispositions make very good soldiers, that's the nature of the game," he said.
Copyright 2013 Thomson Reuters. Click for restrictions.
Leave a Comment:
No comments
Interesting, will this spur a call to ban Assault Troops? These high capacity ex-soldiers have more than 2 military characteristics. We cannot stand by and let them become the hands of criminals!
These men weren't trained to hunt animals, or only for self defense. These men weren't trained to shoot at paper targets. These men were trained to KILL PEOPLE!
I know this study only found that 6% will be offenders, but that's 5% than the number of gun owners that will murder!
What can we do to curb this threat? How can we prevent military grade weapons that are 600% more dangerous than assault rifles from coming into our neighborhoods and schools where our children are?
Their 4th Amendment rights are NOT more important than my right to life! Confiscate these assault troops!
Its time to set aside partisan politics, we must pass laws NOW! We deserve to be safe and secure from all threats!
Wow. I am so glad they discovered this...and I hope IT WAS NOT DONE WITH TAXPAYER MONEY even if it was an overseas study and not US. All you have to do is look at the backlash of soldiers disorders after coming home from WWI WWII, from Korea, Vietnam. I guess after a generation or two dies we have to rediscover what we already knew and then call it a revelation. Wasn't this the case when the knowledge base from Rome was lost and we are discovering we learned a great deal of what they already knew all over again? I guess history will repeat itself. :(
Well, I came back and edited this: I just realized this is MSNBC so there is hope for the big picture and it might not actually be that bad.
Actually this gives me an idea: There should be a study to see if out of all the major sites and networks MSNBC, on a weekly basis, actually publishes the most filler articles with the least amount of new, useful information.
pure liberal socialist rhetorical caca.
Lazarus
I would point out that the 6% was arrived at by subtracting 94% from 100% and is the figure for all age groups. But if you narrow it down to the most likely demographic (men under 30) who were in the military then the rate goes up to 20%. If you further narrow it to men under 30 who actually saw combat, then the rate goes to 53%. If you consider only men who had multiple traumatic combat experiences (such as surviving an IED) then the rate goes to 70-80%.
Very little data is collected on this sort of thing in this country for a number of reasons: 1) a majority of recently discharged vets have no health care and are never checked, 2) regulations make it impossible to accurately correlate medical with criminal arrest records, and 3) the VA has a long history (going back to the Korean War) of treating soldiers with PTSD or other mental changes brought on by combat as malingerers.
The study was done in Britain because they have universal healthcare so they have medical records on all discharged vets, they have no need for an equivalent to the VA since they have universal healthcare, and the government is the keeper of both health and criminal arrerst records so it is fairly easy to run correlations on such things.
I would think this would be the obvious. Especially when they give it all and have no jobs or future waiting for them when they get home. I think the companies that have programs for vets should be expanded......
People have no idea what some people saw over there
What a stupid journalist. Do you REALLY think its a natural transition from the battlefirld to home? My question is what are we doing to help them readjust after their military experience? Its not like they have been washing the car and going to work - shopping and tucking their kids in... articles like this make me so disappointed in the American media - so unrealistic.
We/they are doing nothing! Since 1968, when I became involved with veterans and their struggles, there has been very little progress. The Military, Politicians, and the Medical experts always seem shocked that these soldiers have problems. We change the names of the problems, fudge the numbers, or blame the veteran for the action or behavior, but provide very little help for them. Bottom line is, "we have learned how to make trained killers out of young men and women, and have done so for centuries. When are we going to learn how to bring them back to what they were before."
@Mr Wizard is correct. Recently the Army was caught hiring a large number of "forensic psychiatrists" (at around $250k a pop) to examine and reverse findings by VA and Army psychiatrists and psychologists of PTSD. They were reversing around 92% of all the PTSD cases they examines, usually re-diagnosing the victims as having anxiety (for which no disability is available.)
I am a Vietnam vet. I got the same runaround because I got punctured ear drums from an incident in which I was awarded a Purple Heart, but now I have severe tinitus and moderate hearing loss. The VA claimed I was ineligible because my medical records were "presumed to be destroyed in a fire in military archives" in 1973. According to the archives' web site,m my records were not destroyed, but the VA says its ruling is final and I cannot appeal. That's how vets have been treated since WWII.
Ane lest you can't see the motives, the treatment of vets sustaining injury (including PTSD) from Iraq and Afghanistan will total well over $1.3 TRILLION dollars. By failing to correctly diagnose and treat as many vets as possible, the government saves billions of dollars.
Only about 50% of Korean War vets received proper diagnosis and treatment. This had dropped to 30% for Vietnam vets and is now running at around 15% for Iraq and Afghanistan vets.
As Reagan said of Vietnam vets: "They are bums and losers. Why should we give them a dime?"
DUH ..
These findings are not surprising. First of all, the military appeals to macho types. Secondly, they are trained to be violent. Thirdly, combat is thrilling, if you survive. The sense of power over other people is addictive and violent behavior as a civilian or off duty soldier comes close. Let's stop the empire wars, and, secondly, give the survivors some help.
Not necessarily. I've met soldiers with very high self control, humble attitudes and a heart of gold. These guys would give you the shirt on their backs and their lives if they felt they have to, and their values and beliefs often tell them they have to. A sense of power over others? They know a bullet can come out of nowhere. There's no atheist in the foxhole. I think everybody is violent, even you. They don't get trained to be violent. They get trained to channel and control their violence and be lethal. I think you need to rethink your preconceived ideas. I will agree that some wanting the sense of power join to assert and exert power, just as some join police forces for the same reason. But some people work for corporate America for the same reason as well. Overall there's no higher citizenship than serving for this country, it is self sacrifice, literally, and courage. I agree with your last two points: let's stop the empire wars and give the survivors help.
@ save the environment who said, "There's no atheist in the foxhole."
Perhaps you should re-think that statement. This atheist is currently serving in Afghanistan. Moreover, the latest Pew Research Poll on religion in America says 33% of Americans under 30 are atheists or agnostics. Considering approximately 80% of the U.S. Military is under 30, that means about 3 in 5 military members (the majority) are atheists or agnostics.
The military attracts brutal violent men, then it trains them to kill. No surprise they continue to commit brutal violent acts when they return to civilian life. It is similar to the police, which attracts bullies who can exercise their brutality under color of law. Or doctors, or nurses, or teachers who just want to help. Different professions attract different personality types.
JohnCarter please stop commenting on what you obviously have no idea about. I am a combat veteran, I was not and am not a violent brutal man, I have committed no violent acts since I have bee discharged (and it has been many years), nor do I foresee myself becoming violent. Just as an insight, I come from a military family, I chose to serve because I felt it was my duty as an American to secure our country and keep it safe, just as my father before me, and his father before him. That is a far more likely reason for someone to join the military than because they are violent and brutal.
Stereotype much?
@John Carter,
The military also attracts many more very normal people who are trained as computer programmers. The vast majority of soldiers transition to civilian life with no problem. They were never trained to "kill" and saw little of no combat. Most were "attracted" to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan by a lack of jobs in primarily rural areas. When they return there still are no jobs, even seriously ill vets receive no care because the VA is too far away and has rules designed to disqualify. For example the VA knows that around 95% of vets with PTSD self-medicate with alcohol in the absence of professional treatment. So they have a policy that no vet gets any such treatment until he has had frequent alcohol-free urine tests for 90 days. For most vets, this is an impossible condition to meet --- more because of the distances and cost of travel than from any other reason.
You simply have zero idea what you are talking about.
One should note that the "criminal" activities mentioned are interpersonal violence. In the UK, farting in public can get you an "ASBO" (Anti-social behaviour order) so a young 20-something getting into a fight at a pub after a few that is an ex-soldier can be listed as a "criminal". Sorry... when I think of a criminal, I think of drug dealers, robbers, rapists, embezzlers and the like.
"This behaviour was strongly associated with a history of violent offending before joining the military."
Like the U.S. Military, the Brits accepted some people with records. Sometimes it works out... too often it is a bad idea.
I regret some of the above postings... "Military attracts brutal violent men..." Boy, heard that a lot during the Vietnam war... where many soldiers were unwilling draftees and most of the rest of us were 18 year old kids doing what our society asked us to. I was twenty when I got home and looked 14... so I didn't catch what too many of my fellow Marine veterans did.
The "brutal, violent men" don't take to discipline and make dreadful soldiers who (if they somehow make it through training...) are a threat to the real soldiers in the fire teams, squads and platoons... But thank you for tarring many thousands of young boys with a filthy brush... many of whom died thinking that they were helping protect your right to insult better human beings...
Well said, JFO.
The USMC found out DECADES ago, that criminals do not follow directions. In the military, people that do not follow the rules are a threat to their fellow Troops. The 'Lose Cannons' are only popular in the MOVIES and seldom last to the end of their first enlistment...
Most of the VETS I have known are very Anti-War, they support ACCOUNTABILITY and a Media that reports to the Citizens, what their government is doing. Many are history fanatics and research the WHY behind the things that have happened. And they are not AFRAID to ask the unpopular questions and point fingers...
The true threats to a Democracy are the people calling for more Media restrictions and professing that the average person does not need to KNOW what happens during Conflicts and Government Operations...
The ONLY purpose of the Media is to EDUCATE the VOTERS about what their Politicians are really doing...
This story seems plausible.
How does one go about getting a grant to do a "study"?
I think I may want get in on this.. looks like easy money to me!
That is the stupidest comment so far!
Perhaps this explains a lot.
Maybe these Brits had a propensity for violence BEFORE they saw combat.
Sorta skews the study don't ya think?
Right on Slodon. It skews and skewers.
Perhaps the study should have been about how people with a history of violent offending before joining the military are less likely have violent behaviors after leaving the military, versus the same people who never joined the military.
By mentioning that many soldiers had violent behavior before entering the service is a dead giveaway that the study controlled for prior violent behavior. So much for high school dropouts thinking that they can, in an instant, and without reading the entire article, come to conclusions that are more accurate that PhDs who have studied this narrow field for years or decades.
What do you expect, you take an 18 year old kid teach him 50 different ways to kill, turn him loose in hell, send him back 6 times, then have some idiot that has never left the safety of there suburban home and the most life threatening thing they ever experienced was the roller coaster at the county fair call him a murderer for doing what is necessary sometimes, what this country asked them to do!
If you've never walked in there shoes, don't judge, Once you've held a dieing friend it changes you, you never come back the same!
The UK is now one of the most VIOLENT societies in the EU, according to 2007 & 2009 data...
The figures were sourced from Eurostat, the European Commission's database of statistics. They are gathered using official sources in the countries concerned such as the national statistics office, the national prison administration, ministries of the interior or justice, and police.
A breakdown of the statistics, revealed that violent crime in the UK had increased from 652,974 offences in 1998 to more than 1.15 million crimes in 2007.
It means there are over 2,000 crimes recorded per 100,000 people in the UK, making it the most violent place in Europe. In 2009 this was, 2,034/100k...
Austria is second, with a rate of 1,677 per 100,000 people, followed by Sweden, Belgium, Finland and Holland. In 2009 this was, 1,677/100k...
France recorded 324,765 violent crimes in 2007 – a 67 per cent increase in the past decade – at a rate of 504/100k people...
By comparison, America has an estimated rate of 466 violent crimes per 100,000 people. The District of Columbia reported the highest violent crime rate with 1,346/100k people in 2012.
France recorded 324,765 violent crimes in 2007 – a 67 per cent increase in the past decade – at a rate of 504 per 100,000 population...
Reference - .infiniteunknown.net/2013/01/11/britain-the-most-violent-country-in-europe-violence-rate-is-4-36-times-worse-than-in-the-u-s/
As with most statics, figures LIE and Liars FIGURE...
The UK has 4+levels of reported VIOLENCE and many crimes are not counted until the criminal is CONVICTED. Most other countries have only ONE level, many POLICE do not even report minor affrays...
Apr 14, 2009 ... Janet Napolitano: “Right-wing extremists” pose national security threats. Returning U.S. military vets singled out as particular threat...
Until you know how the numbers were collected and their criteria, numbers by themselves mean little...
Great. Now that women are officially given the pleasure of combat, they too will be more likely to commit violent crime. It won't be just killing their babies like Casey Anthony, Susan Smith and Andrea Yates, but mass shootings with "assault weapons". VA Tech is now co-postal.
Violence breeds violence. He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword. This issue is not new. Soldiers coming back from war are still stressed out. That is why debriefing is needed. They need time to adjust to society again.
Duuuaaaahhh! No kidding. What genius, and how much money was spent to come to this earth-shattering conclusion>
These guys are trained combatants and have seen violence face to face- whadya expect!? Especially when you bring them home to unemployment and don't help them with obvious psychological trauma. Stop bashing the people who have fought for your freedoms!!
great this clears it all up, lanza, the aurora shooter and going all the way back to the columbine shootings
yeah they gotta point the finger in some other direction in order to take the focus off themselves. the govt created us, the soldiers and grunts and then after training us to do their bidding they expect us to come back after long combat deployments and expect us to overnight resume the casper milquetoast, pc sheeple identity that we learned for 18-20 yrs and then basic training and all the other combat survival schools destroyed. sure an easy transition for anyone