The nature of military justice.

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Sounds like your "extensive service" (and
exactly how many years what that service?) left you a bit lacking in
the
military justice knowledge area.

I was never a stateside soldier. My military law experience was in combat
areas; England France, Belgium and Germany where there were wars going in.
other words I am not a stateside barracks room lawyer like you.And what
you
don't realise is that is what is written and what actually happens is
often
totally unrelated.

I recommend you listen to Ed's advice before you dig your hole any deeper.

Brooks

.
Arthur Kramer

From: nt (Krztalizer)
Date: 1/8/2004 5:31 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:


Just for giggles I read parts of the Articles of War about 20 years ago.
They
were exceptionally harsh towards enlisteds.


UCMJ was pretty even handed to enlisteds - we all got smacked with the same
stick, but officers definitely got preferential treatment. Even when folks
got
hurt due to blatant stupidity (USS Kirk, entire deck party injured when the
new
skipper decided to leave port at the insane speed of 22 knots, into towering
waves that resulted in 8 critical injuries and two medical retirements),
officers don't seem to rate brig time. What about the loon JO in Oki that
kidnapped another officers wife? Still no jail time. But, that's one of the
perks that go with the job and extra responsibility - I can accept that.

v/r
Gordon


In most cases that's just a matter of predjudice on the part of the convening
authority and the courtsmartial. In some cases the punishments ARE different
under the UCMJ. Example an officer can get up to 3 days confinement to
quarters, an enlisted can't. We all know examples where an enlisted will lose
two stripes for DUI where and officer will get a relatively low fine and be on
his way.

Under the Articles of War, however, enlisteds could be branded or flogged. I
don't know if either punishment was still in effect in WW2.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

Subject: The nature of military justice.
From: Ed Rasimus

I would argue strenuously that the current military justice system is
more just and balanced than anything that happens in civil courtrooms.
What were you trying to say in your initial post?????


I think we both know that if a general wants a court marshall to come out a
certain way, that is the way it will come out. Any doubt about that?

..
Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Subject: The nature of military justice.
From: (B2431)
Date: 1/8/04 3:08 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Just for giggles I read parts of the Articles of War about 20 years ago. They
were exceptionally harsh towards enlisteds.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired


Correct. Although it tough to giggle while reading the articles of war. They
were cruel and unfair. One man could get 10 days restriction to quarters while
for the same offense another man could get 20 years at hard labor in Alcatraz.
But under either system, the military will have its way. As I told Ed, if a
General wants a court marshal to come out a certain way, that is the way it
will damn well come out. Articles of war or UCMJ.

..

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Under the Articles of War, however, enlisteds could be branded or flogged. I
don't know if either punishment was still in effect in WW2.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired


Nope. No flogging.The service had gone soft by then. (sigh)


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
From: "Kevin Brooks"
Many courts martials result
in the defendant being exhonerated (in 1997, the US Army had 40
acquittals
out of 741 general courts martials, and 46 acquittals out of 315 special
courts martials, for a convi

40 equitals out of 741 is hardly "many". And as anyone with extensive
experience in military service knows, once a board of inquiry recommends
a
court marshal, the chance of equital is very small as your figures prove.
And
once the military discovers you intend to get civilian council, you might
find
youreself quietly threatened to just forget that idea.. Or else.


The equital rate of courts martial compared to civillian felony equital
rates is
extremely unrealistic. The closest civillian equivalent to the Article 15
process
is plea bargaining. So you could almost view an Article 15, signed by the
accused as either a) a 'guilty as charged' plea, or b) a plea bargain in an
effort to avoid courts martial. In this light, one could make an argument
that
the courts martial conviction rate is actually pretty low.

I've known several people that have used civilian council. The only 'ill'
effect any one of them reported was the general idea that he had hired the
wrong civilian lawyer. The one he got wasn't very well versed in courts
martial procedures.

Finally, regarding the command influence factor; the inspector general
system was specifically designed to defeat 'direct' command influence on
actual judicial proceedings. Yep, there are always flaws (as in any system,
military or civilian) but in general, attorneys trained as officers do their
level best in defense of their 'clients.' Further down this thread is first
hand
proof; the poster, while being blindsided by a witness that was either
purjuring
himself, or had lied in pre-trial questioning, still had an attorney that
was as
flabergasted by the act as he was.

I feel safe within the UCMJ and how it's handled. Art, I honor your prior
service and the sacrifices you have made for our country, but you may just
be a little out of touch with the current military situation in this topic.

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: The nature of military justice.
From: Ed Rasimus

I would argue strenuously that the current military justice system is
more just and balanced than anything that happens in civil courtrooms.
What were you trying to say in your initial post?????


I think we both know that if a general wants a court marshall to come out
a
certain way, that is the way it will come out. Any doubt about that?

Yeah, lots of doubt. The GO who is the convening authority does not involve
himself directly in the trial proceedings, and if you are claiming the board
of officers (and an enlisted man if the defendant is enlisted, at the
defendant's discretion--though most enlisteds are smart enough to realize
that having a junior O-4 sitting in the jury is often better for him than
having a grizzled CSM or MSG there in his stead) who serve as the jury lack
the integrity to find according to their conscince, then you are WAY off
base. Just a few short years back there was a case at FT Lewis where the CG
was accused of having illegally influenced, or trying to influence, a CM
procedure. He quickly had more senior folks and reporters poking around than
you could shake a stick at. This is serious stuff, and you don't have the
facts to back up your increasingly whacky assertions.

Brooks


.
Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

"RJJJ" wrote in message
...
"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
From: "Kevin Brooks"
Many courts martials result
in the defendant being exhonerated (in 1997, the US Army had 40
acquittals
out of 741 general courts martials, and 46 acquittals out of 315
special
courts martials, for a convi

40 equitals out of 741 is hardly "many". And as anyone with extensive
experience in military service knows, once a board of inquiry
recommends
a
court marshal, the chance of equital is very small as your figures
prove.
And
once the military discovers you intend to get civilian council, you
might
find
youreself quietly threatened to just forget that idea.. Or else.


The equital rate of courts martial compared to civillian felony equital
rates is
extremely unrealistic. The closest civillian equivalent to the Article 15
process
is plea bargaining. So you could almost view an Article 15, signed by the
accused as either a) a 'guilty as charged' plea, or b) a plea bargain in
an
effort to avoid courts martial. In this light, one could make an argument
that
the courts martial conviction rate is actually pretty low.

Those conviction rates I quoted did not include Art 15 results.


I've known several people that have used civilian council. The only 'ill'
effect any one of them reported was the general idea that he had hired the
wrong civilian lawyer. The one he got wasn't very well versed in courts
martial procedures.

That is the double-edged sword part of the equation. Though the defendant
can retain his military counsel as well to assist, IIRC.


Finally, regarding the command influence factor; the inspector general
system was specifically designed to defeat 'direct' command influence on
actual judicial proceedings. Yep, there are always flaws (as in any
system,
military or civilian) but in general, attorneys trained as officers do
their
level best in defense of their 'clients.' Further down this thread is
first
hand
proof; the poster, while being blindsided by a witness that was either
purjuring
himself, or had lied in pre-trial questioning, still had an attorney that
was as
flabergasted by the act as he was.

One of the most famous cases I can recall reading about was the old "Green
Beret Case" in Vietnam, where the 5th SFG commander and a couple of other SF
personnel were accused of crimes related to the disappearance (execution) of
a double agent (the gent weas reportedly working for COSVN while also
reporting to the US folks). They ended up bringing in civilian council, and
despite the rather obvious wishes of the then MACV CG to hang these guys,
they were subsequently acquitted (another nail in Art's, "If the General
wants them convicted, they will be convicted" crap).

Brooks


I feel safe within the UCMJ and how it's handled. Art, I honor your prior
service and the sacrifices you have made for our country, but you may just
be a little out of touch with the current military situation in this
topic.

From: "Kevin Brooks"
Date: 1/8/2004 7:47 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:


"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: The nature of military justice.
From: Ed Rasimus

I would argue strenuously that the current military justice system is
more just and balanced than anything that happens in civil courtrooms.
What were you trying to say in your initial post?????


I think we both know that if a general wants a court marshall to come out
a
certain way, that is the way it will come out. Any doubt about that?

Yeah, lots of doubt. The GO who is the convening authority does not involve
himself directly in the trial proceedings, and if you are claiming the board
of officers (and an enlisted man if the defendant is enlisted, at the
defendant's discretion--though most enlisteds are smart enough to realize
that having a junior O-4 sitting in the jury is often better for him than
having a grizzled CSM or MSG there in his stead) who serve as the jury lack
the integrity to find according to their conscince, then you are WAY off
base. Just a few short years back there was a case at FT Lewis where the CG
was accused of having illegally influenced, or trying to influence, a CM
procedure. He quickly had more senior folks and reporters poking around than
you could shake a stick at. This is serious stuff, and you don't have the
facts to back up your increasingly whacky assertions.

Brooks


.
Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer



I think it would depend on the charges and the rank of the accused. Over the
years I have become quite aware of the self serving nature of most people.

A hypothetical based on things I have seen over the years. An E-4 charged with
theft faces a board of company grade officers. The officers are aware who write
and endorse (USAF spelling "indorse") the OERs. They are under the impression,
correctly or incorrectly, they may get a less than perfect OER and the accused
is "only an enlistee" so why not go ahead and convict? Given this scenario it
would be very easy for the convening authority to make known his wishes.

Do I think this has happened? Yes. Can I prove it? No.

I will say this; there is deception in the judicial system. In the early 80s
someone wrote the Eglin AFB commander via the base paper asking why they never
posted officer's Article 15s. His printed response was that in the past quarter
there were 18(?) enlisted Article 15s and no officer Article 15s. It was an
out and out lie. The base published a quarterly list of such actions. This list
has a limited circulation. The list for that quarter showed 2 officers who
recieved Article 15s.

Have you ever noticed most base/post newspapers that have a police blotter
equivelent will give an enlisted's rank (a SSgt did this) but not an officer's
( a military member did this)? this also applies to dependants (an Air Force
member's wife was aprehended shoplifting). The only exception to this I ever
saw was at Eglin AFB when SrA Wade Flood used actual ranks in the late 1980s.

Just my observations.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

Subject: The nature of military justice.
From: "Kevin Brooks"
Date: 1/8/04 5:59 PM Pa

f the then MACV CG to hang these guys,
they were subsequently acquitted (another nail in Art's, "If the General
wants them convicted, they will be convicted" crap).


An example of one hardly proves a damn thing.



Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer