The nature of military justice.

Many experts in military law consider the term military justice a contradiction
in terms. For example, you are charged with a crime by the military. The judge
is military, The prosecuting attourney is military, your defense attourney is
military and the entire jury is military. There is no representation that is in
any way neutral or objective. And we know the the military follows the orders
of superior officers. Where is the justice? Now lets extend that to civilian
life. You have an
argument with a neighbor and he takes you to court. When you get to court you
find the judge is your neighbors cousin. The prosecuting attourney is one of
the neighbors sons and his other son is your defense attourney. The entire
jury consists of his family. Now you have an exmple of miliitary justice which
all too often is no justice at all.


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
...
Many experts in military law consider the term military justice a
contradiction
in terms. For example, you are charged with a crime by the military. The
judge
is military, The prosecuting attourney is military, your defense attourney
is
military and the entire jury is military. There is no representation that
is in
any way neutral or objective. And we know the the military follows the
orders
of superior officers. Where is the justice?

Huh? Military defendants can indeed secure civilian representation if they
so desire. And since the defendant is *also* military, the process is one
conducted by his peers in the truest sense of the word. Command influence in
the courts martial process, once it gets to that point, is not allowed (but
indeed may pop up, or that accusation may occur), but then again politics
has been known to influence the justice process in the civil world. There is
an appeals process that does indeed sometimes result in the reversal of
convictions (i.e., an airman had his conviction overturned because polygraph
information was improperly used in his trial). 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 conviction rate of about 92%--see
http://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/annua...7ArmyStats.pdf ); civilian
courts at the state level had about an 88% conviction rate in 1996
(http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/psc96.pdf ), so your view that the
military process is somehow terribly "unjust" does not seem to stand up to
facts.

Brooks


Now lets extend that to civilian
life. You have an
argument with a neighbor and he takes you to court. When you get to court
you
find the judge is your neighbors cousin. The prosecuting attourney is one
of
the neighbors sons and his other son is your defense attourney. The
entire
jury consists of his family. Now you have an exmple of miliitary justice
which
all too often is no justice at all.


Arthur Kramer

ubject: The nature of military justice.
From: "Kevin Brooks"
Date: 1/8/04 10:00 AM Paci

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.


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

On 08 Jan 2004 18:30:42 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

ubject: The nature of military justice.
From: "Kevin Brooks"
Date: 1/8/04 10:00 AM Paci

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.


How difficult is it to get such a reccomendation from a Board of
inquiry? I know in some states the preliminary hearing is little more
than a formality, while in others some cases are tossed out. I'm
assuming that the board is much like a preliminary hearing in that
they decide whether the case needs to proceed to a full court.

Subject: The nature of military justice.
From: Charles Gray
Date: 1/8/04 10:57 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: je9rvvg923dtjv7c2jbgi3

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.


How difficult is it to get such a reccomendation from a Board of
inquiry? I know in some states the preliminary hearing is little more
than a formality, while in others some cases are tossed out. I'm
assuming that the board is much like a preliminary hearing in that
they decide whether the case needs to proceed to a full court.


States have nothing to do with it. We are talking about military boards of
Inquiries.



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
...
Subject: The nature of military justice.
From: Charles Gray
Date: 1/8/04 10:57 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: je9rvvg923dtjv7c2jbgi3

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.


How difficult is it to get such a reccomendation from a Board of
inquiry? I know in some states the preliminary hearing is little more
than a formality, while in others some cases are tossed out. I'm
assuming that the board is much like a preliminary hearing in that
they decide whether the case needs to proceed to a full court.


States have nothing to do with it. We are talking about military boards
of
Inquiries.

No, you are not. Read the UCMJ before you make a further fool of yourself.
Article 32 to be specific.

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

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
ubject: The nature of military justice.
From: "Kevin Brooks"
Date: 1/8/04 10:00 AM Paci

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".

A military conviction rate of 92% versus a civil conviction rate of 88%
(felonies only, IIRC, and the misdemeanor rate was a bit higher) inidicates
your premise is faulty.

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.

FYI, courts martials are not the direct result of any "board of
inquiry"--they stem from an Article 32 investigation conducted by a single
qualified officer, appointed by the convening authority, who may or may not
recommend proceeding to courts martial; alternatively, of course, they can
also stem from the accused's refusal to accept an Article 15. Final decision
as to whether or not to conduct the CM resides with the convening authority.
A board of inquiry, in those isolated cases where one is formed, can
recommend that Artcile 32 proceedings be initiated, but they don't
"recommend a courts martial". Sounds like your "extensive service" (and
exactly how many years what that service?) left you a bit lacking in the
military justice knowledge area.

And
once the military discovers you intend to get civilian council, you might
find
youreself quietly threatened to just forget that idea.. Or else.

Bullcrap. The ads are full of civil attorneys willing to take on courts
martials--do a google and you have to wade through the attorneys pitches to
get to the hard data sites. This appears to be another typical Art Kramer,
"It is what I say it is regardless of the actual facts" diatribe. Of course
you can present some *facts* to support your baseless allegations...or can
you? And I'll wager I had more years in uniform than you did--wanna bet?

Brooks



Arthur Kramer

Subject: The nature of military justice.
From: "Kevin Brooks"
Date: 1/8/04 11:21 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
ubject: The nature of military justice.
From: "Kevin Brooks"
Date: 1/8/04 10:00 AM Paci

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".

A military conviction rate of 92% versus a civil conviction rate of 88%
(felonies only, IIRC, and the misdemeanor rate was a bit higher) inidicates
your premise is faulty.

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.

FYI, courts martials are not the direct result of any "board of
inquiry"--they stem from an Article 32 investigation conducted by a single
qualified officer, appointed by the convening authority, who may or may not
recommend proceeding to courts martial; alternatively, of course, they can
also stem from the accused's refusal to accept an Article 15. Final decision
as to whether or not to conduct the CM resides with the convening authority.
A board of inquiry, in those isolated cases where one is formed, can
recommend that Artcile 32 proceedings be initiated, but they don't
"recommend a courts martial". Sounds like your "extensive service" (and
exactly how many years what that service?) left you a bit lacking in the
military justice knowledge area.

And
once the military discovers you intend to get civilian council, you might
find
youreself quietly threatened to just forget that idea.. Or else.

Bullcrap. The ads are full of civil attorneys willing to take on courts
martials--do a google and you have to wade through the attorneys pitches to
get to the hard data sites. This appears to be another typical Art Kramer,
"It is what I say it is regardless of the actual facts" diatribe. Of course
you can present some *facts* to support your baseless allegations...or can
you? And I'll wager I had more years in uniform than you did--wanna bet?

Brooks



Arthur Kramer


Read Gordon's post and get in touch with military reality. There is a big
difference between what is written and what actually happens Bur i guess you
don't know 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

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: The nature of military justice.
From: "Kevin Brooks"
Date: 1/8/04 11:21 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
ubject: The nature of military justice.
From: "Kevin Brooks"
Date: 1/8/04 10:00 AM Paci

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".

A military conviction rate of 92% versus a civil conviction rate of 88%
(felonies only, IIRC, and the misdemeanor rate was a bit higher)
inidicates
your premise is faulty.

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.

FYI, courts martials are not the direct result of any "board of
inquiry"--they stem from an Article 32 investigation conducted by a
single
qualified officer, appointed by the convening authority, who may or may
not
recommend proceeding to courts martial; alternatively, of course, they
can
also stem from the accused's refusal to accept an Article 15. Final
decision
as to whether or not to conduct the CM resides with the convening
authority.
A board of inquiry, in those isolated cases where one is formed, can
recommend that Artcile 32 proceedings be initiated, but they don't
"recommend a courts martial". Sounds like your "extensive service" (and
exactly how many years what that service?) left you a bit lacking in the
military justice knowledge area.

And
once the military discovers you intend to get civilian council, you
might
find
youreself quietly threatened to just forget that idea.. Or else.

Bullcrap. The ads are full of civil attorneys willing to take on courts
martials--do a google and you have to wade through the attorneys pitches
to
get to the hard data sites. This appears to be another typical Art
Kramer,
"It is what I say it is regardless of the actual facts" diatribe. Of
course
you can present some *facts* to support your baseless allegations...or
can
you? And I'll wager I had more years in uniform than you did--wanna bet?

Brooks



Arthur Kramer


Read Gordon's post and get in touch with military reality. There is a big
difference between what is written and what actually happens Bur i guess
you
don't know about that.

Gordon's post dealt with an admin board--that is not a CM? Get it? And next
time try responding to the points made--your habit of tossing out crap and
then not responding when called to task on it gets a bit tiresome.

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

"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.