The nature of military justice.

"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.

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

(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". 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.
I would imagine that boards of inquiry would not recommend a court
martial unless conviction is almost certain.


Michael

Subject: The nature of military justice.
From: (Michael Ejercito)
Date: 1/10/04 9:46 AM Pacific Standard Time

would imagine that boards of inquiry would not recommend a court
martial unless conviction is almost certain.



Exactly right. But in some cases the recommendation becomes the verdict no
matter what and regardless of whether it was UCMJ or Articles of War. See
Private Slovik for example which would have turned out the same no matter
what..


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: (Michael Ejercito)
Date: 1/10/04 9:46 AM Pacific Standard Time

would imagine that boards of inquiry would not recommend a court
martial unless conviction is almost certain.



Exactly right.

Exactly wrong, as numerous other posters have already pointed out.

But in some cases the recommendation becomes the verdict no
matter what and regardless of whether it was UCMJ or Articles of War.

That is an unsupportable statement.

See
Private Slovik for example which would have turned out the same no matter
what..

Horsecrap. Pure and utter horsecrap. Which is about par for the course when
it comes to Art's rants about anything outside the extremely narrow scope of
the operations of hisown particular B-26 unit during WWII.

Brooks



Arthur Kramer

In article ,
(ArtKramr) writes:
Subject: The nature of military justice.
From: (Michael Ejercito)
Date: 1/10/04 9:46 AM Pacific Standard Time

would imagine that boards of inquiry would not recommend a court
martial unless conviction is almost certain.



Exactly right. But in some cases the recommendation becomes the verdict no
matter what and regardless of whether it was UCMJ or Articles of War. See
Private Slovik for example which would have turned out the same no matter
what..

Art, if I may...
It seems that when you're brining up Pvt. Slovik as an example,
you're, perhaps, looking at it from the wrong side. The controversy
in Slovik's case wasn't the verdict - He did what he did - but the
sentence. That's really a whole 'nother can of worms, just as it is
today in civilian courts.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: The nature of military justice.
From: (Michael Ejercito)
Date: 1/10/04 9:46 AM Pacific Standard Time

would imagine that boards of inquiry would not recommend a court
martial unless conviction is almost certain.



Exactly right. But in some cases the recommendation becomes the verdict
no
matter what and regardless of whether it was UCMJ or Articles of War. See
Private Slovik for example which would have turned out the same no matter
what..

Would that be one of those single examples that you think doesn't "prove a
damn thing?"

(ArtKramr) wrote in message ...
Subject: The nature of military justice.
From: (Michael Ejercito)
Date: 1/10/04 9:46 AM Pacific Standard Time

would imagine that boards of inquiry would not recommend a court
martial unless conviction is almost certain.



Exactly right. But in some cases the recommendation becomes the verdict no
matter what and regardless of whether it was UCMJ or Articles of War. See
Private Slovik for example which would have turned out the same no matter
what..

Slovik DID desrt his unit, you know.


Michael

"Michael Ejercito" wrote in message
om...
(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". 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.
I would imagine that boards of inquiry would not recommend a court
martial unless conviction is almost certain.

For the last time--boards of inquiry do NOT recommend courts martials! The
most they can do is recommend a subsequent Article 32 investigation, which
would determine whether or not to recommend a courts martial. Don't get hung
up in Art's fabrications related to his flawed understanding of military
justice.

Brooks



Michael

In article ,
(Michael Ejercito) writes:

I would imagine that boards of inquiry would not recommend a court
martial unless conviction is almost certain.

The same is also true of civilian prosecutions. Before a case is
brought to trial, it goes through a number of layers (Grand Jury, in
some cases, Preliminary Hearing, and, for that matter, the
Prosecuter's Office's evaluation of the case) to determine whether
there's a good case or not.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster