Discipline is the anchor chain which holds the military to it's mission and the commander is the anchor of any specific unit. That said, there is no denying that politics is and always has had an impact on promotions in the military, especially for commissioned officers.
The uniformed Code Of Military Justice is very specific about sex crimes, and although in many ways the UCMJ more harsh than justice in civilian courts, in other ways it is more subject to pressure from local commanders such as Division, Regimental or Brigade and even Battalion Commanders.
The poll choices are a bit misleading, the military has dedicated Prosecutors in the Staff Judge Advocates office in every division size or base unit. So the poll choices are a misnomer. Those prosecutors are Lawyers wearing the uniform, not combatants however, they are under the command of the Division Commanding General.
The answer is NOT taking the prosecution out of the Military realm however, discipline in the military is a two way street, the troops must trust the commander's decisions just as the troops must obey the commander's lawful orders. The military is NOT a social incubator, it is not a place wear any criminal act, whether it be sexual assault or simple assault can or should be tolerated nor is it a place where the public's cause D' jour can or should be mitigated.
The answer is NOT moving the prosecution of ANY criminal act from the jurisdiction of the military to civilian courts as I see it, rather it is in my opinion a reason to move the autonomy of the local commands Staff Judge Advocates toward the Branch level rather than to the command level.
In the military, when you are accused of a crime, adjudication begins with an article 15 hearing beginning at the company level, which is like an arraignment, then depending on the severity of the crime either an Article 32 hearing {like a Grand Jury} or immediate punishment within the powers of the unit commander, ranging from fines to short term incarceration or both {Usually Both]
The Article 32 hearing determines whether or not a case goes to courts martial and the commander should not be able to block those proceedings once there.
As for the victim, in the military every member has the RIGHT to request mast all the way up the chain, from the company commander to the joint chiefs of staff without fear of repercussion to state their case, a right that civilian courts do not allow.
Keep it in the Military, but shift the convening authority to a higher level.
@Mark - normally, I'd agree with you, but the military has futzed this up so badly that it needs to be straightened out, and I believe that means having special prosecutors for sexual offenses.
I might even agree with having special military prosecutors/courts for sexual assault and other sexual offenses, but I question the ability those who have avoided handling these offenses properly for so many years to suddenly take politics out of it - the pressure to just make it *look* like they are doing something might be too great to actually *do* something.
Once prosecution of sexual offenders fall in line with prosecution of other offenders, put it back in the military prosecutors' hands.
Tim, in balance that doesn't matter, and I did not say special prosecutor for sex crimes, what I said was to take the matter of all adjudication to a higher echelon. Still within the military prevue, still under the UCMJ and still under the eyes of the commander but with a higher echelon overseeing more directly.
The ratio of women in the armed forces is at an all time high, and the unwanted interactions in a testosterone filled environment have grown exponentially as well. The futz up part is based more on political banter, the fact is the changing demographics and recent more public cases has skewed the view.
99% of commanders will not tolerate any crime or dishonorable actions by any of their troops let alone those of a sexual nature, Remember tail hook, the initial commander failed to pursue prosecution, it was one of the victims that went up the chain until someone listened, despite all the press, the system ultimately worked and the commander was also punished for his inaction as well as the perpetrators, the system at that time worked. By forcing the review which at this moment is not compulsory and making it compulsory you minimize the problem, But make no mistake, even in civilian courts, politics plays a roll, think Sheldon Silver and his current woes.
Once you undermine the military justice system by taking the military as a whole out of a specific crime, you jeopardize the integrity of the military. I lived through this in the late 70's when the issue was race, there were several decades after the initial integration of the Armed forces where the politics of race played a large part on the military justice system and tested the UCMJ. it was exactly the same review by higher echelon that stopped it. In the early 80's as more women integrated into the armed forces we were faced with similar issues as we are today.
This has much more to do with a long term war placing heavy pressures on members of the armed forces just like the effects of the long term war caused a similar pressure in the early 70's with regard to racial issues.
Integrity is everything in Command in the Military, and yes 5-10% of even commissioned officers may jeopardize their command by showing a lack of that integrity, Just 5-10% of any organization including our civilian courts face the same percentages, But when integrity is questioned, the next echelon is the place to go to uncover it, fix it and to minimize it in the future, A compulsory review by a higher echelon under the structure will take congressional action, but that is the place to start, not undermining the services.
Military commanders would
Military commanders would play the political game and try to sweep the incident under the carpet to protect the good standing of the division.
TP, Not the good standing of
TP,
Not the good standing of their division, but the good standing of their hope for promotion.
Discipline is the anchor
Discipline is the anchor chain which holds the military to it's mission and the commander is the anchor of any specific unit. That said, there is no denying that politics is and always has had an impact on promotions in the military, especially for commissioned officers.
The uniformed Code Of Military Justice is very specific about sex crimes, and although in many ways the UCMJ more harsh than justice in civilian courts, in other ways it is more subject to pressure from local commanders such as Division, Regimental or Brigade and even Battalion Commanders.
The poll choices are a bit misleading, the military has dedicated Prosecutors in the Staff Judge Advocates office in every division size or base unit. So the poll choices are a misnomer. Those prosecutors are Lawyers wearing the uniform, not combatants however, they are under the command of the Division Commanding General.
The answer is NOT taking the prosecution out of the Military realm however, discipline in the military is a two way street, the troops must trust the commander's decisions just as the troops must obey the commander's lawful orders. The military is NOT a social incubator, it is not a place wear any criminal act, whether it be sexual assault or simple assault can or should be tolerated nor is it a place where the public's cause D' jour can or should be mitigated.
The answer is NOT moving the prosecution of ANY criminal act from the jurisdiction of the military to civilian courts as I see it, rather it is in my opinion a reason to move the autonomy of the local commands Staff Judge Advocates toward the Branch level rather than to the command level.
In the military, when you are accused of a crime, adjudication begins with an article 15 hearing beginning at the company level, which is like an arraignment, then depending on the severity of the crime either an Article 32 hearing {like a Grand Jury} or immediate punishment within the powers of the unit commander, ranging from fines to short term incarceration or both {Usually Both]
The Article 32 hearing determines whether or not a case goes to courts martial and the commander should not be able to block those proceedings once there.
As for the victim, in the military every member has the RIGHT to request mast all the way up the chain, from the company commander to the joint chiefs of staff without fear of repercussion to state their case, a right that civilian courts do not allow.
Keep it in the Military, but shift the convening authority to a higher level.
what mark said
what mark said
@Mark - normally, I'd agree
@Mark - normally, I'd agree with you, but the military has futzed this up so badly that it needs to be straightened out, and I believe that means having special prosecutors for sexual offenses.
I might even agree with having special military prosecutors/courts for sexual assault and other sexual offenses, but I question the ability those who have avoided handling these offenses properly for so many years to suddenly take politics out of it - the pressure to just make it *look* like they are doing something might be too great to actually *do* something.
Once prosecution of sexual offenders fall in line with prosecution of other offenders, put it back in the military prosecutors' hands.
Tim, in balance that doesn't
Tim, in balance that doesn't matter, and I did not say special prosecutor for sex crimes, what I said was to take the matter of all adjudication to a higher echelon. Still within the military prevue, still under the UCMJ and still under the eyes of the commander but with a higher echelon overseeing more directly.
The ratio of women in the armed forces is at an all time high, and the unwanted interactions in a testosterone filled environment have grown exponentially as well. The futz up part is based more on political banter, the fact is the changing demographics and recent more public cases has skewed the view.
99% of commanders will not tolerate any crime or dishonorable actions by any of their troops let alone those of a sexual nature, Remember tail hook, the initial commander failed to pursue prosecution, it was one of the victims that went up the chain until someone listened, despite all the press, the system ultimately worked and the commander was also punished for his inaction as well as the perpetrators, the system at that time worked. By forcing the review which at this moment is not compulsory and making it compulsory you minimize the problem, But make no mistake, even in civilian courts, politics plays a roll, think Sheldon Silver and his current woes.
Once you undermine the military justice system by taking the military as a whole out of a specific crime, you jeopardize the integrity of the military. I lived through this in the late 70's when the issue was race, there were several decades after the initial integration of the Armed forces where the politics of race played a large part on the military justice system and tested the UCMJ. it was exactly the same review by higher echelon that stopped it. In the early 80's as more women integrated into the armed forces we were faced with similar issues as we are today.
This has much more to do with a long term war placing heavy pressures on members of the armed forces just like the effects of the long term war caused a similar pressure in the early 70's with regard to racial issues.
Integrity is everything in Command in the Military, and yes 5-10% of even commissioned officers may jeopardize their command by showing a lack of that integrity, Just 5-10% of any organization including our civilian courts face the same percentages, But when integrity is questioned, the next echelon is the place to go to uncover it, fix it and to minimize it in the future, A compulsory review by a higher echelon under the structure will take congressional action, but that is the place to start, not undermining the services.