All The Convictions You Could Ever Wish For
	found on US News written by snut_rucket, edited by John (Plastic) [ read unedited ] posted Wed 11 Dec 6:26am
		"A six-month review of 1000 court-martial cases in the US military indicates a legal system more suited to some steamy tropical dictatorship," snut_rucket writes. "Prosecutors in military courts regularly use their powers (such as jury selection) in a calculated and prejudicial way, the rule-making justice proceedings are secret Pentagon cabals accountable to nobody, enlisted men and women are sent to Leavenworth while officers cut deals and are sent home early, and the conviction rates would satisfy that steamy tropical dictator: "Trial by court-martial almost always results in a guilty verdict. Most recently, the conviction rate was nearly 100 percent. The Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force court-martialed 7,603 members in the one-year period ending Sept. 30, 2001. Some 97 percent, or 7,373 members, were convicted. The Coast Guard...convicted all 50 people it tried by court-martial..." "Isn't it funny that the people who risk their lives for that American bundle of democratic sweetness (equal protection, free speech, trial by jury, pick your own favorite amendment) don't get any? Even if nobody's surprised by a 'less-than-perfect' military justice system, and even acknowledging that US soldiers effectively give up their legal rights when they sign up, you and I might want to get more familiar with how this works.

[ more plastic... ]    

show almost all: 25 commentsbest: 4 comments by oldest first (ignore threads) newest first highest scores first oldest first newest first (ignore threads)

1.  That's odd....   by paul_holloway       at Wed 11 Dec 6:57am score of 2 astute     Because when trial by military tribunal was given as an option for fighters captured in Afghanistan, Rumsfeld promised that they were "fair and balanced"! "Iraqis are sick of foreign people coming in their country and trying to destabilise their country" - guess who   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

7.  Re: That's odd....   by JeremyT       at Wed 11 Dec 10:19am score of 1   in reply to comment 1     I think he meant that the idea would be covered in minute detail by Fox news. Would that he had meant that the actual trials would be covered on Fox in minute detail...   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

2.  Some perspective   by Gorvernaut       at Wed 11 Dec 7:09am score of 5 informative     A conviction rate close to one hundred percent is not that out of line. In the civilian world, prosecutors get convictions in about ninety-three percent of felony cases. The difference is not really that great percentage-wise.   The higher rate of military convictions comes partly from the greater latitude military prosecutors have for disposing of cases. For example, minor offenses can be handled through Article 15 or a summary court-martial. Even major cases can be handled by offering the accused an administrative discharge in lieu of courtmartial.   The higher rate of military convictions might also have something to do with the nature of military society, which is necessarily claustrophobic. Someone in your unit is likely either to with you or knows where you are at all times. That means whatever crimes you commit are likely to have witnesses. Moreover, since servicemembers are unlikely to have prior criminal convictions. That means more inexperienced criminals and more credible witnesses.   As an example of military criminal incompetence, I knew a former Ranger who did time at Leavenworth. Since there were no outstanding wars at the time, he and his Ranger buddies got really bored. They decided to use their high-speed Ranger skills to plan and execute burglary missions. They were enormously successful, cleaning out an entire scuba shop in minutes after cutting a hole in the roof, rapelling to the salesfloor, and deactivating the security alarm. Unfortunately, they were terrible criminals. They had no fence, and sold their swag one item at a time out of the rental storage cubicle where the stashed the goods. The CID agents who finally cuffed them was wearing a Gore-Tex jacket one of the ring had sold him.   I should also point out that in some respects, servicemembers have greater criminal procedure safeguards than civilians. For example, military police and officers have to give a suspect a Miranda-like warning whenever they interrogate, regardless of whether the suspect is in custody.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

3.  Re: Some perspective   by nmiguy       at Wed 11 Dec 8:31am score of 1.5 informative   in reply to comment 2     Having lived on a military base, life is pretty damned peaceful. Crime rates on military bases are pretty low, I'd imagine from my experience. Crimes really stand out. A felon on a military base is much more likely to get a conviction, as the fellows around are likely to turn him in, testify etc. In the civilian world if a violent felon beats an old lady and runs off with her purse, there's a damned good chance someone will stand there and look and say it is none of their business. On a military base you don't get that. Soldiers often feel obligated to make sure justice is done, thus convictions happen at a higher rate. I do not believe that a high degree of innocent people make it to trial in court martial cases. The convictions are high because there is a sincere effort at justice, and not the political need to just get a conviction (regardless whether the accused is innocent or guilty) that you get in the civilian world.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   13.  Some more perspective   by Thalia       at Wed 11 Dec 2:42pm score of 1.5 interesting   in reply to comment 2     You think this might have to do with the fact that the prosecutor, the defense attorney, and the judge are all employed by the military? In the "real world" you have a zealous advocate for the defendant. In the military, you have a career military officer who is first an officer, and second your advocate. Given that everyone, except the defendant, is on the same side... I can see why this procedure would be a little biased. By the way, the average conviction rate for a District Attorney is about 80%, and that counts as "conviction success" any case that is plea bargained, which can be many as 90% of cases. A conviction rate of 91% is considered extremely high (highest in California). And in my opinion any court/DA that has a conviction rate of 100% has something wrong with it. Kind of like any election that has 100% of the votes going for one guy... something smells. Thalia Judeo-Christianity: just like regular Christianity, only insincerely 5% more inclusive! -- MC Nally   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   14.  Re: Some more perspective   by stankow       at Wed 11 Dec 3:12pm score of 2 informative   in reply to comment 13     You think this might have to do with the fact that the prosecutor, the defense attorney, and the judge are all employed by the military? In the "real world" you have a zealous advocate for the defendant. In the military, you have a career military officer who is first an officer, and second your advocate. Given that everyone, except the defendant, is on the same side... I can see why this procedure would be a little biased. Do you have the same view of public defenders, given that they're paid by the same people who pay the prosecutors in the civilian world? Also, Trial Defense Attorneys (as they're known in the Army) are passionate advocates for their clients. Their rating chains are entirely separate from the other JAG officers, and they are very serious about being advocates for the accused. Yes, they're also military officers, but civilian defense attorneys are officers of the court as well. Further, service members can have civilian attorneys if they're willing to pay for one. Many retired JAG officers set up shop right outside military bases for just this reason. By the way, the average conviction rate for a District Attorney is about 80%, and that counts as "conviction success" any case that is plea bargained, which can be many as 90% of cases. A conviction rate of 91% is considered extremely high (highest in California). And in my opinion any court/DA that has a conviction rate of 100% has something wrong with it. Kind of like any election that has 100% of the votes going for one guy... something smells. Per the article, the conviction rate was nearly 100 percent. Specifically, 97 percent. A huge part of that is that minor offenses and things that may or may not stand up in a court-martial are frequently remanded to a subordinate commander for Article 15 proceedings. An Article 15 (known as "office hours" in the Marine Corps and "captain's mast" in the Navy) is a non-judicial punishment, limited to loss of rank, restriction and one month's pay (plus some other provisions that are very rarely used). A service member can demand at any time during an Article 15 proceeding that his case go to court-martial. I'd be willing to bet that a large part of that 3 percent of courts-martial that don't result in guilty verdicts were begun as Article 15s.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   15.  Re: Some more perspective   by Gorvernaut       at Wed 11 Dec 3:57pm score of 1.5 informative   in reply to comment 13     As for the civilian conviction rates, we're both wrong, at least according to the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics, which reports a conviction rate of eighty-five percent in 2001.   As for the charges of corruption, where the showing of prejudice? How many people have been falsely convicted by courts-martial?   The high rate of conviction can be explained by other factors of military law and military society. These explanations don't exclude the possibility of corruption. However, they mean that the high conviction rate does not, in itself, provide evidence of corruption.   Convictions by courts-martial are almost all automatically appealed. The US Supreme Court exercises discretionary jurisdiction. Appellate review has failed to turn up evidence of endemic corruption.   Moreover, prosecutors, judges, and defense lawyers are all members of military, but that doesn't automatically mean there's corruption. In the Army at least, judges and defense lawyers belong to commands separate from the units prosecutors represent. Servicemembers are also allowed to retain civilian counsel at their own expense. There are a number of experience criminal defense lawyers who specialize in military law.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   26.  Re: Some more perspective   by barc0001       at Fri 13 Dec 2:40am score of 1   in reply to comment 14     Regarding Public Defenders, I have mixed feelings. Sure, it's nice that everyone gets representation, but I get the impression that the majority of them are overworked, underpaid, and understaffed. PD work seems to be the legal equivalent of a burger-flipping job. Any truly good (in the winning sense, not the moral sense) lawyer would be expected to be in private practice, raking in the Benjamins, right? Look at a lot of the cases that get overturned or retried from the guys on Death Row that had a PD. This article details many of these items, one guy's PD apparently slept through most of his trial, in some states like the mentioned Mississippi, the PD makes a normal wage up to a cap, then a reduced rate afterward, even though to mount a vigorous defense would require a lot more work than the cap will pay for. Would you work overtime for less money per hour than what you get on the 9-5? Of course not, and neither should they, and a lot of them don't. And as a result, the defense you get from a PD seems to be, for anything complex, potentially lacking. I'm not certain that defenders in the military are in the same boat, in fact I'd probably say it's just the opposite since they undoubtedly get much more closely evaluated for promotion based on their performance. But it seems to me that if you find yourself facing serious charges and all you have is an "appointed" attorney of some sort, whether you're guilty or not you might want to take that last 20 in your wallet and start stocking up on anal lube....   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

4.  except   by colinsky       at Wed 11 Dec 8:51am score of 1 obnoxious     ...when they rape japanese girls, crush korean girls, or knock down an italian ski lift. then, of course, they get off scott free.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

5.  Re: except   by stankow       at Wed 11 Dec 9:25am score of 2 informative   in reply to comment 4     You mean this case, where "scott free" apparently equals 32 months in prison?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   10.  Status of Forces Agreements   by Palindrome       at Wed 11 Dec 11:13am score of 1   in reply to comment 4     ...crush korean girls... It appears that the deaths of the Korean girls really was accidental. In fact, the major problem that many Korean people have with this case is not so much the outcome but the process, namely that the US-ROK Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) does not guarantee the right of participation by Korean authorities in crimes committed by US personnel while on duty. This is especially galling to the Koreans because the US-Japanese SOFA does guarantee that US personnel charged with rape or murder will be handed over to Japanese authorities for trial. However, this case will no doubt serve as a stimulus for further negotiations of the treaty. The US-Korean relationship is too useful for both sides for it to founder on this issue, so a more equitable arrangement will undoubtably be reached. Incidentally, even if the two soldiers were found not guilty of homicide, an incident like this will certainly adversely affect their careers. The facts of the case may not rise to the level of criminal negligence, but they were not following SOP, so I seriously doubt they will be getting off "scott free". "He is a lover of his country who rebukes and does not excuse its sins. -Frederick Douglass"   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   17.  Re: except   by UnbelieverDjak       at Wed 11 Dec 11:34pm score of 1.5 intriguing   in reply to comment 4     "...when they rape japanese girls, crush korean girls, or knock down an italian ski lift. then, of course, they get off scott free." That's another reason why courts martial have high conviction rates. If Joe Smith, night shift supervisor at Denny's, beats his wife to death, the newspaper headline reads, "Man Beats Wife to Death." If it's MS3 Smith, night supervisor at the galley, it reads "Sailor Beats Wife to Death." Military cases, perhaps rightly so, are higher profile than civilian cases of the same scale. If the court can convict, it will, if simply just to send the message that there's not something inherently wrong with the military.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   19.  Re: except   by Tessera       at Thu 12 Dec 2:37am score of 1   in reply to comment 17     And that's such a great excuse. "Well, soldier, you may not have actually been guilty, but at least together we preserved the facade that men in the military are better than normal people. Think on that as you're dishonorably discharged, never to receive a single one of the pension checks that you put 20 years of your life towards, and hell, maybe even spend a couple decades in prison!" That may be a reason why they have such high conviction rates. But it isn't right.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

6.  Who was it who said...   by hermenewt       at Wed 11 Dec 9:55am score of 1     Military justice is to justice what military music is to music? At least here we're talking about the proper application of military courts (i.e., military personnel), not the ad hoc tribunals for "unlawful combatants" much discussed earlier in the WOT. I'm sure they'll get fair, open trials with plenty of opportunity for appeals, to show the world how a free and open society works! different(42), human(37), language(37), always(33), every(32), article(32)   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

27.  Re: Who was it who said...   by jukeboxcharlie       at Fri 13 Dec 11:12am score of 1   in reply to comment 6     It was Alan Dershowitz. This is my sig. Here I have a pithy quote, or wry comment.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

8.  On the other hand   by hudibrastic       at Wed 11 Dec 10:48am score of 1.5 interesting     Anyone who's spent time in the military can tell you that minor offenses receive less punishment than in the civilian world. If sailor doesn't show up for work for a couple days, then he'll get fined or restricted to the ship for 30 days. But he'll still get paid, have a place to sleep, and a job. If he pulls that shit at McDonald's, he's fired. Or take drug offenses. If a servicemember is taking drugs, he'll be dismissed from the service. And that's it, no court martial. No jail time or community service or anything. If anything, the military understands that prosecuting users is a waste of time. Too bad my local DA is too busy preening for the cameras to understand that. I'm not Anonymous. Can't you see my username?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

9.  Re: On the other hand   by Gorvernaut       at Wed 11 Dec 11:03am score of 1.5 interesting   in reply to comment 8     I found that the handling of drug offenses varied from service to service. In the Army, someone whose UA comes up hot usually gets what's called a "29" in the vernacular. That's an Article 15 (nonjudicial punishment), plus a Chapter 14 (administrative discharge for misconduct). I did see some youngster end up before a general court-martial for buying some hash in Amsterdam. That was in 1995, and only happened because somebody decided to "send a message". They were convicted and got a few months confinement in Mannheim, but didn't get a punitive discharge. So the net effect was they stayed in longer than had they got the "29", but ended up with convictions on their records. Given the fuss and expense of the court-martial, however, it was deemed not worthwhile. So the unspoken policy of 29's returned.   The Air Force, however, is far more likely to prosecute, even for stuff that's considered piddly in the Army. In part, it's a reflection of the difference in their institutional cultures. The Air Force has higher standards for recruits. While disciple is generally more lax, crime is definitely a no go. The Army, on the other hand, will take almost anyone who has a heartbeat, a pulse, and a high school diploma. While discipline is more strict, petty crimes are dealt with in a no-fuss, no-muss fashion.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   11.  Re: On the other hand   by Anywhere       at Wed 11 Dec 1:05pm score of 1   in reply to comment 8     I can only contradict your anecdotal evidence with some of my own: while I was enlisted, two guys in my company pissed hot. One went AWOL, and I don't know what ended up happening to him. The other left for six months in an orange jumper and then came back in order to get kicked out. 'Course, it's possible someone was just trying to "send a message" with him. Gateway computers are pieces of shit, and their customer service is abysmal. Ask me why if you want to hear me vent.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   18.  Re: On the other hand   by UnbelieverDjak       at Wed 11 Dec 11:54pm score of 1.5 informative   in reply to comment 8     If a servicemember is taking drugs, he'll be dismissed from the service. And that's it, no court martial. No jail time or community service or anything Right and wrong. If you pop on a urinalysis, yeah, you'll probably get an admin sep under honorable circumstances (after you've been restricted to quarters, fined at least half a month's pay for two months, and get extra duty... that's right, more work for less money). However, I've never heard of anyone ever being arrested for submitting a bad sample at work. You get fired. I won't even try going into what a mess the military urinalysis methods can be. If you get caught with drugs, though, that's an entirely different circumstance (not that hard, considering your rights to privacy are almost nil). You will go to the brig, straight to the brig, do not pass go... If you have enough on you, they will get you for distribution, and that amount is generally less than the amount they can get you for as a civilian. Then you get to go to Court Martial, and the military's drug policy is zero tolerance. No community service, no 12 step program. Rock chippin'.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

12.  Why is this a problem?   by Subtle Trouble       at Wed 11 Dec 1:40pm score of 1     We all know that life can be harsh in the military. Some of the harshness of the military justice system is warranted by the tough situations encountered by military personnel. To the extent that there is unwarranted harshness in military law, it should be changed immediately. But the easy solution to a corrupt military justice system- don't enlist. This would be more of a problem if there was a draft in effect. But since all members of the military are volunteers, they have an option to avoid being subject to the abuses cited in the article. de asini umbra disceptare   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]