Posted on Jul 21, 2015
Is it a Fifth Amendment constitutional violation to semi-mandate admission of guilt to a crime while still in appeals?
3.05K
21
7
5
5
0
When arriving at the brig, individuals convicted of a sexual assault are told that if they do not sign a letter of admission of guilt, they cannot begin treatment. Without treatment, they will not be considered for parole. But, many of these individuals have claimed innocence and are still fighting in appeals, meanwhile those who plead guilty receive the opportunity for parole in a short time. Should this be considered a violation of the U.S. Constitution's Fifth Amendment. Please consider civilian State Supreme Court cases with the same situation and their arguments and decisions.
Constitution
Crime
Rights
Court Martial
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 4
3
3
0
This sounds fishy... and a good lawyer will have a field day with this...
(3)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
The problem is the "legalese" they put into the probation documentation. The absolute requirement to admit guilt, and show remorse, before being considered for probation creates a situation that cannot be overcome.
Unfortunately, if you are still in your appeals process, you're effectively rotting in a cell serving time for a crime. You can ride out the appeal, or you can get out now... The problem is that once you "admit" to it, you're toast. Every statement you've made is called into question. The old "if you don't have integrity, you've got nothing." But what's worth more... Integrity or Freedom?
Unfortunately, if you are still in your appeals process, you're effectively rotting in a cell serving time for a crime. You can ride out the appeal, or you can get out now... The problem is that once you "admit" to it, you're toast. Every statement you've made is called into question. The old "if you don't have integrity, you've got nothing." But what's worth more... Integrity or Freedom?
(2)
(0)
CPO (Join to see)
COL,
It is very fishy, but nobody cares. Military lawyers tend to stay away from anything sex assault related to protect their own carreers. Brig military lawyers are only there to support the staff, not the prisoners. Civilian lawyers want big money that most of these young kids do not have. Finally, when you do get to court, it seems that you are fighting up hill with very little chance of winning because, nobody wants to fall on their blade to protect the rights of someone else, if it means ending or curtailing their own career.
SGT,
You are correct. You can wait it out in a cell or admit to a lighter crime and get out years earlier than you would have. The first set of appeals take two years to push through and then it goes from there.
It is very fishy, but nobody cares. Military lawyers tend to stay away from anything sex assault related to protect their own carreers. Brig military lawyers are only there to support the staff, not the prisoners. Civilian lawyers want big money that most of these young kids do not have. Finally, when you do get to court, it seems that you are fighting up hill with very little chance of winning because, nobody wants to fall on their blade to protect the rights of someone else, if it means ending or curtailing their own career.
SGT,
You are correct. You can wait it out in a cell or admit to a lighter crime and get out years earlier than you would have. The first set of appeals take two years to push through and then it goes from there.
(1)
(0)
COL Charles Williams
CPO (Join to see) - You are correct... Military, law, especially defense, is odd, is the are all on the same team. Getting good (actual) help from a military appointed attorney is a crap shoot... you get what you pay for. I know more than one civilian lawyers working cases (hasty convictions) against the Army. The more the military tightens the reins, the more due process is lost... So, lawyers can attack that. But, you are right... big difference between military appointed lawyers, and one you carefully hire.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
2
2
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google