Should Commanders have UCMJ authority in a garrison environment or should this authority be given to JAG alone?

What is your alternative? There is a reason for the difference between the UCMJ and civilian criminal laws. That is because of the difference in what the military does vs. all other jobs. The chain of command needs to maintain discipline in the ranks. That is why there is Article 15. If a commander cannot exercise discipline, what do you think would happen? And a commander does not take any of these actions in isolation. They get legal counsel before any kind of legal action and before most administrative actions.

It's simple.

If you don't trust your Commander, or the system, use the Courts Martial. You IMMEDIATELY take it out of their hands. You have a RIGHT to Courts Martial.

If you trust your Local Commander, and the system, use them. You still have the Right to CONSULT Legal Consul. You still have the Right to Appeal the decision.

Not sure what the issue is. The SM always has the right to turn down NJP and go for trial by court martial. Furthermore, every legal team I've worked with will advise commanders that their ART 15 packets do not meet sufficient evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt" if something is lacking.

Have you been a part NJP readings? If not, be advised that these hearings can be about anything from underage drinking to punching cab drivers and vehicular theft. If you took this away from commanders, you would bog down the lawyers beyond their ability to function.

If found not guilty you'll be very happy that the garrison leader had lawful authority. If found guilty you'll be afforded due process through appeals.

Sir, then whom do you feel should carry the burden of UCMJ authority when situations do not need appearance before a Courts Martial?

What part of Non Judicial escapes you LT?

MCPO (Join to see) - To say that "[I am] are deserving of everything [that I] have coming to [me]." makes it sound like you hope that the CM finds me guilty, regardless of the evidence. This is really a terrible thing to say in spite. I am not trying to ignore CPT Forbes' advice and having higher rank does not make someone more knowledgeable. I simply asked the question and CPT Forbes indicated that my military career path is indicative of my innocence/guilt, which is a common and incorrect position held by Officers and NCOs in the military.

Don't screw up and you won't have to worry about UCMJ!

So when you began your "working relationship" with TDS they told you to not talk to anyone, and to not go on the internet and talk about your case. So good job not taking their advice. Stop typing now, leave this conversation immediately and stop making this worse for yourself, please...

That being said, Commander=Decision Maker in the military, it can be no other way. Do they convict innocent people at times? Sure, but they also convict a TOOOONNNN of guilty people of bad things as well. I would rather not serve with the LT who was raping underage minors on Fort Carson when I first got there, and so I am glad that there was UCMJ authority to take care of him.

1LT (Join to see) Released yesterday:
The MJRG’s proposals for amendments to the UCMJ generally fall into seven categories. The Report’s major proposals would:
 Strengthen the Structure of the Military Justice System by—
o Establishing selection criteria for military judges, mandating tour lengths, and requiring appointment of a Chief Trial Judge in each armed force.
o Creating authority for military judges to handle specified legal issues that arise before formal referral of a case to court-martial that would otherwise await a ruling until after referral to court-martial.
o Establishing a military magistrates program as an option for the services, with magistrates authorized to preside over specified pre-referral matters upon designation by a military judge, and to preside with the consent of the parties in the proposed judge-alone special court-martial.
o Establishing a military judge-alone special court-martial as an additional option for disposition, similar to the judge-alone forum in civilian proceedings, with confinement limited to a maximum of six months and no punitive discharge.
o Requiring issuance of guidance on the disposition of criminal cases similar to the U.S. Attorneys Manual, tailored to military needs.
o Mandating additional training for commanders and convening authorities focused on the proper exercise of UCMJ authority.
 Enhance Fairness and Efficiency in Pretrial and Trial Procedures by—
o Enhancing victims’ rights by:
 Facilitating the opportunity for victim input on disposition decisions at the preliminary hearing stage.
 Providing for public access to court documents and pleadings.
 Treating victims consistently with regard to defense counsel interviews and access to records of trial.
o Expanding authority to obtain documents during investigations through subpoenas and other process.
o Enhancing the utility of the preliminary hearing for the staff judge advocate and convening authority and providing an opportunity for parties and victims to submit relevant information on the appropriate disposition of offenses.
o Replacing the current variable composition and voting percentages for court-martial panels (military juries) with a requirement for a standardized number of panel members and a consistent voting percentage.
o Requiring, to the greatest extent practicable, at least one defense counsel be learned in the law applicable to capital cases, as in federal civilian courts and military commissions.
 Reform Sentencing, Guilty Pleas, and Plea Agreements by—
o Replacing the current sentencing standard (which relies on maximum punishments
with minimal criteria in adjudging a sentence below the maximum) with a system of
judicial discretion guided by parameters and criteria.
o Ensuring that each offense receives separate consideration for purposes of sentencing
to confinement.
o Improving military plea agreements by allowing negotiated ranges of punishments
and adjudged sentences within the range.
o Continuing to permit appeals of sentences by servicemembers, and establishing
government appeals of sentences in circumstances similar to federal civilian practice.
o Providing for the effective implementation of these reforms by establishing
sentencing by military judges in all non-capital trials.
 Streamline the Post-Trial Process by—
o Eliminating redundant post-trial paperwork and requiring an entry of judgment by the
military judge similar to federal civilian practice to mark the completion of a special
or general court-martial.
o Establishing restricted authority to suspend sentences in cases in which the military
judge recommends a specific form of suspension and the convening authority
approves a suspension within the military judge’s recommendation.
 Modernize Military Appellate Practice by—
o Providing servicemembers, like their civilian counterparts, with the opportunity to
obtain judicial review in all cases.
o Transforming the automatic appeal of cases to the service Courts of Criminal Appeals
into an appeal of right in which the accused, upon advice of appellate defense
counsel, would determine whether to file an appeal.
o Focusing the appeal on issues raised by the parties, with the opportunity for the
Courts of Criminal Appeals to review for plain error.
o Establishing harmless error standards of review for guilty pleas similar to those
applied by the federal civilian courts of appeal.
o Providing for review of issues identified by the accused regarding factual sufficiency
when the appellant makes a sufficient showing to justify relief.
o Permitting the government to appeal a sentence under conditions similar to those
applied by the federal civilian courts of appeal.
o Permitting the government to file interlocutory appeals in general and special courtsmartial
regardless of whether a punitive discharge could be adjudged.
o Continuing to require automatic review of capital cases and requiring, to the greatest
extent practicable, at least one appellate defense counsel be learned in the law
applicable to capital cases.
o Expanding direct review jurisdiction of the Courts of Criminal Appeals primarily with respect to cases in which an accused is sentenced to confinement for more than six months.
 Increase Transparency and Independent Review of the Military Justice System by—
o Creating a statute requiring uniform public access to courts-martial documents and pleadings similar to that available in federal civilian courts.
o Establishing an independent blue ribbon panel of experts to conduct periodic reviews of the UCMJ.
 Improve the Functionality of Punitive Articles and Proscribe Additional Acts by—
o Creating new enumerated offenses, including:
 Article 93a: Prohibited activities with military recruit or trainee by person in position of special trust
 Article 121a: Fraudulent use of credit and debit cards
 Article 123: Offenses concerning Government computers
 Article 132: Retaliation
o Authorizing the President to designate lesser included offenses under legislative criteria.
o Aligning the definition of “sexual acts” in Article 120 with federal civilian law.
o Revising the stalking offense (Article 130) to include cyberstalking and threats to intimate partners.
o Amending the statute of limitations for child-abuse offenses, fraudulent enlistment, and to extend the period when DNA testing implicates an identified person.
o Restructuring the punitive articles of the UCMJ.
o Establishing specific statutory punitive articles to