Posted on Jul 19, 2017
Should the U.S. modify/eliminate the Uniform Code of Military Justice?
20.2K
299
104
6
6
0
As someone who investigates specific violations of the UCMJ, I find it interesting that many articles mirror already existing federal laws. Such as espionage existing under Article 106a UCMJ, and Title 18 § 794 USC. Granted there is some different wording, but many laws are still duplicated. Could this mean the UCMJ could be reduced significantly?
UCMJ
Justice
Law
Regulation
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 30
15
15
0
Civilian laws are not structured for military use. Those laws are structured to support our constitution and the Bill of rights where all people are created equal.. That just does not fit the military rank system.. The UCMJ exists for the very reason that military justice must be very strict, deliberate and swift as we can not tolerate delays that we see clogging the civilian court system. If there was no UCMJ the military would be reduced to chaos. Just look at what is going on in today's society and court system. Can't you see a seaman claiming his right of equality was stiffed by a Chief Petty officer? Not in my Navy!
(15)
(0)
CPT Lawrence Cable
CW3 (Join to see) - I've not personally seen that much on the Federal level. For a crime like murder, the Military often lets the state and local people handle that kind of stuff unless it actually happens on the military reservation and sometimes even then.
(1)
(0)
SGM Erik Marquez
CW3 (Join to see) - "What always strikes me as strange is that the military seems to flip flop on whether or not certain things will be handled in civilian courts or not, and reason behind such decisions never seems clear."
It is left gray and ambiguous for the commander to apply the appropriate action based on individual circumstances... Which is a good thing... but with that level of individual decision comes the variables as how commander A decides to handle a violation of Art xxx.xx with circumstances of a specific nature and commander B handles the same violation and like circumstances. Humans (yes, commanders are human...lol) will perceive and decide things based on background, experience and individual bias ..
The civilian courts tried to address this with "mandatory minimum sentences" And while it addresses the Judge that is to extreme on one side or the other..it also ties the hands of the court that sees a need for a different approach, or sentence than what was set up as cookie cutter "mandatory" IOW, "mandatory minimum sentences" only sometimes works out as the better plan.. The same would hold true if there were only fixed options in the UCMJ for say Art 134 and pornography in a deployed theater of operations.
..
FIXED Jurisdiction and sentencing .. Federal Court and mandatory minimum of 3 years
SM A was aware of the prohibition of possessing porn in theater, accessed and downloaded porn to his gov issued laptop using a local civilian network. Said SM was caught when his lap top was turned in for repair or a cracked screen.
Charged, tried, convicted sentenced to 3 years in federal prison.
SM B was aware of the prohibition of possessing porn in theater and took no part in the intentional possession or actively seeking porn in theater. Sm mentioned to his wife he wished he had brought his lap top ..His wife wanting to be supportive surprised him by sending the laptop.. Said package was misrouted to the wrong unit, and the packaging outside damaged in transit. A unit member at the receiving location tried to find the rightful owner, turned on laptop and noticed porn on the computer, tuned it into the command, which notified CID.. SM Charged, tried, convicted sentenced to 3 years in federal prison.
Bottom line, once size does not fit all.
It is left gray and ambiguous for the commander to apply the appropriate action based on individual circumstances... Which is a good thing... but with that level of individual decision comes the variables as how commander A decides to handle a violation of Art xxx.xx with circumstances of a specific nature and commander B handles the same violation and like circumstances. Humans (yes, commanders are human...lol) will perceive and decide things based on background, experience and individual bias ..
The civilian courts tried to address this with "mandatory minimum sentences" And while it addresses the Judge that is to extreme on one side or the other..it also ties the hands of the court that sees a need for a different approach, or sentence than what was set up as cookie cutter "mandatory" IOW, "mandatory minimum sentences" only sometimes works out as the better plan.. The same would hold true if there were only fixed options in the UCMJ for say Art 134 and pornography in a deployed theater of operations.
..
FIXED Jurisdiction and sentencing .. Federal Court and mandatory minimum of 3 years
SM A was aware of the prohibition of possessing porn in theater, accessed and downloaded porn to his gov issued laptop using a local civilian network. Said SM was caught when his lap top was turned in for repair or a cracked screen.
Charged, tried, convicted sentenced to 3 years in federal prison.
SM B was aware of the prohibition of possessing porn in theater and took no part in the intentional possession or actively seeking porn in theater. Sm mentioned to his wife he wished he had brought his lap top ..His wife wanting to be supportive surprised him by sending the laptop.. Said package was misrouted to the wrong unit, and the packaging outside damaged in transit. A unit member at the receiving location tried to find the rightful owner, turned on laptop and noticed porn on the computer, tuned it into the command, which notified CID.. SM Charged, tried, convicted sentenced to 3 years in federal prison.
Bottom line, once size does not fit all.
(2)
(0)
CW3 (Join to see)
CPT Lawrence Cable - Those are the kinds of things I was referring to. There doesn't appear to be a "cut and dry" line that the civilian system will be involved when a certain criteria is met.
(0)
(0)
CPT Lawrence Cable
CW3 (Join to see) - As far as I know, there are no hard and fast rules for a Post Commander to which crimes he can or should allow the civilian authorities to prosecute. Most places I have been stationed generally allowed the police to prosecute most off post crimes from DUI to Theft, which doesn't prevent the Military from court-martialing you too btw. Any serious offenses were turned over to the JAG.
(2)
(0)
14
14
0
No, one of the main reasons to have the UCMJ is jurisdiction. Having a uniform code that applies to the entire military on any post in the world also provides consistency rather than having the service member learn all the local laws.
(14)
(0)
Russell Butler
I understand where you are coming from, but the post was regarding the duplicate Federal laws, not the local laws in all areas. Federal laws would remain consistent in every jurisdiction if it replaced UCMJ in this hypothetical.
(0)
(0)
SPC James Thompson
I don't think you do understand my point. The military can't enforce federal, state, or local laws. As for local laws, I'm not talking about just within the United States, we have bases all over the world that is outside the jurisdiction of our federal laws, and our federal court system.
(0)
(0)
COL Brian Shea
I'm going to hazard a guess that the person suggesting this has no experience in law, jurisdiction, or administration of justice and discipline in the armed forces. There are too many aspects to list here, so I will simple say "No". We do not want the military justice system to adopt the civilian system,. The military system is better in so many ways that if anything, the feds should consider adopting the UCMJ.
(1)
(0)
SGT Robert Wager
COL Brian Shea - Agreed. Non Judicial Punishment, Commander's discretion, Conduct unbecoming.. the list is too long.
(0)
(0)
14
14
0
I don't think it should be eliminated but it definitely needs to be updated to reflect modern conventions.
(14)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google