Global Breaking News - Monday, December 23, 2024

Ensuring Justice in the Military
The frequency of sexual assaults in the military, the rarity of prosecution in these cases and the fact that military commanders often dismiss convictions have led Congress and the Pentagon to consider changing the military justice system. To combat sex abuse do reforms need to be made to the existing procedures, or does the whole military justice system need to be overhauled?
* sexual assault = 성폭행, 강간/ rarity = 희귀성; 드문 경우/ prosecution = 기소, 소추; 고발/ military commander = 군 사령관/ dismiss = 묵살(일축)하다/ conviction = 유죄 선고(판결)/ justice system = 사법제도/ combat = 방지하다/ overhaul = 점검(정비)하다

 (군대에서의) 성적 학대를 방지하기 위해서 기존의 절차에 개선이 필요한가요 아니면 군 사법제도 전체의 정비가 필요한가요?

1. Broad Changes Are Needed
Senior lawyers, not commanders, should decide who is prosecuted for what, pick jurors, and review verdicts and sentences.

2. Commanders Must Play a Crucial Role
There's no need for independent prosecutors. Close attention to sex abuse cases has already led to an increase in courts-martial.

3. Don’t Let Commanders Void Convictions
No one without legal expertise and without witnessing a trial should be able to substitute their judgment for that of an impartial jury.

4. Israel Separates Command and Criminal Justice
Detaching legal concerns from military command does not affect discipline or effectiveness of the armed forces.

5. A Compromise Is Best
In serious cases commanders should get an independent prosecutor's opinion. If that's rejected, a clear explanation should be made.

6. Get Civilian Authorities Involved
The military's growing disdain for those not in uniform has left it isolated. Ending this isolation would help restore confidence in military justice.

Sample Essay

Broad Changes Are Needed

Congress should give our fighting forces the 21st century military justice system they deserve. While the impetus for reform is the public fury about widespread sexual assault and abuse in the military, the structural problems that must be addressed are across the board.

First, the antiquated power of military commanders to decide who is prosecuted for what, to pick jurors and to review verdicts and sentences should be abandoned. Charging should be vested in senior lawyers independent of the chain of command, as is done in other democratic countries. Jurors (called “members”) should be detailed by disinterested court-martial administrators, along the lines of a jury commissioner. After trial, legal errors should be weighed by appellate judges. Clemency requests would continue to be considered by the services’ existing clemency and parole boards.

Commanders should only be permitted to handle minor disciplinary matters through their existing nonjudicial punishment powers. They should also be allowed to communicate in writing to the chief prosecutor whatever recommendations they may have about the disposition of serious charges.

Second, Congress should expand the jurisdiction of the military appellate courts to all cases, regardless of sentence. At present, with rare exceptions, only capital cases and those that involve confinement for a year or more or a bad-conduct or dishonorable discharge (or dismissal, for officers) are considered by the service courts of criminal appeals. Cases that do not meet the jurisdictional threshold are merely reviewed within the offices of the Judge Advocates General, without appellate counsel, judges, briefs or opportunity for oral argument.

Courts-martial that do reach the courts of criminal appeals are thereafter subject to discretionary review by the civilian Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, but if that court refuses to grant review, the case cannot be taken to the United States Supreme Court.

Under this "double whammy," a substantial number of courts-martial that may have life-long consequences for the accused are never reviewed by any appellate court and approximately 90 percent are never eligible for review by the Supreme Court. Every person convicted by court-martial should have the same opportunity as federal and state defendants for appellate court and Supreme Court review. Amazingly, Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, on trial before a Guantanamo military commission, will have better access to the Supreme Court than the vast majority of our military personnel who are convicted by courts-martial.

Finally, military judges should be afforded statutory terms of office. The Uniform Code of Military Justice permits the services to go their own way on this critical aspect of judicial independence, and judges in the Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force all hold office at the pleasure of the service. That the Army and the Coast Guard have instituted three-year terms of office by regulation proves that this reform is achievable, although in this day and age judges ought to have security in office for longer than three years.