Introduction
In the world of justice, several courts represent different factions of the population with one of them being the military courts. These courts are bodies with the jurisdiction of charging and trying the members of the armed forces of one country or the other. The rules and procedure of such courts are different from the general civilian judicial bodies. In the case of United States, there are two types of military courts namely courts-martial and a military commission. The former is responsible for the trial for the members of the armed forces for the violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice ( Grady, 2016). The latter is used to try enemy military members. In the ancient times, the soldiers were not subjected to the same laws that applied to civilians. They were at the mercy of their commanders whenever they fell on the wrong side of the requirements. Upon being taken to the military commander, the soldiers would then be prosecuted, either by favors, or harsh punishment depending on the relationship between the culprit and the commander. This way of judgment was not procedural and only existed in medieval Europe until the 16th century. After the establishment of the military judicial system, military councils were created to determine guilt and punishment procedurally.
Courts-Martial in the United States
The Congress used its authority to establish the rules and regulations for the court-martial by referring to the Article I, section 8, of the United States Constitution. The Congress used this article to enact the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), which gives an outline of the criminal laws and judicial rules that govern all members of the United States Armed Forces.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The code has an outline of crimes many of which, such as rape, murder, and manslaughter, is also in the civilian justice and are illegal (Vladeck, 2014). The UCMJ also has differences with the civil law as it has some offenses not contained therein. Such criminalized acts include disrespect towards a superior officer of the commission, desertion, and the failure to obey a regulation or order.
It is noteworthy that the military courts are not subject to the same procedural regulations as the other courts in the United States and contained in Article III. However, the martial law offers the individuals who are subject to the military courts the same treatment as far as protection is concerned as it is with the defendants in the civilian court (Vladeck, 2014). Such protections include the presumption of innocence, the freedom of self-incrimination, and the right to counsel.
The court operates by ad hoc, and this is also another feature that differentiates it from the civil courts. In more precise terms, there is no standing in trials, but rather a form of tribunal that is tasked with trying a specific crime. The court-martial is designed and set up by the convening authority and entails the commissioning of an office at a higher rank than the accused officer (Vladeck, 2014). The function of the convening authority is numerous and including referring the matter to the referral of the case to the court-martial, selecting the officers who will charge the accused, and determining charges against the crimes committed. Also, after the ruling is made, the convening authority may adjust the sentence and the decision of the military court.
Under the UMCJ outline, there are three separate courts-martial. The first one is summary court-martial which is designed for the minor misconduct charges and usually handled by a single commissioned officer. The officer is tasked with the duty of collecting evidence and deciding the sentence to the guilt. Often, the individual who is tasked with determining this case is a commander of a higher rank up to that of the major. The victim is however allowed to appeal the decisions of the deciding officer, and this can go up to the highest level of trials. In some countries, they are allowed to appeal to a tribunal after going through a chain of superior military command. Secondly, there is the special court-martial, which involves a team of a minimum of three officers and a military judge (Grogan, 2013). The team assesses the guilt and decides on the punishment by having a consensus. The sentences in this type of a court-martial are limited to one-year confinement in the maximum scale or a reduction of pay by two thirds, or in the minimum, the sentence does not last longer than a month. In the special court, the subject is entitled to counsel. Finally, there is the general court-martial, which acts as a felony court, and is set up to try serious offenses. The general court-martial requires a team of a minimum of five commissioned officers and a military judge for the proceedings to continue (Vladeck, 2014). The sentences in this court can be harsh and include more extended periods of confinement, discharge, and to the maximum, death penalty. As the court is thought to be the highest in the types, there is a pretrial that is designed to determine whether the individual should face the law. Before commencing the hearing at the general court-martial, there is a session of Article 32 hearing, the preliminary hearing whose outcomes determine whether the individual should be tried in this court.
Courts-Martial and Appellate Courts
The individuals who are tried in the courts-martial have the opportunity to appeal their charges in the Appellate Courts. In underlying conditions, the people who are sentenced in these courts are subject to review by the Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA). The CCA is constituted for each of the branches of the armed forces ( Osiel, 2017). After the decision by the CCA, the individual can decide to take their case to the US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) for further review. The Article III governs this court, and the investigation is decided by a panel of five civilian judges. However, it is critical to note that the review request is only given at the discretion of the CAAF. It can decide to reject the application, as seen in 2012 where about 76 percent of the claims were denied. Where the court has granted request to the review, the individual is free to appeal to the Supreme Court (Williams, 2013). Despite the fact that the defendant cannot file an appeal after the denial of the review by CAAF, the US government is free to appeal to the Supreme Court in the absence of the grant by CAAF. In cases where the decisio0n by the general court-martial results in the death penalty, the individual can appeal directly to the Supreme Court for review.
In other international cases involving the military, there are tribunals formed and are governed by international law (Williams, 2013). In the Geneva Conventions of 1949, there were prescribed laws for humane conduct during wartime, including the proper handling of soldiers in the enemy camp. These are the rules that govern the commission courts.
In conclusion, although the military courts are different from the other civil courts regarding rules and regulations of the constitution, the defendants have the same protections. The modern military courts have the members who are accused of violating the codes in UCMJ still enjoy the protections that the Bill of Rights enshrines. However, the bone of contention is the function of the appellate court which blocks most of the convicted members the rights to access sentence review.
References
Williams, A. S. (2013). Safeguarding the Commander's Authority to Review the Findings of a Court-Martial BYU J. Pub. L. , 28 , 471.
Grady, K. (2016). Disciplinary Offences at the Court Martial: Criminal Law Review , 714-742.
Grogan, D. E. (2013). Stop the Madness; It's Time to Simplify Court-Martial Post-Trial Processing. Naval L. Rev , 62 , 1.
Vladeck, S. I. (2014). Military Courts and Article III. Geo. LJ , 103 , 933.
Osiel, M. J. (2017). Obeying orders atrocity, military discipline and the law of war : Routledge
