The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) was passed shortly after World War II, and it was a remarkable law to be passed by Congress at the time (Military Legal Resources, n.d.). The legal legislation is considered a milestone in America's jurisprudence, and its history must be appreciated through the comprehension of why it was created as well as its purpose through justice in the military. It is important to note that the uniform code of military justice also promotes National Security in America. However, the UCMJ is also a separate justice system compared to the normal justice system in the United States of America. It is important to understand why the UCMJ is in existence besides the normal justice system in the United States of America. Including the role of service in promoting the National Security of the United States, besides, it's necessary to understand why a separate system of justice exists and why its existence is essential to effective military operations
The chief purposes of the military justice system are to ensure due process of law for marines, individual soldiers, airmen, and sailors while at the same time helping to maintain good discipline and order by holding indiscipline officers accountable for their delinquencies. Discipline is significant towards the effectiveness of every military unit, as put by George Washington back in 1759 that discipline was the complete soul of an army as it made small numbers difficult; helped in procuring success for weak members, and esteem to all (Ratcliffe, 2017). These words ring true today as coupled with the need for commanders to guarantee that their personnel will execute their tasks and follow orders to the latter, often in situations involving life and death. A phenomenon that no real civilian can withstand hence the need for a disciplined military. In a normal setup, civilian employees would not be able to effectively compel their subordinates to report to work early, much less command them to execute some duties, which would likely lead to death. The scenario is that most officers have sacrificed to join the military and go serve their country by meeting objectives. The state beckons for a commander to rely on such soldiers to complete missions and operations successfully, especially when the soldier is disciplined. Without discipline and order then the phenomenon could be challenging.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Endorsing justice in conserving the need for discipline and good order in the military can only be achieved in a unique and separate system (Brooks, 2017). America can't simply eliminate its justice system in the military and rely on civilian courts and existing civilian criminal law to handle misconduct committed by military members. The phenomenon is true because of two explanations. First, a separate military justice system is required to provide worldwide jurisdiction over the alleged misconduct of military members. The military requires a justice system that goes everywhere; the troops provide uniform treatment regardless of the location or circumstances. Second, civilian law doesn't diagnose exclusively military offenses such as absent without leave, desertion, disrespected, disobedience of orders, and dereliction of duty. To deter these kinds of indiscipline conduct is to maintain overall combat effectiveness, and secondly maintain an environment where orders can be given and followed. The ability to maintain this status quo despite the location of the American army foments the notion of order and discipline in the forces. Therefore the formation and implementation of the UCMJ as a law supported the need for handling indiscipline or misconduct in the American military.
Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, there are two ways through which a case can go thought. The first one is through the Court Martial or a Non-Judicial Punishment (NJP) system. The court's martial option works the same as civilian courts, but the only difference is the law they follow. The law or the code they follow is the Uniform Code of Military Justice (Military.com, 2020). The main reason for following the UCMJ is as mentioned above. The military upholds a greater level of order and discipline from its officers as their operations and missions are mostly a life-or-death situation for everyone involved in the operation. Therefore, if the indiscipline of one officer is apparent, then it would cause the expiration of all the others. The high level of order also helps with following orders making it easier for commanding officers to control their subordinates. The seriousness and the level at which the military holds its officers accountable cannot be justified by applying Constitutional legislation towards the offenses. Therefore the need for court-martials to apply more punitive actions against indiscipline soldiers.
Courts-martial are further divided into three subsections. They include the summary court-martial, special court-martial, and general court-martial. The courts differ in their make up as well as the kind of punishment they can mete out. The summary court-martial comprises only one commissioned officer who represents both the judge and the jury. He is tasked with presiding over the case and issuing a judgment per the UCMJ. The accused has to be enlisted in the military, and they are accorded the right to counter-examine the witnesses the court presents against them. They are also allowed the opportunity to call on their witnesses, present their evidence, and testify or choose to remain silent. However, the accused, in this case, does not have access to a free military attorney. They can hire their own and be represented during the proceedings. The commissioned officer can only impose a sentence up to one month. They range in the form of confinement, hard labor, reduction in rank, or forfeiture of pay. The notion is meant to punish minor offenses like sleeping on the post, reporting late to duty, or being found drunk by the commanding officer while on duty. The summary court-martial is meant for minor indiscipline cases.
A special court-martial is different as it consists of a judge and a panel made of not less than three members. However, the accused has the option of being tried by only the judge if they request for it. In the part of the panel, they could request that it be made by one-third majority of enlisted officers. The special court-martial is commonly categorized as a misdemeanor, while it could try all subjects as prescribed in the UMCJ. The subjects include but are not limited to officers, enlisted officers, and midshipmen. The special court-martial can dish out any punishment to guilty military personnel except dishonorable discharge, death, confinement for more than one year, dismissal, hard labor without confinement for more than three months, pay forfeiture exceeding more than two thirds the accused monthly salary or any forfeiture for more than one year. In the special court-martial, the accused is accorded the right to a free military attorney or given a chance to hire their civilian lawyer. The punishment dished out by the court if the accused is found guilty include up to one-year confinement, bad conduct discharge, hard labor without confinement for up to 3 months, forfeiture of their salary not exceeding two-thirds of their monthly pay not exceeding one year. Reduction to the lowest pay grade applies to enlisted officers found guilty of their crimes. However, they cannot be de-ranked or discharged.
The general court-martial comprises not less than five panelists and a military judge. The accused and the panelists have the same rights as apportioned in the special martial-court in regards to trial and presence of enlisted members in the panel, respectively. The court is considered a felony court and could try all personnel enlisted in the UCMJ. The court could administer all the forms of punishments not prohibited in the UMCJ, therefore, could offer death as a punishment for the relevant crime committed.
In the case of minor crimes, military officers are punished through the Non-Judicial Punishment (NJP) criterion, which is an out-of-court form of ruling offered by the commander (Rockwell et al., 2019). The accused is normally offered with a written accusation stating the nature of the crime, the evidence, and witnesses to the accusations, and a ruling stating the punishment in place. The accused has the right to accept or refuse NJP, especially if they note that the punishment is too severe for the crime committed. In such a case, the accused is supposed to put in writing and present it to a superior officer over the commander who would decide the matter. However, if they decide to go on with NJP, they can consult with an attorney on the way forward, although they will not be present in the session. The session comprises the commander issuing a judgment, the accused, and witnesses. The punishments are not severe as compared to the courts-martial. The accused also has the option of refusing NJP and taking their case to a court-martial. However, they should understand the tradeoffs between the two systems. NJP is an informal ruling with little punishment, while court-martial is formal with serious punishments. Court-martial entails rights to a private or free military attorney while NJP entails none.
References
Military Legal Resources. (n.d.). Index & Legislative History of the UCMJ: Military Legal Resources (Federal Research Division: Customized Research and Analytical Services, Library of Congress) . Www.Loc.Gov. Retrieved December 13, 2020, from https://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/index_legHistory.html
Ratcliffe, S. (2017). Oxford Essential Quotations . Oxford University Press -09-21.
Brooks, J. M. (2017). Core Values: Styles and Practices of Successful Military Leaders . Dorrance Publishing Co.
Military.com, 27 May 2020. (2020, May 27). Courts-Martial Explained . Military.com. https://www.military.com/benefits/military-legal-matters/courts-martial-explained.html
Rockwell, J. A., Watson, B. D., & Liabenow, J. A. (2019). Chapter Three: Non-judicial Punishment Under Article 15, UCMJ . Jstor. https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep19548.5?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
