PDA

View Full Version : Military Rights



E4RUMOR
06-22-2013, 12:57 PM
According to proposed legislation H.R. 671, compensation should be afforded to those who are discovered to be victims of Sexual Assault or Harassment. Compensation was also pointed out to the Armed Services Committee on 4 June 2013, as an incentive for victims to come forward and report if they have been victims.

There was also a proposed Bill of Rights for Service-members who are victims of crimes.

This idea runs similar to a Civilian run Court of Law.

I'm thinking maybe it should extend beyond just Sexual Assaults or Harassment. Maybe not necessarily a monetary compensation for other crimes, but the right to counter-sue like in the Civilian sector.

For instance, if a person sues another person, and the defendant is found not to be guilty, the defendant can counter-sue for damages, emotional turmoil, defamation of character, etc.

So if this law is passed, shouldn't other judicial proceedings change? Such as service-members having the right to press charges against their Commands if the Command threatens them with Non Judicial punishment or a Court Martial, and they are not found guilty? This might force Commanders to ensure they have their "ducks in a row" before flippantly pushing charges towards and individual for biased reasons....

Is there something that already exists for service members in cases like this?

sandsjames
06-22-2013, 01:59 PM
According to proposed legislation H.R. 671, compensation should be afforded to those who are discovered to be victims of Sexual Assault or Harassment. Compensation was also pointed out to the Armed Services Committee on 4 June 2013, as an incentive for victims to come forward and report if they have been victims.

There was also a proposed Bill of Rights for Service-members who are victims of crimes.

This idea runs similar to a Civilian run Court of Law.

I'm thinking maybe it should extend beyond just Sexual Assaults or Harassment. Maybe not necessarily a monetary compensation for other crimes, but the right to counter-sue like in the Civilian sector.

For instance, if a person sues another person, and the defendant is found not to be guilty, the defendant can counter-sue for damages, emotional turmoil, defamation of character, etc.

So if this law is passed, shouldn't other judicial proceedings change? Such as service-members having the right to press charges against their Commands if the Command threatens them with Non Judicial punishment or a Court Martial, and they are not found guilty? This might force Commanders to ensure they have their "ducks in a row" before flippantly pushing charges towards and individual for biased reasons....

Is there something that already exists for service members in cases like this?

Yeah, it would have to be allowed in all sorts of cases. And if you think false accusations are prominent now, wait 'til they know they can get paid for it. Can't see it ever passing.

garhkal
06-22-2013, 06:36 PM
Yea.. Feres and such would prevent it from happening.

Pullinteeth
06-24-2013, 03:02 PM
So if this law is passed, shouldn't other judicial proceedings change? Such as service-members having the right to press charges against their Commands if the Command threatens them with Non Judicial punishment or a Court Martial, and they are not found guilty? This might force Commanders to ensure they have their "ducks in a row" before flippantly pushing charges towards and individual for biased reasons....

How would that make any sense? You can't press charges against the D.A. if you are found not guilty for a crime you are tried for and you are NEVER found NG if you choose to accept NJP.... How in the world would offering NJP for a suspected crime ever be a crime in and of itself?

E4RUMOR
06-25-2013, 03:01 AM
How would that make any sense? You can't press charges against the D.A. if you are found not guilty for a crime you are tried for and you are NEVER found NG if you choose to accept NJP.... How in the world would offering NJP for a suspected crime ever be a crime in and of itself?

Ummmm how about because its suspected and not an actual crime?

Commands are not made up of some anonymous entity. Someone recommends or starts the process of NJP or Court Martial. Commanders have JAG officers who give recommendations as whether or not to peruse. Generally the charges go up to the Commander from someone further down the chain of Command. If there is not enough evidence to press charges, individuals threatening charges should get slammed for not having all the facts or "ducks in a row" before making that threat to the service-member's career.

The example I provided in the civilian sector was one of persons suing other persons... Not states versus individuals.

E4RUMOR
06-25-2013, 03:19 AM
Marines either accept NJP because they are either guilty and know it, or they are stupid and do not exercise their rights to push for Court Martial.

wildman
06-25-2013, 04:21 AM
Marines either accept NJP because they are either guilty and know it, or they are stupid and do not exercise their rights to push for Court Martial.

It's been a long time and I do not remember all the types of court martial but I recall there was the one with only one officer presiding. I would say if the individual was indeed innocent the first option should be request the advice from the area defense council and request the non judicial punishment hearing be stopped until a lawyer has been appointed. If guilty accept the Article 15.

Always,
Wildman

Measure Man
06-25-2013, 04:25 AM
Ummmm how about because its suspected and not an actual crime?

Commands are not made up of some anonymous entity. Someone recommends or starts the process of NJP or Court Martial. Commanders have JAG officers who give recommendations as whether or not to peruse. Generally the charges go up to the Commander from someone further down the chain of Command. If there is not enough evidence to press charges, individuals threatening charges should get slammed for not having all the facts or "ducks in a row" before making that threat to the service-member's career.

The example I provided in the civilian sector was one of persons suing other persons... Not states versus individuals.

No...unless you can prove malicious prosecution, it not a crime nor liability to prosecute a crime and lose, nor should it be.

Just because someone hasn't be proven guilty, does not mean they are innocent.

E4RUMOR
06-25-2013, 05:58 AM
I guess I'm simply a proponent of only pushing punitive action in cases where the crime and guilt can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Pullinteeth
06-25-2013, 05:02 PM
Ummmm how about because its suspected and not an actual crime?

Commands are not made up of some anonymous entity. Someone recommends or starts the process of NJP or Court Martial. Commanders have JAG officers who give recommendations as whether or not to peruse. Generally the charges go up to the Commander from someone further down the chain of Command. If there is not enough evidence to press charges, individuals threatening charges should get slammed for not having all the facts or "ducks in a row" before making that threat to the service-member's career.

The example I provided in the civilian sector was one of persons suing other persons... Not states versus individuals.

And what exactly would you charge them with? I have never seen a charge for "not having their ducks in a row." If they offer NJP for a suspected crime, it is the alleged perp's choice if they want to accept it. If they are actual charged after an Art 32 hearing, it isn't just the accuser that says they might have done something wrong. If they are tried and acquitted that doesn't necessarily mean they were not guilty.


I guess I'm simply a proponent of only pushing punitive action in cases where the crime and guilt can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Then you aren't all that bright. Often people that are guilty as sin are found not guilty because evidence is excluded, on a technicality, or simply because the jurors don't know the burden of proof required for a guilty verdict.....

Rusty Jones
06-25-2013, 05:07 PM
Marines either accept NJP because they are either guilty and know it, or they are stupid and do not exercise their rights to push for Court Martial.

...or perhaps they're fully aware that 90% of all Court Martials end in a conviction, and aren't willing to roll that dice.

Pullinteeth
06-25-2013, 05:29 PM
...or perhaps they're fully aware that 90% of all Court Martials end in a conviction, and aren't willing to roll that dice.

There is a reason for that too...most CC's aren't willing to send something to CM unless they are pretty sure the accused actually did it... Sometimes, if the accused turns down the NJP, the CC will leave it alone because there just isn't enough to PROVE it at CM... Not sure how often it happens but it does happen. Just like civilians will often try to get you to plead to a lower offense rather than go to trial...

garhkal
06-25-2013, 10:29 PM
Often people that are guilty as sin are found not guilty because evidence is excluded, on a technicality, or simply because the jurors don't know the burden of proof required for a guilty verdict.....

Or the prosecution's lawyer messed up and didn't push as good as he should have, letting the defendant's lawyer wow the jury so they went with him..