…what is your incentive to prove your client innocent?
Of course it is your assignment and your duty, etc., but I can’t help but think that it’s not going to do wonders for your career in general to make your country/commander in chief/the system look bad, especially in a politically sensitive case where you have to know that your superiors/commander in chief/nation at large would rather believe that the defendent they’ve been holding without trial or charges is actually guilty.
I have read and heard several stories of people in the inteligence community who were fired or more subtly punished for telling people what they didn’t want to hear. Certainly you must agree that it is true in the private sector that there is no future in making the boss look bad, and I don’t think people in the military or public service have egos one whit less touchy, or are any less prone to reprisals.
I’m putting this here instead of GD in hopes that someone with some background in military law can give something resembling a real answer instead of starting a more general fight about military tribunals.
What’s the incentive for the prosecutor to find somebody guilty? Won’t the armed forces be made to look bad by having one of its members convicted of a crime?
The reality is that the system as a whole is bigger than any individual. The integrity of the armed forces is based on the process working not on the outcome of any individual incident of that process.
And Og knows everybody always does their job, even if somebody with power over their careers, raises, promotions, schedules and parking spaces might have entirely different ideas about what their job actually is. Riiiiiight.
As far as going into private practice, does this happen often? I have this general(uninformed) impression that military law is a specialized career track, and that a military lawyer jumping to civilian law is somewhat akin to a malpractice attorney deciding to switch to divorce cases. They all study law and have the basics, but I am guessing that their experiences in the one arena isn’t all that helpful in the other.
Courts have appeal proceses for the purpose of determining whether a person was competently represented.
Most people in the JAG corps are in because the military paid for law school. They’re required to serve a few years, then they resign and go into civilian lawyering (e.g. prosecutors and public defenders) or go into private practice. Very few JAG people make a career out of military law.
Well, I have wondered that myself, about the prosecutors, especially when seeing people get what I consider a slap on the wrist for what I think are serious crimes.
As for your argument that the system is bigger than any individual, that’s usually argued as not a good thing when it comes to the system vs. individuals, you realize. Not only does the system have a lot more resources and power, it has a distinct psychological advantage, due to the fact that most human beings want the ‘authority’ to equal ‘in the right’.
Last but not least, an individual can become much larger than themselves if they become a symbol of some kind, and if the outcome of their case sets a precedent, and I can’t help but think this is just as much a factor as the merits of any one case.
The prosecutor in a court-martial has a duty to the government of the United States to present evidence which he reasonably believes proves the accused (that’s the military’s term for the defendant) is guilty of the offense charged. He also, as prosecutors in civilian life do, the duty to present exculpatory evidence to the defending attorney. He is bound by US federal law, Service regulations, and the code of ethics for his Bar Association.
The defending attorney in a court-martial has a duty to his client to present evidence which re reasonably believes proves the government’s case is mistaken. He also is bound by US federal law, Service regulations, and the code of ethics for his Bar Association.
The military attorneys on both sides of the military justice system do perform their jobs. Their incentive is to follow their oath of office. Malfeasance is an offense under the UCMJ. Neither the prosecutor nor the defending attorney is there “to make his career.” They are there to perform their military function. Not peforming those opens them up to major legal problems most people would rather do without.
A point that nobody’s mentioned yet is that courts-martials are reviewed. The accused also has the right of appeal. The final appeal is the Supreme Court of the United States.
Thank you for the facts. I know a barebones smattering about how our civilian courts work, but nothing about our military courts. I’m sure that there are checks and balances built into the system when it comes to putting soldiers on trial. I’m less certain these are going to apply to the trial of our non-citizen prisoners, assuming they ever get trials.
Am I remembering correctly that most of the JAG officers aren’t happy with the way Bush wants to set up the tribunals for enemy combantants?
According to the legal system, innocent people get exonerated and guilty people get convicted - either outcome is proof that the system is “in the right”. The system doesn’t have a favorite side.
I just checked with a friend of mine who was a JAG for 20 years. Here’s her answer, somewhat compressed.
In the U.S. Army and Air Force, defense attorneys have their own chain of command, and are insulated from the chain of command that actually brings the charges against the accused. So (at least in theory) the defense is safe from retribution and is evaluated by its own commanders. She pointed out that this system has been in place for at least 40 years, and has overall worked as it was designed to.
In the Navy, lawyers rotate back and forth between prosecution and defense. My friend doesn’t like that system as well. However, it means that the defense attorney who enraged the commanding officer in one case may well end up being the prosecuting attorney for that same CO in a different case. In that instance, the CO would be a fool to go after a possible future prosecutor.
Oh my god, now I see how deluded I’ve been all these years, thinking that sometimes the guilty go free and the innocent are falsely convicted, especially if the guilty have money and the innocent are lowly, ignorant peons only defended by over-burdened, underpaid public defenders who of course never urge them to plead guilty just so they can make a deal and lighten their caseloads. And nobody in power would ever abuse it, of course not. How wrong I’ve been to be wary of giving the Bush administration absolute power.
Do you have any property in Florida you’d like to sell me, Little Nemo? Maybe a bridge?
I think you’ll discover that if you read first, it will aid your comprehension. That’s free advice.
For example, if you had read my post carefully, you’d have noted how I started it with the preface, “According to the legal system”. And now that you’ve read that I want you to go back and reread my post and see if you understand it this time.
As far as it answering the point that you made your argument in reply to, no. I have no idea. I was pointing out that humans are hard-wired to tend to believe that those in positions of authority are more likely to be right. Your reply does not address that, and as near as I can decipher, you are arguing that the legal system works because it says it works and that it working is proof that it works. Which would be fine if it always worked. If anything, I think you are making MY argument for me by insisting that the integrity of the military somehow countermands all the inherent injustices that happen to people despite all best efforts to put a system in place to prevent them. I’m sure it is a fine system, but please don’t ask me to believe that it is infallible.
First of all, your snarkiness is not dangerously close to crossing the line here. Second, he 's not incorrect. The fact that life isn’t perfect and that not everything happens perfectly does not mean the system is itself broken.
I apologize for being a snark. But I still think anything that doesn’t always work should be thought of as at least in need of repair. And I think we’ve hijacked this thread way off the original subject and if nobody has anything factual about military tribunals to add, we should let it die and possibly start a seperate thread about the justice system in Great Debates, where it belongs.
