The military justice system conundrum: Justice or discipline

Author:David A. Schlueter
Position:Professor of Law and Director of Advocacy Programs, St. Mary's University School of Law. B.A., 1969 Texas A & M University
Pages:1-77
 
FREE EXCERPT
MILITARY LAW REVIEW
Volume 215 Spring 2013
THE MILITARY JUSTICE CONUNDRUM: JUSTICE OR
DISCIPLINE?
DAVID A. SCHLUETER*
Table of Contents
I. Introduction .......................................................................................... 4
II. Overview of the Military Justice System ............................................ 7
A. Pretrial Procedures ....................................................................... 7
B. Trial Procedures ......................................................................... 11
C. Post-Trial Procedures and Appellate Review ............................ 13
D. Summary .................................................................................... 14
III. Analyzing the Military Justice Conundrum ..................................... 14
IV. Thematic Approaches to the Conundrum ........................................ 16
A. The “Deference” or “Hands-Off” Theme .................................. 16
B. The “Separatist” Theme ............................................................. 18
C. The “Primarily Discipline” Theme ............................................ 19
D. The “Justice-Based” Theme ....................................................... 23
E. The “Competing Interests” Theme ............................................ 26
F. The “Inseparable” Theme .......................................................... 27
G. The “Two Sides of the Same Coin” Theme ............................... 28
H. The “Middle Ground” Theme .................................................... 29
I. The “Fair and Delicate Balance” Theme ................................... 31
J. The “Emasculation” Theme ....................................................... 33
K. The “Un-American” Theme ....................................................... 33
L. The “Justice and Discipline Are Not Opposites” Theme ........... 35
M. The “Justice and Discipline Are Not Synonymous” Theme ...... 36
N. The “Oxymoron” Theme ........................................................... 37
O. The “Hybrid” Theme ................................................................. 38
2 MILITARY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 215
P. The “Legitimation” Theme ........................................................ 38
Q. The “Paternalistic” Theme ......................................................... 39
R. The “Civilianization” Theme ..................................................... 40
S. The “Judicialization” Theme ..................................................... 41
T. The “Can’t Get No Respect” Theme ......................................... 42
U. The “No Perfect Solution” Theme ............................................. 43
V. Summary of Thematic Approaches ........................................... 44
V. The Crime Control and Due Process Models’ Approach to the
Conundrum ............................................................................................. 45
A. In General .................................................................................. 45
B. The Crime Control (Discipline) Model ...................................... 47
C. The Due Process (Justice) Model .............................................. 48
D. Summary of the Models ............................................................. 50
E. Application of the Models to the Military Justice System ......... 50
1. Features That Reflect the Crime-Control-Discipline
Model ............................................................................... 51
a. In General ....................................................................... 51
b. Court-Martial Personal Jurisdiction .............................. 51
c. Defining Military Offenses .............................................. 52
d. Role of the Commander ................................................... 55
e. Nonjudicial Punishment .................................................. 59
f. Guilty Pleas ...................................................................... 60
g. Nonunanimous Verdicts .................................................. 61
h. Sentencing ....................................................................... 62
2. Features That Reflect the Due Process-Justice Model ......... 63
a. In General ....................................................................... 63
b. Application of Bill of Rights Protections to
Commander’s Control of Servicemembers ...................... 63
c. Application of Bill of Rights Protections During
Pretrial Processing of Cases ............................................ 63
d. Military Discovery Practices ........................................... 64
e. Appointment and Role of Counsel ................................... 66
f. Use of Military Judges ..................................................... 66
g. Guilty Plea Inquiries ....................................................... 67
h. Trial Procedures ............................................................. 68
i. Sentencing ........................................................................ 68
j. Appellate Review of Court-Martial Convictions .............. 70
3. Summary of Application of the Models .................................. 71
2013] MILITARY JUSTICE CONUNDRUM 3
VI. The Primary Purpose Approach to the Conundrum ......................... 71
VII. Conclusion and Recommendations ................................................ 74
The point of proper accommodation between the meting
out of justice and the performance of military
operations—which involved not only the fighting, but
also the winning of wars—is one which no one has
discovered. I do not know of any expert on the subject—
military or civilian—who can be said to have the perfect
solution.1
* Hardy Professor of Law and Director of Advocacy Programs, St. Mary’s University
School of Law. B.A., 1969 Texas A & M University; J.D., 1971, Baylor University
School of Law; LL.M., 1981, University of Virginia; Army’s Government Appellate
Division (1972–1975), Chief of Criminal Law, Fort Belvoir, Virginia (1975–1976);
Student, 25th Advanced Class (1976–1977); Faculty member, Criminal Law Division,
The Army’s Judge Advocate General’s School, Charlottesville, Virginia (1977–1981);
Legal counsel to the Supreme Court of the United States (1981–1983). He retired with
the rank of lieutenant colonel in 1997, from the U.S. Army Reserve, Judge Advocate
General’s Corps.
From 1988 to 2005, Professor Schlueter served as the Reporter to the Federal Rules
of Criminal Procedure Advisory Committee, a position to which Chief Justice Rehnquist
appointed him. He is a Fellow in the American Law Institute and is a Life Fellow of the
American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation.
Professor Schlueter’s publications include numerous law review articles and eleven
books: MILITARY CRIMINAL JUSTICE: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE (8th ed. 2012,
LexisNexis); MILITARY RULES OF EVIDENCE MANUAL (7th ed. 2011, LexisNexis) (with
Stephen A. Saltzburg & Lee D. Schinasi); MILITARY CRIMES AND DEFENSES (2d ed. 2012,
LexisNexis) (with Charles H. Rose, Victor Hansen & Christopher Behan); MILITARY
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE FORMS, (3d ed. 2009, LexisNexis) (with Kenneth V. Jansen, Kevin
J. Barry & Kenneth A. Arnold); MILITARY EVIDENTIARY FOUN DATIONS (4th ed. 2010,
LexisNexis) (with Stephen A. Saltzburg, Lee D. Schinasi & Edward J. Imwinkelried).
FEDERAL EVIDENCE TACTICS (1997, LexisNexis) (with Edward J. Imwinkelried), TEXAS
RULES OF EVIDENCE MANUAL (9th ed. 2012, Juris Pub.) (with Jonathan D.Schlueter);
TEXAS EVIDENTIARY FOUNDATIONS (4th ed. 2011, LexisNexis) (with John F. Onion, Jr.
Edward J. Imwinkelried); TEXAS RULES OF EVIDENCE TRIAL BOOK (2d ed. 2010,
LexisNexis) (with Stephen A. Saltzburg); FEDERAL CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LITIGATION
MANUAL (2013, Juris Pub.) (with Stephen A. Saltzburg); and EMERGING PROBLEMS
UNDER THE FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE (3d ed. 1998, ABA Section on Litigation and
LEXIS Law Pub., Editor-in-Chief). In addition he has three self-published texts which he
uses in his courses.
The author is deeply grateful to Ms. Whitney Howe, J.D., 2013, for her assistance in
preparing this article and to Captain Joseph D. Wilkinson II and Mr. Charles J. Strong for
their invaluable editorial assistance.

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP