The Waterbury Democrat., 1942-08-29

SV@ a soldier breaks one of the Articles of War, which is the military code of laws, the of fender should be hald before court martial, tried and given appropriate sentence as provided for in the table of maximum punishments in the Manual of Courts Martial. There is punishment tailored to fit every crime in this tabulation, from death for sleeping on post in time of war or deSertion in the face of theNenemy, down to minor of- lenses which call for forfeiture of pay, confinement to quarters or a few days in the guard house.
 A short time before the defense Army began to be built up, the Army brass hats came to the sen- sible decision that in order to give maximum training to every soldier, the only kind of a guard house which did the Army any good was an empty guard house, and further more it was silly to take up the time of lot of officers conducting courts martial. Instead of preferring formal charges and bringing sol- diers before a military court, on all petty offenses, commanding officers now award administrative punish ment such as reprimand or extra dutyy unless the soldier demands trial by court martial. The soldier naturally chooses the former. Pun ishment is swift.
 FIGURES PROVE IT
 This elimination of useless and time-conSuming trials was carried right up through the entire system of military justice. Direct punish ment by company commanders was substituted for the Summary Court Martial, which corresponds to the lowest justice of the peace court in civilian life. Similarly, special courts martial for more serious of lenses and general courts martial for the most serious crimes, were handled by the lower courts where ever possible The result has been a tremendous decrease in the num- Der of trials by military tribunal, as compared with the first World War.
 Figuring it another way, for the fiscal year 1941, last period for which there are complete records available, the number of General Courts Martial specifications or charges made was 1869 while the number of counts on which there were convictions was only 4657. The commonest offenses charged were: assertion, 1518; petit larceny, 687; absent without leave, 483; es- cape of prisoner, 175; forgery, 142; grand larceny, no; robbery, 43.
 BETTER THAN CIVILIANS
 All along the line of military jus tice, therefore, there has been a Tightening of sentences and courts martial procedeings, predicated on the theory that there should be a minimum of escape from military service. The Army system of mili- tary justice encourages this prac- tice. Every company commander must read the Articles of War to his soldiers, and explain them, and so, under Army discipline a soldier knows that when he breaks an order there vii be punishment.
 Crime rates in the Army tend to go down in time of war. There is less leisure time, for one thing, and for another the new citizen Army gets carefully selected men, many of a higher educational level than in a peacetime Army. Green officers tend to hold more courts martial than experienced officers. The general court martial rate of the U. s. Army was "A per 1000 soldiers in 1932. In 1888 it was to per 1000. Which makes the down to 15, but in 1941 it was down Army much better behaved than the civilian population.