Evening star., 1949-02-22
Military Justice
TO the Editor osThe Star:

TO the Editor oNTne Star:
AS reserve officer in the Army with sew
eral years wartime experience in the Judge
Advocate Generals Department., I should
like to comment on the proposed Uniform
Code Of Military Justice" recently introduced
in Congress Is. S57 and H. r. 2498). Your
recent editorial February 12) suggests that
1t combines the best features OF existing
laws in each branch of the service, and
some other current comments give the i'm
preston that it would improve court-martial
procedures throughout all the armed serv-
ices and benefit accused personnel. In fact
however, this bill, if enacted substantially
would curtail the rights now given by law
to accused personnel Of the Army ana Air
Force It would discard many of the con-
structive changes made in the Army court
martial system since 1916 and particularly
in 1948.
Specifically, the following changes would
restrict the rights now given to the accused
In the Army and Air Force
d) Under the present law general court
martial must have trained lawyer as "law
member" who rules on all legal questions
Under the proposed code the law member
would no longer sit as a member OF the
court but would be limited to ruling on evil
dence and other matters during the trial
and advising the court on legal questions.
Thus the accused would lose the important
safeguard of having an informed lawyer
present at all times during the deliberations
and voting of the court in closed session.
(2) The power of immediate commanding
officers to impose So-called company pun
ishments would be vastly increased. In the
Army and Air Force commander now can
impose only minor punishments such as
extra fatigue. reprimand, or restriction or
hard labor without confinement for not more
than seven days. Soldiers and airmen need
not accept such punishment. II they do
not believe themselves guilty, they may de-
mand trial by court-martial. The pro-
posed code would authorize commanders to
impose on enlisted men forfeiture OF one
half months pay. confinement for seven
days, confinement on bread and water for
five days. or reduction In grade. Further
more, unless specifically authorized by de-
partmental regulation. q soldier would no
longer be able to refuse punishment and
demand trial.
90 The right of soldier to have enlisted
men sit on the court trying him. conferred
by the 194a amendments. would be made
subject to decision of the commanding Of
fcer as to physical conditions or military
exigencieS.'
a. A summary court-martial consisting
of one officer) would have complete power
one Of long service with the highest rating,
and could reduce him to the lowest grade.
AS the law now stands the higher grades OF
non-commissioned officers can request trial
by special court-martial and thereby insure
that the case be heard by at least three
officers and an adequate record made.
90 Reserve personnel during inactive duty
training periods might be subjected to
courts-martial for absence. Hardness or other
alleged offenses during training periods and
could be placed on active duty without their
consent in order to stand trial and suffer
punishment.
60 Under the present Army and Air Force
law soldiers may be confined in a peni-
tentiary only for very serious offenses, such
as wartime desertion. mutiny or crimes OF
civil nature for which penitentiary con-
finement is authorized by other Federal
laws. The proposed code would authorize
penitentiary confinement for any ofense, no
matter how minor, thus potentially brand
ing soldier with penitentiary record even
for an insignificant military offense.
Apparently the proposed bill adopts
many provisions of the Naval Code of
Justice, which has not been substan-
TALLY revised since 1862. and attempts
to impose them on the Army and
Air Force. The 1948 amendments to
the Army system were made after three
years Of careful consideration by Congress
during which hearings were held and all
points of view considered. The new Manual
for Courts Martial has just gone into effect,
and the Army and Air Force should have
q chance to give the new law fair trial.
If more changes are desirable, they can
then be made in the light of experience.
I am not sufficiently familiar with naval
problems to know whether the Army system
could or should be fully applied in the Navy
or to express an opinion as to what changes
if any, should be made in the present Navy
code. But whether or not uniformity of
procedure between the services is an ulti-
mately desirable goal it certainly should
not be achieved at the cost Of destroying
wholesome safeguards now existing in the
Army and the Air Force system of military
justice. PAUL s. DAVIS,
Major, j. A. G. D. (Reserve)