Opinion ID: 615944
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: 7 Whether NJP Appears Excessive Compared to Its Alternative Purpose

Text: Statutes authorizing relatively severe punishments are more likely to be criminal in nature. See Hudson, 522 U.S. at 105, 118 S.Ct. 488; Trogden, 476 F.Supp.2d at 571. Here, it is necessary to compare the severity of NJP with its purpose of maintaining military discipline. NJP is not excessive relative to this purpose. Congress set limits on sanctions in the NJP statute, including a maximum of 30 days confinement at hard labor. A month of confinement is not insignificant, but neither is it excessive when weighed against the military's need to maintain strict order and discipline. The severity of NJP is especially reasonable, the Government argues, when considered with the military's mission. Indeed, the Supreme Court has stated that, when it comes to military discipline, courts should show deference to the armed forces because the rights of men in the armed forces must be conditioned to meet certain overriding demands of discipline and duty, and the civil courts are not the agencies which must determine the precise balance to be struck in this adjustment. The Framers especially entrusted that task to Congress. Burns v. Wilson, 346 U.S. 137, 140, 73 S.Ct. 1045, 97 L.Ed. 1508 (1953); see also Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57, 70, 101 S.Ct. 2646, 69 L.Ed.2d 478 (1981) (Judicial deference to ... congressional exercise of authority is at its apogee when legislative action under the congressional authority to raise and support armies and make rules and regulations for their governance is challenged.). Such deference is a relevant factor when determining whether NJP is excessive relative to the objective it furthers. This factor weighs against considering NJP to be criminal in nature.