Court Opinion

ID: 9426341
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:17:36.742422+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:00.354074
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Marshall,
with whom Mr. Justice Brennan joins, dissenting.
We only recently held that, absent a waiver, “no person may be imprisoned for any offense, whether classified as petty, misdemeanor, or felony, unless he was represented by counsel at his trial.” Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U. S. 25, 37 (1972). Today the Court refuses to apply Argersinger’s holding to defendants in summary court-martial proceedings. Assuming for purposes of its opinion that the Sixth Amendment applies to courts-martial in general, the Court holds that, because of their special characteristics, summary courts-martial in particular are simply not “criminal prosecutions” within the meaning of the Sixth Amendment, and that the right to counsel is therefore inapplicable to them. I dissent.
I
Preliminarily, summary courts-martial aside, it is clear to me that a citizen does not surrender all right to appointed counsel when he enters the military. It is inconceivable, for example, that this Court could conclude that a defendant in a general court-martial proceeding, where sentences as severe as life imprisonment may be imposed, is not entitled to the same protection our Constitution affords a civilian defendant facing even a day’s imprisonment. See Argersinger v. Hamlin, supra. Surely those sworn to risk their lives to defend the Constitution should derive some benefit from the right to counsel, a *52right that has become even more firmly entrenched in our jurisprudence over the past several generations. See Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335 (1963); Powell v. Alabama, 287 U. S. 45 (1932).
The only question that might arise is whether the general guarantee of counsel to court-martial defendants is to be placed under the Fifth Amendment or under the Sixth Amendment. It is my conviction that it is a Sixth Amendment guarantee. That Amendment provides an explicit guarantee of counsel “in all criminal prosecutions.” Since, as we recently observed, courts-martial are “convened to adjudicate charges of criminal violations of military law,” Parisi v. Davidson, 405 U. S. 34, 42 (1972), it would seem that courts-martial are criminal prosecutions and that the Sixth Amendment therefore applies on its face.
There is legitimate dispute among scholars, it is true, about whether the Framers expressly intended the Sixth Amendment right to counsel to apply to the military. See ante, at 33-34, and n. 12.1 While the historical evidence is somewhat ambiguous, my reading of the sources suggests that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel was intended by the Framers to apply to courts-martial. *53But even if the historical evidence plainly showed to the contrary — and its certainly does not — that would not be determinative of the contemporary scope of the Sixth Amendment. As Mr. Chief Justice Hughes observed:
“If by the statement that what the Constitution meant at the time of its adoption it means to-day, it is intended to say that the great clauses of the Constitution must be confined to the interpretation which the framers, with the conditions and outlook of their time, would have placed upon them, the statement carries its own refutation.” Home Bldg. & Loan Assn. v. Blaisdell, 290 U. S. 398, 442-443 (1934).
Application of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel to the military follows logically and naturally from the modern right-to-counsel decisions, in which the right has been held fully applicable in every case in which a defendant faced conviction of a criminal offense and potential incarceration.2 See, e. g., Argersinger v. Hamlin, *54supra; Gideon v. Wainwright, supra. The due process right to counsel, usually applied on a case-by-case basis, extends a qualified right to counsel to persons not involved in criminal proceedings, see Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U. S. 778 (1973), but has not been viewed as a replacement for the Sixth Amendment right to counsel in situations in which a defendant stands to be convicted of a criminal offense.
In short, it is my belief that the Sixth Amendment demands that court-martial defendants ordinarily be accorded counsel.3 Only if the special characteristics of summary courts-martial in particular deprive them of the status of “criminal prosecutions” is the Sixth Amendment inapplicable in the cases before us today. It is, of course, this proposition, to which the major part of the Court’s opinion is addressed and to which I now turn.
II
The Court’s conclusion that summary courts-martial are not “criminal prosecutions” is, on its face, a surprising one. No less than in the case of other courts-martial, summary courts-martial are directed at adjudicating “charges of criminal violations of military law,” and conviction at a summary court-martial can lead to confinement for one month. Nevertheless, the Court finds its conclusion mandated by a combination of *55four factors: 4 the limitations on. the punishment that can be meted out by a summary court-martial, the nature of the offenses for which a defendant can be tried, the nature of the summary court-martial proceeding itself, and “the distinctive nature of military life and discipline.” Ante, at 42 n. 19. I am totally unpersuaded that these considerations — or any others— *56whether taken singly or in combination, justify denying to summary court-martial defendants the right to the assistance of counsel, “one of the safeguards of the Sixth Amendment deemed necessary to insure fundamental human rights of life and liberty.” Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U. S. 458, 462 (1938).
A
It is of course true, as the Court states, that a summary court-martial may not adjudge confinement in excess of one month. Manual for Courts-Martial ¶ 16b (1969) (MCM).5 But Argersinger itself held the length of confinement to be wholly irrelevant in determining the applicability of the right to counsel. Aware that “the prospect of imprisonment for however short a time will seldom be viewed by the accused as a trivial or 'petty’ matter,” Baldwin v. New York, 399 U. S. 66, 73 (1970) (plurality opinion), we held in Argersinger that the fact of confinement, not its duration, is determinative of the right to counsel. Insofar as the Court today uses the 30-day ceiling on a summary court-martial defendant’s sentence as support for its holding, it is not so much finding Argersinger “inapplicable” as rejecting the very basis of Argersinger’s holding.6
*57B
In further support of its holding, the Court observes that “[m]uch of the conduct proscribed by the military is not ‘criminal’ conduct in the civilian sense of the word,” ante, at 38, and intimates that conviction for many offenses normally tried at summary court-martial would have no consequences “beyond the immediate punishment meted out by the military.” Ante, at 39. The Court’s observations are both misleading and irrelevant.
While the summary court-martial is generally designed to deal with relatively minor offenses, see MCM ¶ 79, as a statutory matter the summary proceeding can be used to try any noncapital offense triable by general or special court-martial. Art. 20, UCMJ, 10 U. S. C. § 820.7 See United States v. Moore, 5 U. S. C. M. A. 687, 697, 18 C. M. R. 311, 321 (1955). And while the offense for which most of the plaintiffs here were tried — unauthorized absence — has no common-law counterpart, a substantial proportion of the offenses actually tried by summary court-martial are offenses, such as larceny and assault, that would also constitute criminal offenses if committed by a civilian.8 Indeed, one of the service*58men in these cases was charged with assault. It is therefore misleading to suggest, as the Court does, that there is a fundamental difference between the type of conduct chargeable at summary court-martial and the type of conduct deemed criminal in the civilian sector.
The Court’s further implication that a summary court-martial conviction has no consequences beyond “the immediate punishment” ante, at 39, is also inaccurate. One of the central distinctions between Art. 15 nonjudicial punishment and a summary court-martial conviction is that the latter is regarded as a criminal conviction.9 And that criminal conviction has collateral consequences both in military and civilian life. As the Army itself has readily acknowledged:
“Conviction by [any] court-martial creates a criminal record which will color consideration of any subsequent misconduct by the soldier. A noncommissioned officer may survive one summary court-martial without reduction being effected, but it is unlikely that, with one conviction on his record, he will survive a second trial and retain his status. A conviction of an officer by any court-martial could *59have a devastating aftereffect upon his career. It could be described in some cases as a sentence to a passover on a promotion list and may serve as a basis for initiation of administrative elimination action.
“For any man, the fact of a criminal conviction on his record is a handicap in civilian life. It may interfere with his job opportunities; it may be counted against him if he has difficulty with a civilian law enforcement agency; and in general he tends to be a marked man.” 10
The MCM itself belies any claim that no significant consequences beyond immediate punishment attach to a summary court-martial conviction. Paragraph 127c of the MCM establishes a comprehensive scheme by which an offender is made subject to increased punishment if he has a record of previous convictions — even if all of those previous convictions were by summary court-martial.
It is therefore wholly unrealistic to suggest that the impact of a summary court-martial conviction lies exclusively in the immediate punishment that is meted out.11 Summary court-martial convictions carry with them a potential of stigma, injury to career, and increased punishment for future offenses in the same way as do convictions after civilian criminal trials and convictions after general and special courts-martial.
Quite apart from their flimsy factual basis, the Court’s observations as to both the nature of the offenses tried at summary court-martial and the lack of collateral conse*60quences of convictions have already been determined by Argersinger to be irrelevant to the applicability of the Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel. Argersinger teaches that the right to counsel is triggered by the potential of confinement, regardless of how trivial or petty the offense may seem. See 407 U. S., at 37. Logic itself would therefore preclude the suggestion that the right to counsel, activated by the potential of confinement, is deactivated by the absence of collateral consequences of conviction.
C
The nature of the summary court-martial proceeding— the proceeding’s nonadversary nature and, relatedly, the protective functions of its presiding officer — ‘-is a third factor which, according to the Court, helps to make unnecessary the provision of counsel to the accused. Again, the Court’s reliance is without substantial foundation.
The Court characterizes summary courts-martial as “nonadversary,” but offers little explanation as to how that characterization advances the contention that the right to counsel is inapplicable. If the Court’s argument is simply that furnishing counsel will transform the proceeding into an adversary proceeding, it is no argument at all, but simply an observation. The argument must be either that there is something peculiar about the goal of the summary court-martial proceeding that makes the right to counsel inapplicable, or that there are elements in the conduct of the proceeding itself that render counsel unnecessary.
To the extent that the Court’s characterization of summary courts-martial as “nonadversary” is meant to convey something about the goal or purpose of the proceeding, it is totally unpersuasive. In this sense the summary court-martial proceeding is far less “nonadversary” than the juvenile delinquency proceedings to which we *61held the right to counsel applicable in In re Gault, 387 U. S. 1 (1967). The Court in Gault did not dispute that the proper purpose of the juvenile justice system is rehabilitative rather than punitive, that all parties to a juvenile delinquency proceeding might be striving for an adjudication and disposition that is in “the best interests of the child,” and that the traditional notion of the “kindly juvenile judge” is a highly appropriate one. See id., at 27. Yet the Court in Gault confronted the reality that, however beneficial the goal of delinquency proceedings, they have as their potential result the confinement of an individual in an institution. Ibid. This factor mandated that accused juvenile offenders be entitled to the representation of counsel.12
As distinguished from the situation in Gault, summary courts-martial have no special rehabilitative purpose; rather, their central immediate purpose is to discipline those who have violated the UCMJ.13 If the goals of juvenile delinquency proceedings are an insufficient justification for the denial of counsel, it follows a fortiori that the goals of the summary court-martial are similarly insufficient.
The second possible meaning conveyed by characterizing the summary court-martial as “nonadversary” — the *62presence of elements in the conduct of the proceeding itself which render independent counsel unnecessary — is reflected in the Court’s observation that the “function of the presiding officer is quite different from that of any participant in a civilian trial.” Ante, at 41. It is the responsibility of the presiding officer to act as judge, jury, prosecutor, and defense counsel combined. The Court intimates that the presiding officer’s duty to advise the accused of his rights and his ability to help the accused assemble facts, examine witnesses, and cross-examine his accusers make defense counsel unnecessary, particularly in light of the absence of a formal prosecutor in the proceeding. I find this argument unpersuasive. In Powell v. Alabama, 287 U. S. 45 (1932), we rejected the notion that a judge could “effectively discharge the obligations of counsel for the accused,” largely because a judge “cannot . . . participate in those necessary conferences between counsel and accused which sometimes partake of the inviolable character of the confessional.” Id., at 61.
It is true that in Powell the unrepresented defendant was opposed by a traditional prosecutor. But in Gault, supra, there was no prosecutor; the only participants in the delinquency proceedings were the juvenile, his mother, the probation officers, and the judge. All participants were presumably interested in the welfare of the juvenile. Yet we held that no matter how protective the judge or the other participants might have been, the juvenile was entitled to independent counsel.
The irreconcilable conflict among the roles of the summary court-martial presiding officer inevitably prevents him from functioning effectively as a substitute for defense counsel. For instance, a defendant has a right to remain silent and not testify at his court-martial. See Art. 31, UCMJ, 10 ü! S. C. § 831; MCM ¶ 53h. An in*63telligent decision whether to exercise that right requires consultation as to whether testifying would hurt or help his case and inevitably involves the sharing of confidences with counsel. Full consultation cannot possibly take place when “defense counsel” is also playing the role of judge and prosecutor. The defense counsel who also serves as prosecutor and judge is effectively unavailable for many of the “necessary conferences between counsel and accused,” Powell v. Alabama, supra, at 61, as well as for the making and implementation of critical tactical and strategic trial decisions. As helpful as the presiding officer might be to the defendant, his inconsistent roles bar him from being an adequate substitute for independent defense counsel.
In sum, there is nothing about the assertedly “non-adversary” nature of the summary court-martial — either in terms of its goals or alternative safeguards — that renders unnecessary the assistance of counsel.
D
Finally, the Court draws on notions of military necessity to justify its conclusion that the right to counsel is inapplicable to summary court-martial proceedings. Concerns for discipline and obedience will on occasion, it is true, justify imposing restrictions on the military that would be unconstitutional in a civilian context. See Parker v. Levy, 417 U. S. 733, 758 (1974). But denials of traditional rights to any group should not be approved without examination, especially when the group comprises members of the military, who are engaged in an endeavor of national service, frequently fraught with both danger and sacrifice. After such examination, I am persuaded that the denial of the right to counsel at summary courts-martial cannot be justified by military necessity.
*64The substance of the asserted justification here is that discipline, efficiency, and morale demand the utilization of an expeditious disciplinary procedure for relatively minor offenses. It would seem, however, that Art. 15 non judicial punishment — which can be speedily imposed by a commander, but which does not carry with it the stigma of a criminal conviction — provides just such a procedure.14 Indeed, the 1962 amendments to Art. 15, 10 U. S. C. § 815, greatly expanded the availability of non judicial punishment and resulted in a sharp decrease in the utilization of the summary court-martial.15 There is, therefore, no pressing need to have a streamlined summary court-martial proceeding in order to supply an expeditious disciplinary procedure. Moreover, it is by no means clear that guaranteeing counsel to summary court-martial defendants would result in significantly longer time periods from preferral of charges to punishment than fairly conducted proceedings in the absence of counsel;16 any timesaving that is now *65enjoyed might well result from the presiding officer’s being something less than an adequate substitute for independent defense counsel.
It is especially difficult to accept the federal parties’ claim of “military necessity” in view of the fact that well before our decision in Argersinger, each of the services allowed summary court-martial defendants to retain counsel at their own expense.17 Given this fact, the fed*66eral parties’ argument is reduced to a contention that only those defendants who cannot afford to retain counsel must, as a matter of “military necessity,” be denied counsel at summary court-martial proceedings. Sustaining that contention means a defeat for those very principles of equality and justice that the military is sworn to defend; thé most fundamental notions of fairness are subverted when the rights of the poor alone are sacrificed to the cause of “military necessity.”
It is also significant that the United States Court of Military Appeals (USCMA), a body with recognized expertise in dealing with military problems,18 has applied Argersinger to summary courts-martial without giving any hint that military necessity posed a problem. United States v. Alderman, 22 U. S. C. M. A. 298, 46 C. M. R. 298 (1973).19 Indeed, Judge Duncan of that court explicitly noted that “the record contains no evidence which convinces me that application of the Arger-singer rule should not be followed in our system because of military necessity.” Id., at 303, 46 C. M. R., at 303 (concurring in part and dissenting in part).20 And even before Alderman was decided, both the Air Force and the *67Army applied Argersinger to summary courts-martial21 rather than advancing the theoretically available “military necessity” argument. See United States v. Priest, 21 U. S. C. M. A. 564, 45 C. M. R. 338 (1972). That they did so leads me to doubt whether even the military was then of the opinion that military necessity dictated the denial of counsel.
Virtually ignoring all the factors that cast doubt on the military-necessity justification, the Court defers to an asserted congressional judgment that “counsel should not be provided in summary courts-martial.” Ante, at 43. While Congress’ evaluation of military necessity is clearly entitled to deference, it would be a departure from our position in the past to suggest that the Court need not come to its own conclusion as to the validity of any argument based on military necessity. See, e. g., United States v. Robel, 389 U. S. 258, 264 (1967); Parker v. Levy, 417 U. S. 733 (1974); cf. New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U. S. 713 (1971). But regardless of what weight is properly accorded a clear congressional determination of military necessity, there has been no such determination in this case.
The only congressional action referred to by the Court is Congress’ refusal in 1956 and 1968 to abolish summary *68courts-martial altogether and its concurrent extending of the serviceman’s opportunity to reject trial by summary court-martial. The Court refers to that action as evidence that Congress has considered “in some depth” the matter whether counsel is required in summary courts-martial. Ante, at 45 n. 21. But there is no evidence offered of any detailed congressional consideration of the specific question of the feasibility of providing counsel at summary courts-martial. And, more importantly, there is no indication that Congress made a judgment that military necessity requires the denial of the constitutional right to counsel to summary court-martial defendants.
If Congress’ lack of discussion of military necessity is not enough to throw substantial doubt on the Court’s inferences, the timing of the congressional action cited by the Court should certainly do so. All that action occurred substantially before our decision in Argersinger. Thus, even if we assume that Congress’ decision to retain the summary court-martial represents a considered conclusion that “counsel should not be provided,” that judgment was made at a time when even civilian defendants subject to prison terms of less than six months had no recognized constitutional right to counsel. There would, therefore, have been little reason for Congress in 1956 or 1968 to undertake the detailed consideration necessary to make a finding of “military necessity” before concluding that counsel need not be provided to summary court-martial defendants.
In sum, there is simply no indication that Congress ever made a clear determination that “military necessity” precludes applying the Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel to summary court-martial proceedings. Indeed, the Court characterizes the congressional determination in the vaguest of terms, and never expressly *69claims that Congress made a determination of military-necessity. Thus, I can only read the Court’s opinion as a grant of almost total deference to any Act of Congress dealing with the military.
Ill
The Court rejects even the limited holding of the Court of Appeals that the provision of counsel in summary court-martial proceedings should be evaluated as a matter of due process on the basis of the accused’s defense in any particular case. The Court explains that summary court-martial defendants can have counsel appointed by refusing trial by summary court-martial and then proceeding to trial by special court-martial — the acknowledged consequence of which is exposure to greater possible penalties. Given my conviction that a summary court-martial is a criminal prosecution under the Sixth Amendment, it is unnecessary for me to deal in detail with this due process question.22 In the event, however, that the special court-martial option may be offered as additional support for the Court’s treatment of the Sixth Amendment issue, I shall briefly assess its significance.
The Court analogizes the decision whether to expose oneself to special court-martial with counsel or to proceed by summary court-martial without counsel to the *70decision faced by a civilian defendant whether to proceed to trial or plead guilty to a lesser included offense. According to the Court, the right given up by such a civilian defendant is “not only his right to counsel but his right to any trial at all.” Ante, at 47. The analogy is a flawed one. The civilian defendant who pleads guilty necessarily gives up whatever rights he might thereafter have been accorded to enable him to protect a claim of innocence; the conditions on his pleading guilty are logically mandated ones. By contrast, the condition on the military defendant’s opting to be tried by summary court-martial — i. e., the denial of counsel— is an imposed one, and must therefore be viewed with suspicion.
Indeed, the force of the Court’s analogy is entirely dissipated by the fact that a civilian defendant who pleads guilty forfeits only so much of his right to counsel as is a necessary consequence of his plea. He is fully entitled to counsel in the process leading up to the plea— including negotiations with the Government as to the possibility of a plea and the actual decision to plead. The defendant is also entitled to counsel in any sentencing proceeding that might follow the making of his plea. I have no doubt that a scheme in which the acceptance of guilty pleas was conditioned on a full abandonment of the right to counsel would be unconstitutional.
By contrast, the Court today approves the denial of counsel to the summary court-martial defendant at all stages and for all purposes — including, at least as regards sailors and marines,23 the very decision whether to reject *71trial by summary court-martial. And if the accused opts for the summary court-martial — the Court’s parallel to the accepted guilty plea — he has no right to counsel either at the adjudicative or sentencing phase of the proceeding.24
Conditioning the provision of counsel on a defendant’s subjecting himself to the risk of additional punishment suffers from the same defect as the scheme disapproved by the Court in United States v. Jackson, 390 U. S. 570 (1968), in which the right to a trial by jury was conditioned on a defendant’s subjecting himself to the possibility of capital punishment. If the Court’s analysis is correct as applied to the Sixth Amendment, then Argersinger’s guarantee of counsel for the trial of any offense carrying with it the potential of imprisonment could be reduced to a nullity; a State could constitutionally establish two levels of imprisonment for the same offense — a lower tier for defendants who are willing to proceed to trial without counsel, and a higher one for those who insist on having the assistance of counsel.25 It *72is inconceivable to me that the Sixth Amendment would tolerate such a result.
IV
The right to counsel has been termed “the most pervasive” 26 of all the rights accorded an accused. As a result of the Court’s action today, of all accused persons protected by the United States Constitution — federal defendants and state defendants, juveniles and adults, civilians and soldiers — only those enlisted men 27 tried by summary court-martial can be imprisoned without having been accorded the right to counsel. I would have expected that such a result would have been based on justifications far more substantial than those relied on by the Court. I respectfully dissent.

 Those who argue that the Framers did intend the Sixth Amendment right to counsel to apply point both to congressional proceedings which seem to assume the right’s applicability, see Henderson, Courts-Martial and the Constitution: The Original Understanding, 71 Harv. L. Rev. 293, 303-315 (1957), and materials cited therein, and to the fact that it was traditional in the late 18th century to allow an accused serviceman legal assistance. Id., at 318. Those who take the opposite position point, inter alia, to contemporary treatises, see Wiener, Courts-Martial and the Bill of Rights: The Original Practice I, 72 Harv. L. Rev. 1, 23-26 (1958), and materials cited therein, to the lack of mention of any right to counsel in the first military codes under the Constitution, id., at 22-23, and to the fact that any counsel who did appear in military proceedings was allowed only a limited role. Id., at 27-32.

 In any given case, whether there is a Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury is, of course, not at all determinative of whether there is a Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Indeed, in Argersinger itself we stated that “[w]e reject, therefore, the premise that since prosecutions for crimes punishable by imprisonment for less than six months may be tried without a jury, they may also be tried without a lawyer.” 407 U. S. 25, 30-31 (1972). Compare id., at 37, with Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 145, 159 (1968).
This Court has indicated that the Fifth Amendment’s express exemption of the military from the requirement of indictment by grand jury also exempts the military “inferentially, from the [Sixth Amendment] right to trial by jury.” O’Callahan v. Parker, 395 U. S. 258, 261 (1969). But there is no reason to assume that the same inferences from the Fifth Amendment exemption should be drawn with regard to the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Not even the federal parties suggest that the settling of the jury-trial issue with regard to the military has ipso facto settled all other Sixth Amendment issues as well.

 Even if a pure due process analysis were to be used, however, counsel, to my mind, would still be required for courts-martial. Many of the factors analyzed below in a Sixth Amendment context, see Part II, infra, are fully relevant to a due process analysis. See Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U. S. 778 (1973); Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U. S. 471 (1972). And, while Gagnon adopts a case-by-case approach to the right to counsel in probation revocation proceedings, the fact that in courts-martial we are dealing with a trial which can result in a criminal conviction mandates that counsel be made available in every case. See Gagnon, supra, at 789 n. 12.

 The Court looks to our analysis in Gagnon v. Scarpelli, supra, as support in the distinctions it draws between “criminal prosecutions” under the Sixth Amendment and summary courts-martial. I find that reliance questionable, to say the least.
The Court intimates, ante, at 35, that our holding in Gagnon that a probation revocation hearing is not part of a criminal prosecution was based on factors relating to the manner in which such hearings are conducted — factors such as the absence of a prosecutor and the informality of the proceedings. This, however, is an inaccurate reflection of what we said in Gagnon. Gagnon’s conclusion, stated early in the opinion, 411 U. S., at 782, that a probation revocation hearing is “not a stage of a criminal prosecution” was not at all dependent on the manner in which such proceedings are conducted. Rather, it was held to follow from the conclusion in Morrissey v. Brewer, supra, that revocation of parole was not part of a criminal prosecution, with the following analysis in Morrissey held to be determinative:
‘“Parole arises after the end of the criminal prosecution, including imposition of sentence. . . . Revocation deprives an individual, not of the absolute liberty to which every citizen is entitled, but only of the conditional liberty properly dependent on observance of special parole restrictions.’ [408 U. S.], at 480.” 411 U. S., at 781. The manner in which the hearing was conducted was simply not a factor in our conclusion that such a hearing is not part of a “criminal prosecution.” Only after we reached this conclusion did we refer to the manner in which the hearing was conducted in considering the secondary question whether the right to appointed counsel was nevertheless required as a matter of due process. Thus, even assuming there are “parallels” between the manner in which probation-revocation hearings are conducted and the manner in which summary courts-martial are conducted, ante, at 41-42, Gagnon lends no support to the conclusion that summary courts-martial are not “criminal prosecutions” within the meaning of the Sixth Amendment.

 The MCM was prescribed by Executive Order of September 11, 1968, to supplement the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

 The Court attempts to evade Argersinger’s clear mandate by relying on our decisions in Gagnon v. Scarpelli, supra, and In re Gault, 387 U. S. 1 (1967). As for Gagnon, I have already observed, supra, n. 4, that it lends no support to the Court’s Sixth Amendment analysis in this case. As for Gault, it is true that we have held that juvenile delinquency proceedings, even though they might result in confinement, are not “criminal prosecutions” under the Sixth Amendment. McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 403 U. S. 528 (1971); see id., at 553 (opinion of Brennan, J.). However, that conclusion was undoubtedly based on the predominantly rehabilitative purpose of the juvenile justice system, a factor which, as shown *57infra, at 61, is manifestly not present in the summary court-martial context. And, while Gault did not apply the Sixth Amendment, it did, of course, hold a due process right to counsel applicable to all juvenile delinquency proceedings which pose a threat of confinement.

 Of course the punishment ceilings imposed by 10 U. S. C. § 820 on summary courts-martial are applicable no matter what offensé is being tried. But the "popular opprobrium” resulting from conviction of a serious crime — a factor in which the Court places considerable stock, ante, at 39 — is likely to be severe whatever the magnitude of the punishment; that “popular opprobrium” could, of course, have significant “practical effect,” ante, at 40 n. 17, on a serviceman’s future.

 See 10 U. S. C. §§ 921, 928. Figures supplied by the federal parties indicate that in 1973, 14% of the summary courts-martial *58conducted by the Navy were for “nonmilitary offenses.” Brief for Federal Parties 33; see also Fidell, The Summary Court-Martial: A Proposal, 8 Harv. J. Legis. 571, 599 n. 121 (1971). See also Joint Hearings on Military Justice before the Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary and a Special Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, 89th Cong., 2d Sess., 1056 (1966) (hereinafter cited as 1966 Hearings).

 In Senate testimony, the Judge Advocate General of the Navy observed that a serviceman convicted by a summary court-martial as opposed to one punished under Art. 15, “begins to acquire a record of convictions.” 1966 Hearings 33. See also Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Summary — Report of Hearings on the Constitutional Rights of Military Personnel, 88th Cong., 1st Sess., 35 (1963).

 Hearings on Constitutional Rights of Military Personnel before the Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 87th Cong., 2d Sess., 838 (1962).

 See also Fidell, supra, n. 8, at 594-596; Feld, The Court Martial Sentence: Fair or Foul, 39 Va. L. Rev. 319, 322 (1953).

 The Court intimates that our decision in Gault might have been different had Gerald Gault been faced with a period of confinement significantly less than three years in duration. Ante, at 46 n. 22. However, our opinion contained no hint of any such limitation and held the right to counsel applicable whenever a juvenile is faced with proceedings “which may result in commitment to an institution in which the juvenile’s freedom is curtailed.” 387 U. S., at 41.

 In general, “a military trial is marked by the age-old manifest destiny of retributive justice. . . . '[Mjilitary law has always been and continues to be primarily an instrument of discipline, not justice.’ Glasser, Justice and Captain Levy, 12 Columbia Forum 46, 49 (1969).” O’Callahan v. Parker, 395 U. S. 258, 266 (1969).

 Differences have been advanced to distinguish the punishment that can be imposed under Art. 15 from the "confinement” that can result from a summary court-martial. See United States v. Shamel, 22 U. S. C. M. A. 361, 47 C. M. R. 116 (1973) (Quinn, J.).

 Between 1962 and 1969, the number of summary courts-martial per year in the Armed Services dropped from 85,166 to 28,281, and their percentage of the total military caseload dropped from 64% to 26%. Fidell, supra, n. 8, at 573. “The chief explanation for this phenomenon lies in the expansion of nonjudicial punishment powers accomplished in 1963.” Id., at 572.

 While, according to the federal parties to these cases, the average time period between preferral of charges and final review in summary courts-martial has increased by 13 days since the United States Court of Military Appeals applied Argersinger to the military in United States v. Alderman, 22 U. S. C. M. A. 298, 46 C. M. R. 298 (1973), Supp. Mem. for Federal Parties 3-4, the parties themselves concede that “it is not possible to ascribe the changed experience . . . exclusively to the injection of counsel into summary court proceedings." Ibid. Nothing is offered by the federal parties *65to indicate that the average time of the summary court-martial proceeding itself has been lengthened as a result of providing counsel to defendants.

 See 1966 Hearings 34 (testimony of Brig. Gen. Kenneth J. Hod-son, Asst. Judge Adv. Gen. for Military Justice, Department of the Army); 38 (testimony of Maj. Gen. R. W. Manss, Judge Adv. Gen. of the Air Force); 39 (testimony of Rear Adm. Wilfred A. Hearn, Judge Adv. Gen. of the Navy); 626 (letter of June 7, 1965, to the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Armed Services from the Acting General Counsel of the Department of the Treasury).
Indeed, while acknowledging that "[t]here is no provision either in law or regulation for the appointment of counsel before a summary court-martial,” the Department of the Treasury indicated, six years before Argersinger was decided, that “it is Treasury Department policy [in the Coast Guard] that military counsel for a summary court-martial will be supplied upon request if reasonably available.” Id., at 627.
Moreover, the following question-and-answer exchange took place in 1966 by letter between the Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights and the Navy Judge Advocate General Corps:
“Question: Are defendants permitted by official Defense Department or service policy or regulation to have counsel assist them in summary courts?
“Answer: . . . [A]lthough the right to individual representation is not extended to an accused before a summary court-martial by policy or regulation, the general practice in the naval service is to accord such representation on the request of the accused.
“Question: ... If a man requests the appointment of counsel, legal or otherwise, is it the practice to grant such requests?
“Answer: Yes, dependent upon the reasonable availability of the requested counsel.” Id., at 939.

 See Schlesinger v. Councilman, 420 U. S. 738, 758 (1975); Noyd v. Bond, 395 U. S. 683, 694 (1969).

 The decisions of the USCMA are final. 10 U. S. C. § 876. It is indeed ironic that the federal parties — statutorily barred from appealing Alderman — have now secured its rejection through this lawsuit, originally brought in federal court by servicemen seeking the very protections later accorded them by Alderman.

 See also Daigle v. Warner, 490 F. 2d 358 (1974), cert. pending, No. 73-6642, in which the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit noted that “[wjhile the Navy argues with some vigor that naval discipline will suffer severely if appointed counsel are required [in summary courts-martial], there is scant support for this in the record.” Id., at 366.
The Court, relying on previously stated views of Judge Quinn, one of the members of the Alderman majority, and on Judge Quinn’s *67failure in his Alderman opinion to explicitly mention the military-necessity argument, declines to view Alderman as a rejection of that argument. I disagree. In United States v. Priest, 21 U. S. C. M. A. 564, 45 C. M. R. 338 (1972) — decided only 10 months before Aider-man — the USCMA had recognized, albeit in. another context, that military necessity may affect the application of traditional constitutional rights to members of the military, and the parties in Aider-man briefed the military-necessity argument in great detail. Judge Quinn concurred in the Priest opinion. These factors, plus Judge Duncan’s explicit reference to the argument, lead me to read Aider-man as a rejection of the military-necessity argument.

 United States v. Alderman, supra, at 303, 46 C. M. R., at 303 (Duncan, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).

 It does seem to me, however, that the serviceman’s “option” of subjecting himself to the possibility of a special court-martial lends little support to the Court’s due process analysis. We held in In re Gault, 387 U. S. 1 (1967) — a decision left unmentioned in the Court’s treatment of the Fifth Amendment question — that, as a matter of due process accused offenders have an absolute right to counsel at juvenile delinquency proceedings. Surely that holding would be no different in the case of a juvenile given the opportunity “voluntarily” to subject himself to adult criminal proceedings, in which he would have counsel, but at which he would be subject to harsher punishment.

 Neither the UCMJ nor the MCM contains any indication that a serviceman must be provided with counsel to assist him in making his determination as to whether to consent or object to trial by summary court-martial. While internal Army guidelines do appear to allow consultation with counsel in making this determination, see Military Justice Handbook, Guide for Summary Court-Martial Trial *71Procedure 3-3 to 3-5, Department of the Army Pamphlet No. 27-7 (1973), Navy guidelines contain no such provision.

 Assuming the “option scheme” presents the serviceman with any sort of realistic choice, its availability also substantially undercuts the federal parties' military-necessity argument. See supra, at 63-69. The federal parties argue that as a matter of “military necessity” minor offenses must be disposed of at summary court-martial proceedings without giving defendants the benefit of counsel. Yet, under the option scheme any serviceman can be assured of counsel simply by rejecting trial by summary court-martial. Thus the scheme itself could render unattainable a goal which is claimed to be a matter of military necessity.

 While we sustained the Kentucky two-tier system against due process and double jeopardy attacks in Colten v. Kentucky, 407 U. S. 104 (1972), we were careful to note that under that system a defendant “cannot, and will not, face the realistic threat of a prison sentence in the inferior court without having the help of counsel.” Id., at 119.

 Schaefer, Federalism and State Criminal Procedure, 70 Harv. L. Rev. 1,8 (1956).

 Officers are not subject to summary courts-martial. 10 U. S. C. § 820.