Head of Air Force's anti-sexual assault unit arrested for se

[amigocabal]

I would think that trying to use the threat of a Courts Marshall after a civilian trial would absolutely violate the Fifth ammendment and be exactly the kind of thing that would cause such a case to be defeated on appeal. Especially since the defendant could argue in such a case that he was being prosecuted over his position as much as his actions as the military has to look as if they are doing something.

I don't know the exact legal justification, but clearly the military can do things that would be totally illegal and unconstitutional in civilian life, like discriminate on the basis of gender and sexual orientation and such. So I'm not sure if the 5th Amendment would apply.

It's an issue of separate sovereignties, which is the same reason that you can be tried for the same crime in a federal court if you get off in a state court, like the federal trial of the Rodney King case or the military trial of Tim Hennis. It's a rare case that has this happen, I think that the most common use for it was for human rights violations during the civil rights movement.

There are other reasons why the military would seek a court-martial after a conviction in state court.

One reason (applying to murders) is that the military has the death penalty, while it is unavailable in some states.

Another reason is that state criminal courts can not sentence servicemen to a dishonorable discharge or equivalent for officers. This makes a big difference with respect to veterans' benefits (as opposed to an ordinary separation from the service). The military has great leeway in separating servicemen, including those who get in trouble in state criminal courts, but can only carry out a dishonorable discharge pursuant to a sentence by court-martial.

These reasons also explain why the threat of military prosecution following a civilian trial makes such an effective bargaining chip in many cases, with veterans' benefits and even life itself on the line.

[The Yosemite Bear]

you know my first thought looking at the mug shot, was that I noticed the black eye, and the fingernail lacerations on his face "This guy messed with the wrong lady"

[Grumman]

Let me guess, you are not one of those assholes and you would NEVER do anything wrong, right? You don't have to watch your behavior at all because it is impossible for you to ever do something nasty? Dead sober of black out drunk impaired your decision process always has and always will yield angel like decisions as clean as the wind blown snow?

Actually, yes. The closest I have ever come to what you believe is true is when I confronted a guy for cheating on his girlfriend and making out with a girl who had drunk too much. And seeing as I gave up trying to find the upside to drinking six years ago, that's the closest I ever will come.

Does the folly of that not ring immediately apparent to you regarding all hosts of horrible actions people commit?

No, it doesn't. They aren't me. I, unlike them, have no desire to drug and rape a child like Roman Polaski, or maim and kill innocent people like the Boston bombers, or kidnap and enslave a woman like the Castro brothers.

It is you, not me, who has a deluded worldview, with your belief that everybody in the world is just as much of a bastard as everybody else.

[Simon_Jester]

Does the folly of that not ring immediately apparent to you regarding all hosts of horrible actions people commit?

No, it doesn't. They aren't me. I, unlike them, have no desire to drug and rape a child like Roman Polaski, or maim and kill innocent people like the Boston bombers, or kidnap and enslave a woman like the Castro brothers.

It is you, not me, who has a deluded worldview, with your belief that everybody in the world is just as much of a bastard as everybody else.

Did he actually say that?


Consider: we are outraged when a drunk driver kills or injures someone, but we are not surprised. We know that this happens, because we know that drunks are dangerous on the road, and that a drunken person has impaired judgment and is automatically more likely to say "I may be drunk, but I'm going to do something stupidly dangerous anyway!"

This does not remove moral responsibility from the drunk driver- it's just a fact. We know that accidents are more likely to happen when a driver is drunk, and people are more likely to get hurt or killed.


We are angered (or outraged, depending on degree) when a drunk person picks a fight with someone. But we are not surprised, we do not ask "my god, what horrible monster could have started a fight?" The answer is: a person who is, statistically, probably more violent than average. But not vastly so, not necessarily. You don't have to be a mass-murdering berserker to punch someone while drunk. You just have to be someone who occasionally has violent impulses, impulses that could perfectly controlled normally... but who is dumb enough to get drunk and switch off the controls.


Not every person commits crimes when their judgment is impaired by alcohol. But it takes very little effort to come up with examples of crimes people are more likely to commit when drunk, or that they'd commit when drunk but never commit sober.

[Adam Reynolds]

It's an issue of separate sovereignties, which is the same reason that you can be tried for the same crime in a federal court if you get off in a state court, like the federal trial of the Rodney King case or the military trial of Tim Hennis. It's a rare case that has this happen, I think that the most common use for it was for human rights violations during the civil rights movement.

I know about separate sovereignty, what I was stating was specifically about the idea of using the threat of a second trial as a bargaining chip to convince the defendant to plead guilty in the first case. In the cases you cited the defendants were given a second trial after acquittal, it was never brought up until after the failure of the first trial.

These reasons also explain why the threat of military prosecution following a civilian trial makes such an effective bargaining chip in many cases, with veterans' benefits and even life itself on the line.

It is correct however that whatever the legality the threat is obviously there in a case as politically charged as this.

[PKRudeBoy]

Yes and as I said in my first post, using a second trial as a bargaining chip is totally against the spirit of the 5th amendment, but not against the law due to the the separate sovereignties issue. With this case, it's pretty clear that the guy did it, but using a threat of further prosecution if you don't plead guilty is something that really shouldn't be done.