Military Courts Martial have completely different procedures than do regular Criminal Courts. And the jury will be comprised of service members and NOT regular peeps from the street.Is it worse to be court martialed rather than regular sentencing?
I have no idea.
Is it worse to be court martialed rather than regular sentencing?
I have no idea.
How so? A court martial is the military equivalent of a trial, with a small twist in that its either a special or general court martial.
Special courts martial have reduced sentencing maximums. There’s options for the equivalent of a bench or a jury trial.
The UCMJ, in conjunction with the Manual for Court Martial spell out the offense, it’s elements, lesser includeds, and available punishments which can range from a reprimand to the death penalty.
I was asking a question, not making a statement.
ETA: Did a funny quote thing there...
Is it worse to be court martialed rather than regular sentencing?
I have no idea.
I understand you to ask if there was a difference between sentencing and a court martial.
Is the context military vs civilian penalties for a certain offense?
Is it worse to be court martialed rather than regular sentencing?
I have no idea.
How about this, does one have more severe punishment than the other, for the same crime?
But honestly, threatening to bring a retiree back on active duty to pursue UCMJ charges against them after they've been retired is ludicrous. I would understand if there was something that occurred while the individual was on active duty but has since retired;
Do you mean Non-Judicial Punishment (NJP, or "ninja-punched" as I've heard it called by a few Marines), essentially which allows the commanders to administratively discipline troops without a court-martial? The individual has the right to refuse NJP and request a court-martial, at which point the commander has to decide whether to continue pursing the charges or let them drop.
But if you are asking if it's worse to be court-martialed than go through a civilian criminal trial, I would take the former any day of the week!
As for this SCOTUS ruling, I am glad they have cleared up all the Constitutional matters concerning the Second Amendment to spend time on such trivial issues. Yes, I do understand that to get my retirement pay, I must remain in the retired reserve; but that and the other reserve components are meant to be a pool of individual who "may be recalled to active duty should the need arise." I also understand that the policy established in DOD Directive 1352.1 - Management and Mobilization of Regular and Reserve Retired Military Members, makes the recall to active duty unlikely for those who have been retired for more than five years, and those over age 60 (so that's me out, not that I'm 60 but I've been retired for almost 13 years).
But honestly, threatening to bring a retiree back on active duty to pursue UCMJ charges against them after they've been retired is ludicrous. I would understand if there was something that occurred while the individual was on active duty but has since retired; but essentially this means I could be recalled and charged Article 92 of the UCMJ for failing to get a haircut or shave!
I am joking, of course, as no one will order a retiree to do so (Art 92 deals with Failure to Obey an Order or Regulation), but there are many articles of the UCMJ that have equivalency or application in civilian life...
She looks exactly like my wife