Courts-Martial and Civilian: How the Court Martial Affords Greater Constitutional Protections During Court Procedures and Sentencing

Abstract

There is often a misconception regarding the military and the procedures that it uses in order to bring military personnel and prisoners of war to justice. While it is true that Constitutional liberties are limited within the military system, the Constitution still very much applies to uniformed members who swear an oath to the document. In this regard, the Uniform Code of Military Justice was adopted to mirror the Federal Rules of Evidence, which govern the procedures for Article III courts. Through scrutinizing the sentencing procedures that take place in a civilian court and comparing those same procedures with its court martial counterpart, there is evidence to suggest that the UCMJ has better methods to ensure that a defendant’s rights are protected from the time an investigation begins to the time of acquittal or guilt. The methods in jury selection and the weight of the orders issued by a Judge Advocate General are two examples of such enhanced procedures. Since 2001, there has also been discussion involving detained individuals at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, which has led to a sparked interest in the discussion of military commissions. Ultimately, individuals are far more likely to face a fair trial if they enter into a court martial rather than a civilian court.