Military Justice and Clemency Board History
Uploaded by
EsLebeDeutschlandMilitary Justice and Clemency Board History
Uploaded by
EsLebeDeutschland750 ESTABLISHMENT OF MILITARY JUSTICE.
mitted the draft of the bill to Congress and the same became a law on Feb-
ruary 28, 1919. (Exhibit 147 . )
12. Establishment of clemency board .In his letter of March 8, 1919, to th e
Secretary of War, Gen . Crowder states (Exhibit 136, p . 6) :
" As you were aware, shortly after my resumption of full charge of the office
of the Judge Advocate General, I recommended the convening of a board o f
clemency to undertake with the greatest expedition the adjustment of war -
time punishments to peace-time standards . "
The facts are these :
On January 11, 1919, by a memorandum (Exhibit 138) to the Secretary o f
War, Gen . Ansell invited his attention to eight cases, seven from Camp Di x
and one from Camp Grant, wherein grossly excessive penalities had been im-
posed . No additional machinery was suggested for the reviewing and correc-
tion of excessive sentences . The memorandum is without recommendation .
The introductory paragraph concluded, however, with the statement that ,
while he was inviting the attention of convening authorities to the grea t
severity of the punishment in those cases in which the punishment appeared to
be so disproportionate to the offense as to shock the conscience, yet he did no t
regard that such an administrative course taken in specific instances was
sufficient to achieve and establish military justice . He concluded his memo-
randum as follows :
"Again I have to advise you that these are not. in my judgment, isolate d
examples but are evidence of more general deficiencies in the administratio n
of military justice which I have observed ; at least, I believe I have observed,
during this war . "
Gen . Ansell's memorandum of January 11, 1919, was, by the Secretary o f
War, transmitted to Gen . Crowder on January 13, accompanied by a lette r
wherein it was stated (Exhibit 139) :
" It would seem entirely clear that there ought to be some general plan fo r
reviewing and modifying sentences of the kind illustrated by him (Gen . Ansell )
which have been imposed during the war, and are characterized by severit y
which would not be the case in time of peace . "
This suggestion of the Secretary of War was the first one looking toward
action concerning cases already finally passed upon, and must, therefore, b e
accepted as having initiated the Clemency Board as it is now functioning .
Acting upon the suggestion of the Secretary of War, Gen . Crowder, on Janu-
ary 28, published an office memorandum (Exhibit 141) . He referred first to
the instructions which had been proposed by him and which were publishe d
on January 22 (Exhibit 140), the effect of which was to put into operation th e
Executive order of December 15, 1915, establishing maxima for sentences o f
courts-martial. He then proceeded with the language establishing the Boar d
of Clemency . That action was expressly stated to be in compliance " wit h
the directions of the Secretary of War for a review of sentences imposed fo r
offenses committed during the war period, with a view not only to equalizin g
punishment, but to adjust that punishment to present disciplinary require-
ments." The purpose of the board was thus expressed :
"To undertake the work outlined by the Secretary of War and the sub -
mission of recommendations for clemency in order to accomplish the equali-
zation of punishments and the adjustment of penalties to the present dis-
ciplinary requirements desired by him ."
Gen . Ansell does not claim that he originated the idea, but that the basis fo r
the plan was his memorandum, dated January 11, 1919. That is true . Th e
Secretary of War, however, himself made the initial suggestion, and the yrde r
creating the board followed the lines laid down by him .
II. THE ADMINISTRATION OF MILITARY JUSTICE AND THE MACHINERY ORGANIZED I N
THE JUDGE AD\ OCATE GENERAL ' S OFFICE TO FURTHER THE SAME .
A study has been made of the functioning of the Judge Advocate General ' s
Department during the present war . The machinery provided in the office o f
the Judge Adocate General in Washington for the review of general court -
martial cases forwarded there by law was examined . Fifteen hundred record s
of trial were scrutinized, not with an idea of reviewing the evidencea functio n
not pertaining to this officebut for the purpose of regarding the compositio n
of the court, the kind of counsel provided the accused, the exercise of the righ t
of challenge, the pleas, findings, and sentences, the action of the various review-
ing authorities, and, finally, the action of the Judge Advocate General and th e
Secretary of War. The time required for the records of trial after final actio n
by the reviewing authority to reach the office of the Judge Advocate General