Scribd
Upload
22 views1 page

Military Justice Discharge Analysis

This document analyzes military justice data from the US military during World War 1. It provides statistics on the execution of dishonorable discharges from courts-martial during three time periods. It also discusses the Judge Advocate General's role in reviewing cases, recommending sentence remissions to the Secretary of War, and providing guidance to legal officers to thoroughly investigate charges and limit unnecessary trials.

Uploaded by

EsLebeDeutschland
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
22 views1 page

Military Justice Discharge Analysis

This document analyzes military justice data from the US military during World War 1. It provides statistics on the execution of dishonorable discharges from courts-martial during three time periods. It also discusses the Judge Advocate General's role in reviewing cases, recommending sentence remissions to the Secretary of War, and providing guidance to legal officers to thoroughly investigate charges and limit unnecessary trials.

Uploaded by

EsLebeDeutschland
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

ESTABLISHMENT OF MILITARY JUSTICE .

75 9
Orders, No . 7, 58 per cent of the dishonorable discharges imposed by the court s
were ordered executed43 per cent during the second period and only 14 pe r
cent during the third period . On the other hand, 20 per cent of the dishonorabl e
discharges imposed during the first period were suspended, 32 per cent durin g
the second period, and 60 per cent during the third period .
Dishonorable discharge was executed in the following cases :

First Seccn3 Third


period, period . period.

Mur'er,attmptei murder, manslaughter, or assault 11 1


Bur '1 ry, robber I rcenv, forgery, emLecz .ement, or fraud 52 46 18
In'ro ucng truss, immr,.lity, or moral degener ..cy 2 3 6
Drunk n c . is~r .crly conduct 4 1
Mtn in / or se ilicn 12 2 2
De ,er icn, absent without eave, escape, or attempted to escape 40 25 5
Sleeping on or quitt ng post 8
Disobedience of orders or disrespect 6 3 1 1
131 84 I 33

An examination of the above table will indicate that dishonorable discharge ,


{specially in the third period, could not have been suspended with due regard
for the best interests of the service .
In addition to the remission and mitigation of sentences by the convenin g
authorities upon the recommendations of the Judge Advocate General, numer-
ous recommendations were made from that office to the Secretary of War t o
exercise the presidential power of clemency, and to set aside and declare nul l
and void the proceedings in those cases where illegalities were discovered .
Of the 1,500 cases examined, 50 during the first period carrying 162 years o f
confinement were sent to the War Department with the recommendation b y
the Judge Advocate General to remit the sentences in whole or in part, wit h
the result that 84 per cent of the years of confinement were remitted . Durin g
the second period, 33 cases with 133 years of confinement were forwarded by the
Judge Advocate General for presidential action, and, as a result of his rec-
ommendations, 91 per cent of the years of confinement were remitted . In the
third period, 39 cases with 228 years of confinement were returned to the Judg e
Advocate General, approving his recommendation and diredting that 95 pe r
cent of the years of confinement be remitted. It will be recalled that, during the
first period the provisions of General Order No . 7 were not in force, and in the
second and third periods that they were in operation . Neither were the board s
of review nor the clemency board at this time in existence. Of all cases trie d
during the war, and forwarded to the War Department with specific recommen-
dations by the Judge Advocate General, either to set aside, modify, or carry into
execution the sentences imposed, in only 13 were his recommendations not fol-
lowed. In three cases the Secretary of War differed from the Judge Advocat e
General with regard to the points of law involved therein . In four cases there
was a difference of opinion as to the propriety of a commutation of sentence . In
one case, where the sentence of dismissal was recommended for confirmation ,
the President, on the recommendation of the Secretary of War, exercised the
power of remission . In five cases tried in France, the Judge Advocate Genera l
recommended confinement in the United States Disciplinary Barracks, and th e
Secretary of War directed that the sentence be served at military posts i n
France . (Exhibit 71 . )
On February 13, 1918, the Judge Advocate General, by circular letter to al l
department and division judge advocates, urged upon them the necessity of
thorough investigation of charges before reference for trial, in order that non e
might be laid which could not be substantiated by sufficient legal evidence ;
that endeavor should be made to limit the number of trials by general court-
martial, and that no case should be tried where the offense could be ade-
quately punished by a minor court or by the administrative punishments autho-
rized by law . They were further urged to guard against ordering offenders t o
trial who were lacking in mental responsibility . In all cases wherein it ap -
-peared that the accused was lacking in physical, mental, or moral equipmen t
as an efficient fighting man, it was suggested that the psychiatrist assigned t o
duty with their commands be called into consultation for advice . Department
and division judge advocates were informed that it was their duty to thor-

You might also like