CargoAdmin, Bureaucrats, Moderators (CommentStreams), fileuploaders, Interface administrators, newuser, Push subscription managers, Suppressors, Administrators
14,662
edits
Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces: Difference between revisions
Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (view source)
Revision as of 00:27, 26 January 2025
, 26 JanuaryText replacement - "World War I" to "World War I"
No edit summary |
m (Text replacement - "World War I" to "World War I") |
||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
[[Court martial|Courts-martial]] are judicial proceedings conducted by the armed forces. The [[Continental Congress]] first authorized the use of courts-martial in 1775. From the time of the [[American Revolutionary War]] through the middle of the twentieth century, courts-martial were governed by the [[Articles of War]] and the Articles for the Government of the Navy. Congress's authority "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces" is contained in the [[United States Constitution]] at Article I, Section 8. | [[Court martial|Courts-martial]] are judicial proceedings conducted by the armed forces. The [[Continental Congress]] first authorized the use of courts-martial in 1775. From the time of the [[American Revolutionary War]] through the middle of the twentieth century, courts-martial were governed by the [[Articles of War]] and the Articles for the Government of the Navy. Congress's authority "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces" is contained in the [[United States Constitution]] at Article I, Section 8. | ||
Until 1920, court-martial convictions were reviewed either by a commander in the field or by the president, depending on the severity of the sentence or the rank of the accused. The absence of formal review received critical attention during | Until 1920, court-martial convictions were reviewed either by a commander in the field or by the president, depending on the severity of the sentence or the rank of the accused. The absence of formal review received critical attention during World War I, and the Army created an internal legal review process for a limited number of cases. Following the war, in the Act of June 4, 1920, Congress required the Army to establish boards of review, consisting of three lawyers, to consider cases involving death, dismissal of an officer, an unsuspended dishonorable discharge, or confinement in a penitentiary, with limited exceptions. The legislation further required legal review of other cases in the [[Judge Advocate General's Corps|Office of the Judge Advocate General]]. | ||
The military justice system under the Articles of War and Articles for the Government of the Navy received significant attention during [[World War II]] and its immediate aftermath. During the war, in which over 16 million persons served in the American armed forces, the military services held over 1.7 million courts-martial. Many of these proceedings were conducted without lawyers acting as presiding officers or counsel. Studies conducted by the military departments and the civilian bar{{Who|date=July 2010}} identified a variety of problems in the administration of military justice during the war, including the potential for improper command influence. | The military justice system under the Articles of War and Articles for the Government of the Navy received significant attention during [[World War II]] and its immediate aftermath. During the war, in which over 16 million persons served in the American armed forces, the military services held over 1.7 million courts-martial. Many of these proceedings were conducted without lawyers acting as presiding officers or counsel. Studies conducted by the military departments and the civilian bar{{Who|date=July 2010}} identified a variety of problems in the administration of military justice during the war, including the potential for improper command influence. | ||