Navy Times recently interviewed the Director of NCIS. Here is a question I found interesting and thought I’d share.
Q. There have been a number of recent cases in which inspector general investigations concluded NCIS agents weren’t following procedures. What are you doing to improve that?
A. I think if we have needed to we have tightened up quite a bit. I will give you an example: Some of the things we were cited for were actually minor deficiencies or violations of our own internal policies.
On 29 August 2014, the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Defense issue a report, Evaluation of DoD Compliance with the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act.
In connection with the U.S. sex offender registry’s, there is now quite a robust amount of research that seems to label the idea as ineffective. The worst of the worst are likely to commit similar crimes whether or not they are on a registry and under watch. Fairly regular news reports provide anecdotal support for such a conclusion. As for the rest, statistics show that sex offenders have a much lower recidivism rate than non-sex offenders. In addition, there is a question about the basic effectiveness of such laws; as reported in Science Daily, and The Economist, and in a study conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice, National Criminal Justice Reference Service, in a limited study of South Carolina’s laws. The criticisms do not suggest no value to such registry’s, rather a more precise and reasoned approach. You might read a pro-con discussion about sex offender registration policy sponsored by the Federalist Society. Science Daily notes,
“Adolescents, more than adults, tend to discount the future and to afford greater weight to the short-term consequences of decisions.”
Kim Taylor-Thompson, States of Mind/States of Development, 14 STAN. L. & POL’Y REV. 143, 154 (2003).
How often do I think of this principle (cited to in The Virginia Lawyer, and United States v. Berry), when a client wants to upgrade their discharge.
Test
From DefenseNews: Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., told reporters on Tuesday that Senate and House Armed Services Committee leaders want to finish the compromise version of the 2015 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) by Friday. There will likely be no floor amendments, Levin said, largely because there are few remaining days in the legislative calendar.
I came across a piece entitled, “We Love the Pentagon’s ‘Encylopedia of Ethical Failure’” which is on medium.com.
The piece notes what we have all seen that the last few years have seen many ethical challenges for the military. Likely we know more about the specific cases because of The Internet and Google.
Individually, the cases are all bad news. The good news is that authorities often catch and punish government cheats, thieves and frauds. Penalties for ripping off the American taxpayer range from huge fines to hard time in prison.
I was reading Unwashed Advocate today, and thought I would repeat his good advice on how best to make a motion or objection at trial. I have a couple of additional thoughts, but otherwise his is good advice. He says, and I quote extensively:
However, when it comes to making a motion, or stating an objection, I’ve always followed this format.
A. Object/Make Motion
Global Miliary Justice Reform blog brings us news of action in Europe in regard to a U.S. deserter seeking refugee status in Germany – he was avoiding deployment to the AOR.
On 1 January 1977, President Carter pardoned a large number of civilians who had gone to Canada to avoid the draft. The pardon did not extend to deserters, approximately 1000. Many had fled to Canada and were well received there.
During the more recent deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan a number of U.S. military personnel took French leave to Canada, although not solely to Quebec province. Several succeeded in being allowed to remain. Canada must be an interesting place – remember the recent incident of some Afghani officers being among several going AWOL to Canada while here on an educational cruise. As noted below, the Canadian courts have nixed refugee claims of U.S. military personnel.
I was at a conference this weekend on global issues of military justice. Again this lingering issue of transparency came up.
My friend and colleague Gene Fidell at Global Military Justice Reform, has found a couple of gems.
You can find information about the internal workings of the Army trial judiciary at this link, or by typing “Standing Operating Procedures” into your Google search bar.
Another of my ongoing noting of civilian cases which reference or rely upon military appellate decisions. I do this partly because it is an example of transparency and why it is needed in the military. When using Lexis or other search functions you are going to come up with military cases – if you have the access.
In Wilson v. United States, No. 13-CM-564, (D.C. Court of Appeals, 6 November 2014), the appellant sought reversal based abuse of discretion in failing to suppress evidence gained after an illegal arrest.
The court denied the appeal, and in the process cited United States v. Marine, 51 M.J. 425 (C.A.A.F. 1999) to support its decision. Yes, the accused in Marine was a marine.
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog
