Military Justice improvement Act

July 16, Chris Jenks, SMU Dallas Dedman School of Law professor specializing in military justice issues, for a piece critical of Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand’s reform proposals for the Military Justice Improvement Act of 2020. Published in Inside Sources: https://bit.ly/2WtCcZg

Over the last seven years, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) has been a leading voice advocating for military justice reform.

Her efforts, along with those of her Senate and House colleagues, led to important statutory and policy changes that have enhanced the military’s response to sexual misconduct in the ranks.

While there is more work to be done to foster an environment within the hierarchical structure of the military so abuse victims of all ranks feel comfortable reporting fellow service members, we should commend Gillibrand for focusing attention on sexual abuse in the military.

But her recent remarks on the Senate floor call into question her knowledge of military justice and her own legislative proposal. On July 1, she spoke in support of the Military Justice Improvement Act of 2020, which would transfer authority from the commander to a military lawyer to respond to certain military crimes, including sexual assault offenses. . .

Continue reading “Senator’s Ideas on Overhauling Military Justice Are Impractical”

July 8, Chris Jenks, SMU Dallas Dedman School of Law professor (and co-author Geoffrey Corn, South Texas College of Law), for a piece that warns against proposed changes to military justice procedures. Published in The Hill: https://bit.ly/2Z9fAPv

This month Congress will decide whether to include the inaptly titled Military Justice Improvement Act of 2020 (MJIA) in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The main thrust of this amendment to the Uniform Code of Military Justice is to fundamentally change the way prosecutorial decisions are made in the military. Instead of the current system that entrusts these decisions to commanding officers acting on the advice of military attorney advisors, the amendment would require that the military attorney, acting alone, decide whether to charge a service member with a military crime and to direct the case to trial by court martial.

This proposal is unnecessary and ill advised. Prosecutorial authority is arguably the most important tool commanders possess to ensure a disciplined, effective fighting force and is inextricably linked to the commander’s responsibility to ensure the military readiness essential for mission accomplishment. Divesting commanders of this authority would degrade not only U.S. military combat capabilities but also the military’s response to sexual misconduct in the ranks. This latter effect is indeed ironic, because enhancing this response is the ostensible motivation for the proposal. . .

Continue reading “The military justice solution in search of a problem”