|
Courts-martial in the United States are trials conducted by the U.S. military or by state militaries. Most commonly, courts-martial are convened to try members of the U.S. military for criminal violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), which is the U.S. military's criminal code. However, they can also be convened for other purposes, including military tribunals and the enforcement of martial law in an occupied territory. Federal courts-martial are governed by the rules of procedure and evidence laid out in the Manual for Courts-Martial, which contains the Rules for Courts-Martial, Military Rules of Evidence, and other guidance. State courts-martial are governed according to the laws of the state concerned. The American Bar Association has issued a Model State Code of Military Justice, which has influenced the relevant laws and procedures in some states. Courts-martial are adversarial proceedings, as are all United States criminal courts. That is, lawyers representing the government and the accused present the facts, legal aspects, and arguments most favorable to each side; a military judge determines questions of law, and the members of the panel (or military judge in a judge-alone case) determine questions of fact. ==Historical development== From the earliest beginnings of the United States, military commanders have played a central role in the administration of military justice. The American military justice system, derived from its British predecessor, predates the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution. While military justice in the United States has evolved considerably over the years, the convening authority has remained the instrument of selecting a panel for courts-martial. Tribunals for the trial of military offenders have coexisted with the early history of armies.〔William Winthrop, Military Law and Precedents 45 (2nd Ed. 1920 reprint)〕 The modern court-martial is deeply rooted in systems that predated written military codes and were designed to bring order and discipline to armed, and sometimes barbarous, fighting forces. Both the ancient Greeks and the Romans had military justice codes, although no written versions of them survive.〔Captain David M. Schlueter, The Court-Martial: An Historical Survey, 87 MIL. L. REV. 129 (1980)〕 Moreover, nearly every form of military tribunal included a trial before a panel or members of some type.〔See generally Winthrop, Military Law and Precedents, supra., at 45-47.〕 The concept of the American military court-martial was derived from the Court of Chivalry in England and the military code of Sweden's King Gustavus Adolphus.〔Schlueter, The Court-Martial, supra., at 132〕 These courts both strove to strike a balance between the demands of good order and discipline and the concept of due process.〔Id., at 134〕 This, in turn, laid a foundation for modern systems of military justice that strive to do the same. The Court of Chivalry had a direct impact on the British Articles of War. The early British Articles of War reflected a concern for due process and panel member composition.〔Major Christopher W. Behan, Don't Tug on Superman's Cape: In Defense of Convening Authority Selection and Appointment of Court-Martial Panel Members, 176 Mil. L. Rev. 190, 203 (2003)〕 When war broke out between the American Colonists and the British in 1775, the British were operating under the 1765 edition of the Articles of War.〔Gordon D. Henderson, Courts-Martial and the Constitution: The Original Understanding, 71 HARV. L. REV. 293, 298 n.41 (1957)〕 This version would serve as the template for military justice in the Continental Army.〔Behan, Don't Tug on Superman's Cape, supra, at 205〕 When the United States declared independence and fought the Revolutionary War, "it had a ready-made military justice system." Despite the Colonists' dissatisfaction with the British, they still recognized the intrinsic value of the British military justice system in providing good order and discipline to its own armed forces.〔Major Richard D. Rosen, Civilian Courts and the Military Justice System: Collateral Review of Courts-Martial, 108 Mil. L. Rev. 5, 18 (1985)〕 The 1765 British Articles of War were the template for the American military justice system. Accordingly, a general court-martial panel consisted of thirteen commissioned officers selected by a convening authority, with a field grade officer as president.〔American Articles of War of 1776, § XIV, art. 1 (reprinted in Winthrop, Military Law and Precedents, supra, at 961)〕 A regimental court-martial consisted of five commissioned officers selected by the regimental commander; however, unlike the British equivalent, the regimental commander could not sit as president.〔1776 Articles, § XIV, art. 11〕 Further, the Continental Congress broke away from the British system in an even more significant way: the American Articles of War were created by a legislative enactment and not by an executive order. Thus, in the American system, the legislature undertook the government of the armed forces from the beginning - military justice was not going to be left to the executive. Second, Congress demonstrated its flexibility and willingness to change the Articles as necessary. The top military lawyer, Colonel William Tudor, informed Congress that the Articles were in need of revision. Congress would go on to revise the Articles several times to reflect the realities of a small military force. Nonetheless, the commander retained his role in the administration of justice.〔Behan, Don't Tug on Superman's Cape, supra, at 211-212〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Courts-martial in the United States」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|