Ashleigh Banfield "UCMJ=Guilty Until Proven Innocent" (Vanity)

MSNBC Report ^ | March 26, 2003 | TankerKC

[TankerKC]

Two vanities in a week...I'm losing it.

I've caught reports from Ashleigh Banfield twice today on MSNBC. Both times, she made a point of saying that in the military justice system, you are guilty until proven innocent. This just isn’t true…right?

[meisterbrewer]

Because of the necessity to deal with trials in unusual circumstances, jury make-up is typically different. Besides, the idea that one would be tried by a jury of their "peers" became outmoded a long time ago. For instance, who would be a "peer" to OJ Simpson?

[Wolverine]

Presumption of innocence prevails...until you are proven guilty.

 

OTOH, Ashleigh Banfield has a degree in French and is a kissing cousin to fellow Canadian Peter Perfect.

[TankerKC]

But, she does look great doing it!

I digress. Another link: UCMJ 101: Innocent

"Because all servicemembers are presumed to be innocent, the court-martial members must be satisfied that the evidence established the servicemember's guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt."

[pfflier]

Actually she's mostly right.

F.Lee Baily made this observation years ago.

While observing this though, he stated that "Because of the built-in checks and balances, he would rather be tried under the UCMJ that civilian law".

[TankerKC]

Good link. I teach at AU.

[Cold Heat]

The burden of proof is however lower to convict IMHO.

I would not say that. they just don't have a jury as civilian courts do. They have a panel.

Civilian lawyers hate the system because they have no one to manipulate.

[cynicom]

meister....That is a distortion of a factual condition that stacks the court against an enlisted person.

[meisterbrewer]

You mean the F. Lee Bailey who stole about 8 million from one of his clients, refused to turn it over, and has had a criminal charge filed against him?

[Bogey78O]

Who would be a peer to Saddam? Mugabe? Kim?

[MindBender26]

Totally wrong.

The problem for most defendants in UCMJ is that jury is experienced, mature officers, or NCOs, not stupid welfare recipients who want $2 a day from jury duty!

In addition lawyers are much more stable.

[Ben Hecks]

Ashleigh Banfield is totally off base. a court martial conducted in accordance with the UCMJ has two phases...the first phase establishes guilt or innocence and, if found guilty, the second phase determines punishment. Banfield needs to do some research before she makes wild accusations.

[annyokie]

"But, she does look great doing it!"

Are you kidding? I wore those stupid "gee I look smart in these dorky glasses" in college, too.

[NetValue]

"But no, you are not guilty until proven innocent, but having been at the business end of military justice a time or two in my youth, it sure felt that way."

I had the benefit of conducting many Article 32 investigations in the Air Force. I came to this conclusion: If you are charged in the military, you will probably be convicted. It has nothing to do with a presumption of guilt. It's that you are not charged unless they can prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

[meisterbrewer]

I wouldn't say stacked against. If you mean that individuals aren't able to pull the wool over the eyes of idiotic jurors like OJ Simpson was, then I agree. I believe an innocent person would much rather be tried by a military jury, and a guilty person would much rather be tried by a civilian jury.

Regardless, the military justice system has a different ideal than the civilian one. The military justice system is designed to ensure the proper operation of the military, not to provide a means for protecting society or rehabilitating individuals. Justice must be more swift than the civilian system. Still, I prefer it over what the civilians have, because I think the lawyers and jurors are more ethical.

[TankerKC]

The problem for most defendants in UCMJ is that jury is experienced, mature officers, or NCOs, not stupid welfare recipients who want $2 a day from jury duty!

Bwaaaaaaahahah!

[Bogey78O]

I know. But as stated earlier unanimous decisions are not required and the standard of proof doesn't need to be beyond the shadow of a doubt.

But I included IMHO because my statement was more opinion than fact.

[cynicom]

"peers"...

" one that is of equal standing with another : EQUAL; especially : one belonging to the same societal group especially based on age, grade, or status.

[Bogey78O]

She wears EMO glasses? Never saw her.

Heh...their the latest fad amoungst trendy shallow people who want to appear smart.

[meisterbrewer]

Who would be a peer to Saddam? Mugabe? Kim?

LOL! I would prefer Hitler. Of course, we would have to send him to HE__ first for trial.

[TankerKC]

Are you kidding?

Nope. I wish I were!

P.S. ot any pics of your self in those glasses? ;)