Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Military V. Civil Law
Does military law supersede civil law? During the first world war British and (even more) French soldiers, were summarily tried and executed for 'cowardice' and 'desertion of duty' to 'set an example', often this amounted to falling asleep on guard through exhaustion. What was the legality of this, and if it was illegal should the officers carrying out these procedures not have been tried for murder?
How does military law equate with civil law today?
How does military law equate with civil law today?
Answers
1 to 11 of 11
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Military Law is still laid down by Parliament; it's only the administration of justice that is separate.
Prior to 2006 each service was covered by separate legislation. (The relevants sections of the Army Act 1955, the Air Force Act 1955 and the Naval Discipline Act 1957 applied. Those Acts replaced earlier Acts, such as those which would have applied during WWII).
It's now the Armed Forces Act 2006 (as amended) that defines offences against Military Law, empowers Courts Martial to deal with them and defines the penalties for them:
http://
Prior to 2006 each service was covered by separate legislation. (The relevants sections of the Army Act 1955, the Air Force Act 1955 and the Naval Discipline Act 1957 applied. Those Acts replaced earlier Acts, such as those which would have applied during WWII).
It's now the Armed Forces Act 2006 (as amended) that defines offences against Military Law, empowers Courts Martial to deal with them and defines the penalties for them:
http://
you say _ French soldiers, were summarily tried and executed for 'cowardice' and 'desertion of duty' to 'set an example', often this amounted to falling asleep on guard through exhaustion. What was the legality of this,
well you know the answer to this one:
it was legal at the time.
YThis is the difficulty about pardoning these people - I think Samuel Mudd - his name was Mud etc - who treated J W Booth was tried under martial law and was pardoned
and the difficulty is - he was convicted according to the law
Two different systems - Military and Civil law
why did you think they were connected ?
well you know the answer to this one:
it was legal at the time.
YThis is the difficulty about pardoning these people - I think Samuel Mudd - his name was Mud etc - who treated J W Booth was tried under martial law and was pardoned
and the difficulty is - he was convicted according to the law
Two different systems - Military and Civil law
why did you think they were connected ?
As Peter says it was perfectly legal at the time, the Armed Forces act 2006 now does not of course permit this punishment and both Warrant and Commissioned officers can sit on a Court martial provided they have the correct service.
In civil law the standard of proof required is on the balance of probabilities and is usually heard in County or High Court and a civil remedy may be granted to a party in a civil action such as damages, a jury is seldom used. In criminal law most minor offences are dealt with by Lay Magistrates sitting with a qualified clerk without a jury and more serious alleged offences are dealt with by the Crown court with a Judge and jury who decide on guilt or innocence and the judge, who does not use a gavel whatever the TV shows, decides on points of law and sentence. In criminal matters the defendant has to be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt a far higher standard of proof than in civil law.
In civil law the standard of proof required is on the balance of probabilities and is usually heard in County or High Court and a civil remedy may be granted to a party in a civil action such as damages, a jury is seldom used. In criminal law most minor offences are dealt with by Lay Magistrates sitting with a qualified clerk without a jury and more serious alleged offences are dealt with by the Crown court with a Judge and jury who decide on guilt or innocence and the judge, who does not use a gavel whatever the TV shows, decides on points of law and sentence. In criminal matters the defendant has to be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt a far higher standard of proof than in civil law.
Military law, like the common law, exists by necessity. You must have laws of obligation and suitable penalties for bad or neglectful behaviour in the field but you can't have the full system of trial by jury. You say that men were executed to set an example. That may be so, but every man jack who was exposed to battle without complaint would have shot a deserter himself. You have to put yourself in the circumstances of the time.
actually boys.... I think he means civilian law
at least if he does - the q makes more sense....
we have all taken 'civil law' in a very technical sense, and all gone uuuuggh wha'.
Hence in the army are you subject to Martial law when shooting the enemy, and civilian criminal law when you knock off the shooting at 5 pm and go and shoplift ? The answer yes - subject to both considering the circumstances isnt it ?
at least if he does - the q makes more sense....
we have all taken 'civil law' in a very technical sense, and all gone uuuuggh wha'.
Hence in the army are you subject to Martial law when shooting the enemy, and civilian criminal law when you knock off the shooting at 5 pm and go and shoplift ? The answer yes - subject to both considering the circumstances isnt it ?
"every man jack" might have -wanted- to shoot deserters, under the conditions at the time but, in my opinion, would not have done so without the express orders of the nearest available officer. That is if they'd applied any of their ample time of idleness to thinking through the consequences of acting without such orders.
At the civilian level, it would simply be treated as murder. At the military level, there may be enhnacements like 'aiding the enemy', bordering on treason, to be added to whatever punishments they handed out for murdering one of their own. Somewhat academic when it's the death penalty, either way.
Anyway, my inexpert view is that the Military is an arm of the State and, therefore, Military Law supercedes Civil Law - at least in this specific case where the State was at War and the soldier commits an offence at the front lines which placed their (sleeping, vulnerable) colleagues in genuine peril.
The irony is not lost on me with regard to the part where the Army command structure aided the enemy by shooting hundreds, if not thousands of their own men for the above reasons.
It wasn't right and it wasn't fair but we have no way of knowing or computing how events would have panned out if they'd been lenient, discipline became lax, guards fell asleep routinely and battles were lost as a consequence. Tens of thousands more lives could have been lost as a result of losing territory and winning it back again.
At the civilian level, it would simply be treated as murder. At the military level, there may be enhnacements like 'aiding the enemy', bordering on treason, to be added to whatever punishments they handed out for murdering one of their own. Somewhat academic when it's the death penalty, either way.
Anyway, my inexpert view is that the Military is an arm of the State and, therefore, Military Law supercedes Civil Law - at least in this specific case where the State was at War and the soldier commits an offence at the front lines which placed their (sleeping, vulnerable) colleagues in genuine peril.
The irony is not lost on me with regard to the part where the Army command structure aided the enemy by shooting hundreds, if not thousands of their own men for the above reasons.
It wasn't right and it wasn't fair but we have no way of knowing or computing how events would have panned out if they'd been lenient, discipline became lax, guards fell asleep routinely and battles were lost as a consequence. Tens of thousands more lives could have been lost as a result of losing territory and winning it back again.
Khandro, it was a quote from a soldier in the Great War. I found it in one of those books like "Shot at Dawn" where the author said that his studies revealed it as typical. Think about it. If you were stuck in some trench, facing death every time the whistle blew, if not from bombardment, and saw your friends being killed and maimed beside you, what would you think of some man who deserted?
Yes, hypo, I didn't suggest that men shot those who they saw as cowards. But one old man confessed to me that he had shot and killed his own sergeant, whom he hated for some reason, when they went into action. He relied on the facts that a) in wartime battles nobody did forensic or ballistic tests b) he would not have been detected in the circumstances c) failing all that, nobody would grass him up and he would never have been convicted d) it could have been an accident. As to (c) he must have thought I wouldn't grass either!
1 to 11 of 11
