Posted by Brad Sallows from Burnaby BC Canada on May 25, 2021 at 16:05:49:
In Reply to: Re: Non-starter posted by Greg on May 25, 2021 at 15:35:22:
I suspect one would find that the military justice system can
dispose of cases more efficiently that the civilian one, and
all the money ultimately comes from the same pot. Nevertheless,
most of the serious criminal offences are in fact handed over
to the civilian system. In peacetime, the military justice
system supports a degree of control that is not, and would not
be, tolerated by civilians. The notion of "internal discipline"
in the military covers a much greater range of transgressions,
and disciplinary means, than any profession. I would be
interested if anyone could explain what would happen in the
following scenario: it's peacetime, and all criminal matters are
handled by the civilian system. A Canadian soldier commits a
serious crime against a local in a banana republic which has no
extradition arrangement with Canada and in which justice is
typically meted out in kangaroo fashion. Is it not better for
our military to handle the matter internally?
If the system is "costly", it's precisely because so much effort
has been dedicated to supporting the rights of the individual.
There was a time when a minor matter (for example, a speeding
charge) could be dealt with by summary trial very quickly, and
certainly more cost-effectively than any civilian court.
I laugh at the concept of a "jury of peers". I doubt that any
shit-rat criminal considers a jury of average civilians to be
his peers.
Also, notwithstanding archaic traditions and outmoded
legalities which haven't been discarded, the British Queen is
not a Canadian soldier's boss.