.jpg)
The Joint Service Committee has published its proposed changes to the Manual for Courts-Martial, which include the creation of a new enumerated Article 134 offense of "Child pornography." Here's a link to the full proposal.
Here are the proposed maximum sentences:
(1) Possessing, receiving, or viewing child pornography. Dishonorable
discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 10 years.
(2) Possessing child pornography with intent to distribute. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 15 years.
(3) Distributing child pornography. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 20 years.
(4) Producing child pornography. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 30 years.
Among other provisions, the proposal also suggests MCM changes to facilitate the trial of civilians accompanying the military in the field.
Written comments must be received no later than 18 November 2008. The Joint Service Committee will hold a public meeting on the proposal on 30 October 2008 in Rosslyn.
Military justice blogs are to blogs as military music is to music. The views expressed on this blog are offered in the contributors' personal capacity. They do not purport to be speaking for, and their views should not be imputed to, any other organization, agency, or entity.
Military justice research links
- 2008 Military Judges' Benchbook web site
- AFMAN 51-203, Records of Trial (1 Oct 1999)
- AFPD 51-2, Administration of Military Justice (7 Sep 1993)
- Air Force Instruction 51-201, Administration of Military Justice (21 Dec 07)
- Air Force Rules of Professional Conduct
- AR 27-10, Military Justice (16 Nov 2005)
- AR 27-26, Rules of Professional Conduct for Lawyers (1 May 1992)
- COMDTINST M5810.1D, Military Justice Manual (17 Aug 2000)
- Congressional Research Service, Statutory Interpretation: General Principles and Trends (March 30, 2006 ed.)
- Congressional Research Service, The Constitution of the United States of America, Analysis and Interpretation: Analysis of Cases Decided by the Supreme Court of the United States (2002) with 2006 supplement
- JAGINST 5803.1C, Professional Conduct of Attorneys Practicing Under the Cognizance and Supervision of the Judge Advocate General (9 Nov 04)
- JAGINST 5810.2A, Military Justice Regulations (17 Sep 93)
- JAGMAN, JAGINST 5800.7E (20 Jun 07)
- Law Library Microform Consortium, Military Law Collection
- LOC military law collection
- Manual for Courts-Martial (2008 ed.)
- Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2005 ed.)
- Manual of the Judge Advocate General (JAGMAN), JAGINST 5800.7E (20 Jun 2007)
- Military Justice, Army Regulation 27-10 (16 Nov 2005)
- UCMJ (as of 28 Jan 2008)
Links
- ACCA's web site
- AFCCA's web site
- AIr Force Judge Advocate General's School's web site
- Air Force Law Review
- Army Lawyer
- Army Trial Judiciary's docket
- CAAF's web site
- CAAFlog.com
- CGCCA's web site
- Coast Guard trial and appellate dockets
- Court-Martial Trial Practice blog
- JAA American Inn of Court's web site
- JAA's web site
- JAG LAW Blog
- JAG Magazine [Navy]
- Journal of Military and Veteran Law
- Military Law Review
- Naval Law Review
- NIMJ's web site
- NJS's web site
- NMCCA's web site
- SCOTUSblog (aka, the greatest blog on the planet)
- Supreme Court's web site
- The Reporter [Air Force]
- This Court-Martial Sentences You To . . . [blog]
- TJAGLCS's web site
Blog archive
-
▼
2008
(813)
-
▼
September
(56)
- Court Martial News
- BIG news: House of Representatives passes bill to...
- CAAF grants review of 2 Navy cases
- Supremes docket pro se IFP military cert petition
- NMCCA issues new published opinion
- Joint Service Committee proposes creating new enum...
- Commentary on Kennedy v. Louisiana rehearing briefing
- Ali CAAF Writ Appeal Add'l Thoughts -- Redux
- House bill to expand SCOTUS jurisdiction over mili...
- "Military law is American law"
- Dossey explained
- Military judge denies government's reconsideration...
- Civilian Court-Martial Appeal Challenging the Cons...
- So much news, so many unanswered questions
- BREAKING NEWS: Writ from First Ever Amended Art. 2...
- CAAFlog turns two
- More cases arising from theaters of operation
- General Hartmann gets a new job
- Senate authorizes payments to servicemembers unjus...
- U.S. district judge rejects personal jurisdiction ...
- CAAF specificies interesting evidentiary issues
- Iraqi Detainee Murder Cases [UPDATED] Update
- Supreme Court filings focus on military death pena...
- August Army Lawyer published
- CAAF IAC GVR
- CGCCA restores partial web presence
- Fall Military Law Review published
- Military judge rules Col Murphy can't be punished
- Interesting analysis of Kennedy v. Louisiana rehea...
- AFCCA issues published search and seizure decision
- Expanding the Supremes' statutory cert jurisdictio...
- Denedo watch
- See for yourself
- S.2052 Passes Senate Judiciary Committee
- Grants
- Shameless Self-Promotion: CAAFlog Media
- Equal Justice for United States Military Personnel...
- AFCCA joins the Magyari vs. Harcrow row
- CGCCA still UA from the Internet
- Supremes invite supplemental briefing in Kennedy v...
- Afghan SOFA - Exclusive UCMJ Jurisdiction Under Re...
- CAAF remands case to NMCCA to relook at the milita...
- CAAF grants review of sentence reassessment issue
- CAAF grants review of a self-incrimination issue
- Equal Justice for United States Military Personnel...
- Upcoming training opportunities
- New Mil. R. Evid. 412 article
- Update
- BG Hartmann Removed From Another Case
- New AFCCA published opinion
- Air Force Times Article on Hard Labor
- Navy Detention Camp Cases Postponed
- Yadda, yadda and the law
- MEJA and Blackwater: A Question of Jurisdiction
- Denedo watch
- Happy New Term!
-
▼
September
(56)
Labels
- Admin (14)
- Architecture (2)
- Art. 2a10 (27)
- Article 125 (1)
- CAAF docket (41)
- CAAF grants (28)
- CAAF judges (2)
- CAAF oral argument audio (11)
- Capital courts-martial (46)
- CCAs (32)
- CLE/Events (13)
- collateral review (4)
- Court-martial news (69)
- habeas (5)
- MEJA (31)
- Military commissions (5)
- Military justice legislation (19)
- Military justice reform (18)
- MilJus Scholarship (22)
- New Article 120 (8)
- New CAAF opinions (40)
- New CCA opinions (47)
- Rants (9)
- SCOTUS MilJus Cases (64)
- TWIMJ (39)
- US SOFAs (16)
Contributors
Our contact information
You can reach us by email at:
caaflog@caaflog.com
caaflog@caaflog.com
Posts
15 comments:
Why? The diddlers get punished as is...what's the point of all this other than more back-patting self justification for folks suckling at the government's teet?
CAAFlog--the proposed changes don't appear to have anything to do with facilitating trial of civilians in the field. Rather, the changes are pretty narrowly limited to how fines are calculated against civilians, and amends the discussion regarding fines to state that fines are appropriate against civilians even where no unjust enrichment exists.
To quote the proposed change: "In the case of a person serving with or accompanying an armed force in
the field, a summary court-martial may not adjudge a fine in excess of two-thirds of one month of the highest rate of enlisted pay, and a special courtmartial may not adjudge a fine in excess of two-thirds of one year of the highest rate of officer pay."
This means a civilian tried at a SpCM could be fined a maximum of $114,799.20, which is one year worth of two-thirds of the highest rate of officer pay ($14,349.90 per month according to DFAS).
Punishments for civilians at summaries are not limited. So, a GS-15 civilian gov't employee could be tried at a summary (even though she's equivalent to an officer rank), and actually be punished more severely than an E-5 could be. Likewise, some poor GS-5 could be tried at a SpCM and be fined several years worth of pay.
These changes don't even attempt to define "serving with" or "accompanying" to clarify which civilians, exactly, are subject to Art. 2(a)(10) jurisdiction. Overall, a very sloppy job that leaves completely unsettled important questions of jurisdiction over civilians, while exposing civilians to harsher punishments than servicemembers for the same offense, and failing to adequately define a civilian's appellate rights, given that the punitive discharge ticket to appellate review is unavailable to civilians.
The proposed child porn offense has this definition: " 'Child Pornography' means any visual depiction of a minor, or what appears to be a minor, engaging in sexually explicit conduct."
It also prohibits certain defenses: "It is not a defense to any offense under this paragraph that the minor depicted was not an actual person or did not actually exist."
This proposed language seems to parrot that in 18 USC 2256(8)(b) that was found unconstitutional in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 US 234 (2002). The military might be a little better off following the language in 18 USC 1466A instead, which hasn't been found unconstitutional, and is a good deal more specific. That statute specifically includes language outlawing "a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting" that meets the child pornography definition, and includes a specific exception for depictions that contain "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value" thus guarding against First Amendment issues.
The failure of the proposed Art. 134 offense to specifically create exceptions for First Amendment issues probably renders it unconstitutionally overbroad. One wonders if the service JAGs plan on sending representatives to the public meeting on 30 October to address these issues so as to forestall a big appellate litigation mess a couple years down the road, or if they'll just wing it with poorly-drafted MCM provisions.
I agree - the system is already experiencing a bit of turmoil given a poorly written Article 120, another ambiguous and potentially unconstitutional article will only add to the chaos.
I'm beginning to wonder if there is a wolf dressed in sheep's clothing on that committee...perhaps a member of the appellate bar?
The JSC Meeting is on October 30, not 20.
Interesting that the proposed affirmitive defense does not mirror that of 18 USC 2252A(d).
Specifically, there is no cut off on amount (i.e. "less than three images")
Would the "promptly and in good faith" language then become the issue?
Proposed para 60b.c(10)(b) states that it is an affirmative defense to the charge that all the participants are at least 18 years old. Affirmative defenses are defenses in which the accused does not deny criminal responsibility for the act.
It is an an element of the offense that one of the participants is a minor, defined as under the age of 18. The U.S. has to prove such an element beyond a reasonable doubt. So how is the fact that all participants are at least 18 become an affirmative defense.
Cloudesley:
I don't know that the JSC can define "civilians" in such a way that would limit its application to only certain subsets of civilians. I think they are stuck with the interpretation of those phrases as they were in case law. The amendment didn't change those phrases, of, for that matter, the phrase "in the field." I think any attempt to bring greater definition might exceed the LSC and the President's authority; just as SecDef could only withhold commander's authority to exercise UCMJ jurisdiciton, not prohibit them from exercising it.
I would like to see some addition regulations in place to make the process more orderly. I'll post my JSC poroposal once I submit it.
Anyone have any background on the origins/intent of this provision --
(11) On motion of the government, in
any prosecution under this paragraph,
except for good cause shown, the name,
address, social security number, or other
nonphysical identifying information,
other than the age or approximate age,
of any minor who is depicted in any
child pornography or visual depiction
or copy thereof shall not be admissible
and may be redacted from any otherwise
admissible evidence, and the panel shall
be instructed, upon request of the
Government, that it can draw no
inference from the absence of such
evidence.
No Man--at least as far as the maximum punishment provisions go, the JSC can absolutely classify civilians as equivalent to a certain rank.
If they want the full powers of a summary to use against civilians, just state that for court-martial purposes, a civilian will be treated as an E-4, for example.
The proposed language creates more problems than it solves, because it treats a civilian as an E-9 (at least for fine purposes) at a summary, but as an O-10 at a special court, at least for fine purposes. If these matters are not clarified, a trial or appellate court may well treat the civilian as an O-10 at the court-martial for all purposes. I don't think that's what the JSC wants.
Is a civilian entitled to one-third civilians on his court? Is he entitled to one-third enlisted? If so, what rank? If he's limited to an all-officer panel, what is the minimum rank, if any?
Congress provided for jurisdiction over civilians. The president gets to make the procedural rules. The JSC ought to propose a comprehensive RCM change to fully accommodate courts-martial with civilian accuseds. Failure to do so just invites error, and practically begs CAAF to rule-make by case law. If the services and the President kept their house a little cleaner, perhaps CAAF would not be quite so eager to jump in where they are not wanted and exercise their supervisory powers over all things related to military justice. Clinton v. Goldsmith notwithstanding, CAAF has demonstrated that they will gladly re-assume that role if given the chance.
An enumerated child porn article is a bad idea. Just like the new (terrible) Article 120, this too will only serve to benefit sex offenders. Child porn cases abound in the miltiary appellate courts - just look at the oral argument schedule for the CAAF. Most of the cases are Child Porn related. Imagine what will happen when we actually have an enumerated child porn article. This new article might be a good eval bullet for somebody. However, just like with the new Article 120, it too will result in a benefit for the defense.
Leave good enough alone or, at the very least, create a mandatory minimum so that pedophile apologists can't protect sex offenders with a ridulous sentence.
Here is another idea - prosecute more of these cases in District Court. Unlike in the military courts, these pedophiles get what they are due in District Court.
Cloudesley:
I totally agree with your latest post. I just disagreed with the prior one, specificalyl where it said:
These changes don't even attempt to define "serving with" or "accompanying" to clarify which civilians, exactly, are subject to Art. 2(a)(10) jurisdiction. Overall, a very sloppy job that leaves completely unsettled important questions of jurisdiction over civilians
Good points on sentencing and something that will have to be remedied by someone else as my proposal won't even attempt to touch these issues---there is only so much one man can do. Maybe there can be a Cloudesley proposal. You should draft some of the crew of the HMS Association to . . . oh wait, your Navigator took care of that option.
The A.C.L.U. must be hopping mad about more child porn statutes.
Well dang, No Man, I had a nice long comment all written up, and forgot to click "publish."
I am sure one of my honorary HMS Association crewmembers over there in the colonies will convey my thoughts to the Committee. I would attend personally, but am constrained to remain here at Westminster.
Post a Comment