An analysis of civilian verses the military justice system

Thus, in there was a total of 4, criminal trials held in courts of provincial level or courts which can hear criminal cases with juries. These crimes are not linked to military service and were allegedly committed by the defendants when they were off duty.

The military members of the district court are selected by the court of appeals on the motion of the Commander of the Finnish Army.

Supreme court military cases

As assessors had no legal training, they frequently sought advice from the judges with whom they sat, on all legal issues that would come before the court. The first jury trial which took place in the Far East District Military Court resulted in acquittal of three defendants, the second trial resulted in conviction of one and acquittal of another defendant, and the jury in the third trial found all four defendants guilty. The judge of such a court is a civil one, two military officers are attending every case and act as consultants to the judge. The facts that each district military fleet court has a judicial authority over a large number of provinces and can have extraterritorial jurisdiction raise a complex question of which territory should provide a pool of potential jurors. It is emphasized in this section that in the past the Russian government often restricted the power of lay judges to participate in adjudication of military crimes. The new statutes on military tribunals were introduced in May In order to qualify for a member of the Regimental or Equipage Court the officer should not have any legal training but had to have at least two-years of front-line service experience. Usually in these cases the accused do not challenge the fact that they caused death of the victims. According to statistics available for all courts of common jurisdictions civilian and military courts in the Russian Federation the acquittal rates in bench trials differ significantly from the acquittals rates in jury trials. If regimental and equipage courts consisted of only lay judges, Army-District Courts and Naval Courts included both professional judges who were permanent members of the court and lay judges who were temporary members. The tasks of the Auditor were to watch that the proceedings were conducted in an appropriate manner, intervene when the members of the Kriegsrecht departed from law and justice.

The practice of summoning lay people from different regions, which became one of the constitutional controversies and affected the right of military personnel to trial by jury in contemporary Russia, is discussed further in this article.

Although the independence of military judges and lay assessors was proclaimed in the regulations of 54 it was undermined by the power of the superiors to take disciplinary actions against lay assessors if they decided to reach a verdict undesirable for commanders or communist authorities in the army.

There is one feature, however, which is shared by both courts for civilians and military personnel. These instruments can be found in the Canadian Forces Administrative Orders and Defence Administrative Orders and Directives; they are used as direction for authorities within the CF to administer the day-to-day considerations of the Forces.

Firstly, military courts try a special category of defendants, military personnel or citizens, who were called out for military training in military units voennye sbory 2. Volume IV, Appendix 6.

compare and contrast the civilian criminal justice system to the military justice system

First of all, it is highly doubtful that jurors selected from the residents of Chechnya would be impartial towards Russian soldiers and officers, especially those who are not members of the Chechen community.

Instead if a disciplinary punishment, an ordinary day-fine is sentenced.

Rated 10/10 based on 100 review
How the Military Justice System Works