Turning intent into "justice"

Mark W. Castillon has written this Real Clear Defense essay, Counsel to Power: How judge advocates turn command intent into 'justice.' 

Summer reading

Sam Libby has written G.I. Joe Behind Bars: Analyzing Military Sentencing Data, Sentencing Guidelines, and Court-Martial Reform, 34 J. L. & Pol'y 63 (2026). Abstract:

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022 required the military to restructure its court-martial sentencing procedures to more closely resemble those utilized in federal civilian court. Previously, either judges or court-martial panel members themselves determined an appropriate sentence based on their collective intuition without the aid of specific guidelines. Critics have argued that leaving sentencing in the hands of inexperienced panel members has led to large disparities between servicemembers, especially compared to federal court where the United States Sentencing Guidelines are the lodestar. All the while, no comprehensive dataset exists for researchers to determine the extent of variation across courts-martial. This Article is a first step toward solving these problems and informing policymakers in the Pentagon. Using data obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request to the Navy, this Article analyzes sentences for servicemembers charged with child pornography and drug offenses. The Article then compares these results to the applicable sentencing ranges under the Sentencing Guidelines, as well as under the new military sentencing parameters. Generally, the results show that military sentences are closely comparable to those a defendant would receive in federal civilian court based on the Sentencing Guidelines. Therefore, this Article argues that the military’s now-promulgated sentencing parameters may not decrease disparities and could lead to greater sentences, particularly given the large variances within the military sentencing parameters themselves. Accordingly, this Article adds crucial empirical analysis to the discourse.

Thoughts for judge advocates in challenging times

Just Security has this morning posted this essay from the Former JAGs Working Group. From the abstract:

The role of military lawyers — judge advocates — has been a subject of often-intense discussion and debate over the past 18 months.  Judge advocates typically advise commanders on the legal limits the international community and the United States have placed on the nature and conduct of military operations.  Today, as boat strikes in the Caribbean continue to raise serious legal, ethical, and moral concerns; the United States’ invasion of Venezuela and war with Iran cast doubt on the legitimacy and wisdom of our decisions to employ military force; and the rhetoric of our civilian leaders call into question the lawfulness of their military orders, the need for judge advocates and the challenges they face are greater than ever.  As former and retired judge advocates, we watch hopefully as the men and women who still serve as legal advisors meet those needs and challenges.  In a sincere effort to help, we respectfully and humbly offer the following thoughts in the hope that they will prove useful to the current generation of senior leaders, the judge advocates who advise them, and the American people who are also watching anxiously from the sidelines.

Operation Resolute Justice

Army’s plan for military death row executions is named ‘Operation Resolute Justice.’

If an execution order is signed by the president, military death row inmates would be transported to Federal Correctional Institution, Terre Haute in Indiana.

The oldest [current] military death row case involves former Army Spc. Ronald Gray, which dates back decades. In 1988, Gray was con­vict­ed by a gen­er­al court-mar­tial of 14 charges, includ­ing pre­med­i­tat­ed mur­der, attempt­ed mur­der, and of raping three women, two of whom were soldiers. In 2008, President George W. Bush signed off on his execution order, but it was later challenged in federal court and in 2016 a judge lifted the hold on his execution order. In 2017, an Army court rejected his final appeal.
. . .
From 1916 to 1961, the military executed 135 people. While a court-martial can result in a death sentence, the last military execution took place in 1961 when Army Pvt. John A. Bennett, a 19-year-old soldier, was hanged at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, for the rape and attempted murder of an 11-year-old Austrian girl. In addition to the lack of executions carried out in recent decades, the majority of death sentences in the military have also been overturned.

A JAG in trouble

A Finnish judge advocate is facing civilian trial for disseminating a photo of an area where photography is forbidden. According to this YLE report:

A military lawyer working for the Finnish Defence Forces (FDF) has been charged with revealing a national secret as well as a breach of duty offence.

The lawyer is suspected of using a messaging app to share a photo taken in an area where photography was prohibited.

The crime is suspected to have taken place in the autumn of 2024, while the charges were filed at Helsinki District Court last month. The court has not yet set a hearing date.

Revealing a national secret is considered treason in Finland, and the maximum penalty for the crime is four years imprisonment.