An inside view of Italian Military Justice

Report Difesa has a lengthy interview with Filippo Verrone (at left), President of the Military Court of Naples and of the National Association of Military Magistrates. Here's an excerpt (Google imperfect translation):

President Verrone, how has the military judiciary changed since the time of military service to today. Has there also been a change in the crimes that were committed before compared to those of today?

Of course, yes. The crimes that were linked to the obligation of military service are no longer there, such as desertion. But there are others.

Our activity is numerically smaller than in the past. Today it has become a numerically smaller job in terms of the number of crimes but qualitatively much more complex both for the type of crimes committed and for all the other aspects, even non-criminal, of an investigation of a conviction, since public employees are involved. Everything must be carefully examined because the work and career progression of the soldier is also at stake.

For this reason there has been a recent legislative intervention: the non-suspension of the soldier from work except by the first degree conviction.

Precisely because a criminal trial for a soldier is something that leaves a mark!

And so from here arises, in my opinion, the need for a special jurisdiction that not only knows the mechanisms of this particular activity, but above all that reaches a decision within a reasonable time.

Will this case never end?

Dawn reports here on yet another day of meandering discussion in Pakistan's Military Courts Case. Excerpt:

The counsel touched upon the status of court martial and explained that the military courts did not fall under Article 175(3) of the constitution that asks for the separation of judiciary from the executive. He argued that the military courts established under the PAA were not subordinate to any high court and therefore did not come under the domain of Article 175(3) of the Constitution.

When Justice Mandokhail asked if the military courts did not come under Article 175(3), then under which constitutional provision would they fall especially when Article 175 exclusively talks about the judiciary.

The Constitutional Bench resumed the hearing today. 

Nevada National Guard

Each (U.S.) state National Guard has some form of military justice statute. The Codes vary from state to state (some states have adopted the ABA Model Code). Enforcement can differ. For example, Delaware conducts a court-martial within the Guard, whereas West Virginia prosecutes "UCMJ" violations in civilian court.

You can find out more specifics per state at NIMJ's "State Codes."

A general review suggests many state UCMJs are out of date. There have been several major changes to the UCMJ over the last five years and the state legislatures haven't caught up.

Nevada National Guard members have fewer legal protections than civilians, most other states’ Guard members, and members of national military branches such as the Army and Air Force.

The right to demand a court-martial instead of accepting certain administrative punishments was taken out of state law in 2019 at the urging of the Nevada National Guard, just four years after it held the opposite position.

. . .

"Currently, Nevada is one of only a few states where National Guard members lack the right to demand a court-martial," Wagar said. "This lack of due process undermines the principles of justice and erodes trust in the military justice system."

 From the Reno Gazette Journal.

Most interesting is the cost estimate for adopting the right to refuse Article 15 punishment, which ranges from zero to $1.2 million for just three courts-martial.

Gray said this shows that the Nevada National Guard’s official estimate to the Legislature of three court-martials a year costing about $1.2 million does not stand up to scrutiny because it’s extremely rare for a military service member to ever request one.

Gray shared a letter he received Wednesday from Maj. Gen. David Baldwin, who has led the California National Guard since 2011. Baldwin wrote that during his more than 40 years in the Guard, he’s been involved with hundreds and possibly thousands of cases where the accused had the option to turn down a nonjudicial punishment in favor of a court-martial — and only one ever did.

We suspect (partly on our own experiences advising servicemembers) that the number of Article 15 turndowns in the active duty force is similarly few.