Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
Trending News
Why is the military permitted to violate the 5th amendment of its members (double jeopardy)?
In some cases when a service member is charged by a civilian court with DWI, they are simultaneously charged under the military UCMJ with something like Article 111 (DWI). They also often incur charges like Article 92, Failure to obey a lawful order, but let us focus on 111 as it is essentially the same charge as DWI. I assume that non-judicial Article 15 punishment is non applicable to this concept, so let us focus on the special and general court martial only.
It's possible for a service member to be convicted and receive sentence from a civilian court for DWI, and then also receive additional sentence from a UCMJ court martial for DWI. Two sets of coinciding sentences for the same offense. One doesn't override the other, they both must be served.
I'm aware of the "differing jurisdictions" loophole that allows this occur. I just want someone to rationally explain why no justice has ever ruled this unconstitutional? From a spirit of the law standpoint, it seems blatantly wrong.
I'm not a lawyer, but I saw this happen several times during my service and always wondered why it was permitted.
Mutt, the military and civilian laws I'm referencing here have the same intent, to deal with DWI. Should the different wording of the civilian and military laws really matter more than the fact that their intent is the same?
I don't follow your Rodney King example, if I remember correctly they were charged differently in the state versus federal court. I am talking of the same exact charge (DWI) prosecuted by two different courts simultaneously.
Thanks, Patrick! If I understood everything, I wouldn't have asked a question. Your answer certainly helped
2 Answers
- Patrick BLv 77 years agoFavorite Answer
You say you understand the "differing jurisdictions" loophole, yet you don't understand how it's constitutional.
If you understand the differing jurisdictions loophole, then you'd know why it's constitutional. If you don't understand how it's constitutional, then you don't understand the loophole. This is called "dual sovereignty", and essentially it's based on the idea that if you commit a crime that violates both federal and state laws, you've harmed both the state and federal people and are therefor open to be tried by both of them.
Double Jeopardy only prevents 1 court system from trying you for the same crime twice. That's all it was ever intended to do. We have 3 levels of court systems in this country. State, federal, and military. This means that if you commit a serious offense while in the military (lets say rape and murder of a victim) you can possibly be tried 3 times. Once at the state level, once by the military and once at the federal level. Usually this doesn't happen. Most of the time the military will allow the state courts to handle civilian felonies on their own. The federal courts usually only take up a case if it crosses state lines or is high profile. However if the state court messes up and you're found innocent, you can still be tried.
It's constitutional because you aren't being tried for the same crime by the same court system. It's been ruled on by the supreme court (I'm not doing the research for you) and ruled to be constitutional. As Mutt pointed out, the cope in the Rodney King trial were tried again at the federal level and found guilty the 2nd time around. There was also a military member who was found guilty at the state level, appealed and was found not guilty, then had DNA evidence prove that he was the killer and was brought back by the military and tried again (thankfully) and is now in jail. I apologize I can't remember his name.
- MuttLv 77 years ago
Military members have to follow civilian laws and military laws. The civilian trial is for the violation of civilian law, and the court-martial is for violating military law. Different laws, different jurisdiction.
It's not any different for other cases. If you remember many years ago the Rodney King beating, the 4 police officers tried for it were found not guilty in California, but afterward, the feds tried them for violating his civil rights (2 were found guilty in federal court for that). Same incident, two different laws in two different jurisdictions. Not double jeopardy.
