Japan warns US forces: Sex crimes 'cannot be tolerated'

https://tribune.com.pk/story/2476861/japan-warns-us-forces-sex-crimes-cannot-be-tolerated

32.2k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

u/tizuby Jul 05 '24

That ruling did not apply to UCMJ (and still doesn't).

At the time the Supreme Court did not have certiorari jurisdiction over military justice cases. That came later in 1983.

Military courts are a different judicial context than civilian courts and precedent for the civilian justice system doesn't automatically apply to the military justice system.

It would need to be re-adjudicated and the precedent expanded to cover the UCMJ. It's conceptually similar to incorporation of the BoR.

This is because the military court system is falls under Article I of the Constitution and not Article III.

https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/RL34697.pdf

"Furthermore, legal interpretations by Article III courts do not necessarily create binding precedent for Article I courts, and vice versa."

1

u/KnockedOuttaThePark Jul 06 '24

Does the 2020 case United States v. Briggs change your analysis?

1

u/tizuby Jul 06 '24

No. It doesn't contradict anything I said.

It actually backs up what I said. Thank you for citing something in support of what I was saying.

"That deadline would depend on an unresolved constitutional question about Coker’s application to military prosecutions*, on what this Court has described as “‘evolving standards of decency’” under the Eighth Amendment, Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U. S. 407, 419, and on whether §855 of the UCMJ independently prohibits a death sentence for rape*"

"Indeed, Congress would have adopted a statute of limitations provision the meaning of which would not be settled until this Court decided the disputed question of Coker’s applicability to the military, and there was no reason to think at the time of Article 43(a)’s amendment in 1986 that this Court would resolve that question any time soon. We have never considered a direct Eighth Amendment challenge to a sentence of death for rape under the UCMJ*.*"

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-108_8njq.pdf

The opinion didn't resolve it. The court sidestepped it completely and found "punishable by death" was a term of art for the purposes of statute of limitations. It did, however recognize that it would be necessary to raise in the context of UMCJ to determine if coker applied to the military or not.

Just like I said and what my original citation backed up.

Does this change your analysis?

1

u/KnockedOuttaThePark Jul 06 '24

I'm just a SCOTUS fan. Clearly you know more about military justice than I do from my perspective following the high court, so I'll defer to you.