I’m not a lawyer. However, I was a legal clerk as part of my duties in the military. I was responsible for research and preparing everything from Article 15’s to discharges of whatever nature were recommended by the command. That was not easy since it was back in the 70’s before computers. I had bookcases full of binders with AR’s I had to go through to do my research.

In Civil Service, I qualified as a legal assistant to apply for a position under the hospital’s JAG officer. Wrangling in the ranks bumped me from getting the position. I did learn the multi-levels of Navy and DoD regulations were ridiculously redundant with only minor differences.

On to the question that arose in my thinking this morning, when I heard a person say something about what would have happened to him if he’d done something he was commenting on.

People have their opinions. I have mine, and I’m not going to say what I think. I wasn’t there. I don’t know all the details. Let a jury settle that issue.

Safe to say this one thing. You can’t judge civilian law with military law thought processes. These are two different animals. So, I wanted to clarify that. My research below is copy/pasted from what I found.

Military Law and Civilian Law are distinct legal systems with different purposes, jurisdictions, and procedures.

Jurisdiction: Military law applies to all members of the armed forces—active duty, reservists, National Guard, and retirees—under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Civilians are generally not subject to military law, even on military bases, unless they are federal employees or contractors. Conversely, military members must comply with civilian laws wherever they are, and can face prosecution in both systems for the same act (e.g., a DUI), which is not double jeopardy.

Core Purpose: Military law emphasizes discipline, good order, and military readiness. It includes unique offenses like desertion, insubordination, and failure to obey a lawful order. Civilian law focuses on public safety, justice, and individual rights, with laws based on local, state, and federal statutes.

Legal Proceedings:

Court-martials are the military equivalent of criminal trials. They are conducted by military judges and panels of service members, not civilians.

Jury composition differs significantly: military juries (panels) are selected from active-duty personnel and do not require a unanimous verdict—typically three-fourths agreement is sufficient, except in death penalty cases.

Pre-trial and trial procedures are more streamlined to accommodate military operations and timelines.

Punishments:

Military penalties include reduction in rank, forfeiture of pay, confinement to quarters, and dishonorable discharge—consequences that can permanently affect a service member’s career and benefits.

Civilian courts use fines, probation, and imprisonment, but lack military-specific sanctions.

Appeals: The military has a separate appellate structure—service-specific Courts of Criminal Appeals and the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces—with automatic review for severe punishments (e.g., death, dishonorable discharge, or long confinement). Civilian appeals go through state or federal appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court.

Legal Representation: Service members have access to free legal defense by Judge Advocates (JAGs), who are both military officers and lawyers. They may also hire civilian attorneys at their own expense.

In summary, while both systems uphold justice, military law is designed to maintain discipline within a hierarchical, operational force, whereas civilian law protects individual rights within a democratic society.