Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

qazplm135

(7,447 posts)
7. no they actually followed precedent
Thu Jul 9, 2020, 03:17 PM
Jul 2020

1. The Supreme Court said you couldn't give the death penalty for rape anymore.
2. The SOL for the death penalty for rape was life BECAUSE the death penalty was an authorized punishment in the military for rape.
3. The language for the SOL for rape wasn't "because it's rape" unfortunately, it was because it was authorized the death penalty.
4. Thus, the SOL for rape was SOLELY tied to the fact that you could get the death penalty and no other reason.
5. So now, that was invalid. Thus, it reverted back to the standard SOL of five years for your average offense.
6. Congress changed it, but ex post facto means you cannot retroactively apply that SOL.

They didn't do it to protect this guy. And they didn't "break precedent."

IF you want to be mad at someone, be mad at the judge advocates who poorly wrote the SOL by tying it to the death penalty way back when. But CAAF, in this case, in my opinion, ruled the only way they could based on the text of the code as written and the Supreme Court decision which, again rightfully, said you can't get the DP for rape.

This happens sometimes. It's about to happen again. The Supremes just said you must have unanimous verdicts in criminal cases. The military system has (now) a 3/4ths requirement. Now the case didn't specifically mention the military courts, but odds are, it's going to cause quite an issue in the future.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Veterans»A technicality almost let...»Reply #7