racedo
It was an "offence against the person", and the original sentence is what you'd expect outwith the Military given the person was an adult.
My point was I believe extraordinary extenuating circumstances can be found in many military cases and, therefore, and like it or not, different standards apply to sentencing. The soldier in my example was severely wounded and had been on strong, addictive opiates as painkillers. This diminished responsibility. Not a million miles away from what Marine A's experiences on that tour MAY have done to him.
I also think a soldier, on operations, cannot be judged by civilian standards, simply because the soldier's job is to kill. His "line" is in a different place and can be under extraordinary pressure and stress when it comes to deciding where it is.
I don't want to seem flippant but Brian Clough's brilliant remark on the new offside rule comes to mind. "If he's not interfering with play, he shouldn't be on the pitch". (Sorry SASless, that may be beyond you).
Again, I do not condone, but think I understand a little.