Should CDS be Dismissed?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tucumseh,
Wrathmonk's link above to the sentencing comments show that this most definitely wasn't treated as equivalent to a purely civilian offence in a purely civilian environment, hence why the starting point for sentencing was 15 years. Other allowances were made for similar military factors, leading to a minimum terms of 10 years instead of the possible 30 years if no such consideration had been made.
MB
Wrathmonk's link above to the sentencing comments show that this most definitely wasn't treated as equivalent to a purely civilian offence in a purely civilian environment, hence why the starting point for sentencing was 15 years. Other allowances were made for similar military factors, leading to a minimum terms of 10 years instead of the possible 30 years if no such consideration had been made.
MB
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.
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.
I have posted before that I believe support for mental illness for ex personnel needs to be better. It isn't a shock that a significant proportion of homeless persons / prison inmates are ex service people who cannot fit into civilian life nor that many will never do so.
I see a danger that having served in any "hot zone" it then becomes an automatic get out of jail free card if you commit an offence. It then will quickly become abused and diminishes Armed forces standing as people will then see them as using service record to avoid responsibility for actions.
An honest question I asked someone who had done lots of special drops in NI, was what would he do if some of the people he had served with moved in next door. Simple answer was "move as quickly as possible", he valued and respected those he served with but would not wish to live anywhere near them. I doubt he would be alone with that view.
