Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 8 views

    Establishment of Military Justice .: Ansell - "

    Uploaded by

    EsLebeDeutschland
    The document discusses the implementation and impact of General Orders No. 7, which established a process for reviewing military court cases. It found that in 96% of cases reviewed after the order, the recommendations of the Judge Advocate General to alter sentences were adopted in full. While General Ansell stated recommendations were generally followed, the records showed they were followed in the vast majority of cases. The order correlated with a decrease in the number of imposed dishonorable discharges that were actually carried out.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Establishment of Military Justice .: Ansell - "

    Uploaded by

    EsLebeDeutschland
    8 views1 page
    The document discusses the implementation and impact of General Orders No. 7, which established a process for reviewing military court cases. It found that in 96% of cases reviewed after the order, the recommendations of the Judge Advocate General to alter sentences were adopted in full. While General Ansell stated recommendations were generally followed, the records showed they were followed in the vast majority of cases. The order correlated with a decrease in the number of imposed dishonorable discharges that were actually carried out.

    Original Description:

    1919

    Original Title

    Appendix 11

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses the implementation and impact of General Orders No. 7, which established a process for reviewing military court cases. It found that in 96% of cases reviewed after the order, the recommendations of the Judge Advocate General to alter sentences were adopted in full. While General Ansell stated recommendations were generally followed, the records showed they were followed in the vast majority of cases. The order correlated with a decrease in the number of imposed dishonorable discharges that were actually carried out.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    8 views1 page

    Establishment of Military Justice .: Ansell - "

    Uploaded by

    EsLebeDeutschland
    The document discusses the implementation and impact of General Orders No. 7, which established a process for reviewing military court cases. It found that in 96% of cases reviewed after the order, the recommendations of the Judge Advocate General to alter sentences were adopted in full. While General Ansell stated recommendations were generally followed, the records showed they were followed in the vast majority of cases. The order correlated with a decrease in the number of imposed dishonorable discharges that were actually carried out.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    736 ESTABLISHMENT OF MILITARY JUSTICE .

    reviewing authorities only where illegality was discovered . Upon Gen. Ansell ' s
    return from France, he overruled the practice established during his absence ,
    and gave orders to suggest to commanding generals the exercise of clemenc y
    ' with respect to unduly severe sentences . (Exhibit 70 .) He simply revive d
    the practice based upon Gen. Crowder's and Col . Davis's interpretation
    of General Orders No . 7, which existed for two months and a half subsequent
    to the date when these orders first became effective, and his inference that th e
    liberal views were entirely his own is misleading .
    The following appears on page 32, "Hearings before the Committee on Mili-
    tary Affairs, United States Senate Sixty-fifth Congress, Third. Session," relativ e
    to the operation of General Orders No . 7 :
    A SENATOR . Have those recommendations been generally followed since you
    have been making them ?
    Gen . ANSELL . " Generally, in the sense of indicating a majority, yes, sir . "
    The action of the Judge Advocate General under General Orders No. 7 is
    purely one of recommendation. There is no power to compel the reviewing
    authorities to follow his advice. Since February 1, 1918, the date when Genera l
    Orders No . 7 became effective, 212 cases have been referred back to th e
    reviewing authorities under its provisions . (Exhibit 71 . )
    The records indicate only seven instances where the recommendations o f
    the Judge Advocate General were not entirely followed . In three of thes e
    his recommendations were partly followed, and in four disregarded . It will
    thus be seen that in 96i per cent of the eases his recommendations have bee n
    adopted in their entirety.
    That the Senate committee, by answer of Gen . Ansell, the substance o f
    which is repeated elsewhere with similar lack of frankness, did not receive th e
    complete information or that correct conception to which it was entitled i s
    apparent from what appears on page 131 of the report . Without correction o r
    protest from Gen . Ansell, a Senator stated :
    " There have been a great many cases, as the general has testified here, i n
    which they have * * * made a recommendation to the coni-ening power ,
    and those recommendations have been disregarded . "
    The answer of Gen . Ansell that the recommendations were followed gener-
    ally in the extent of indicating the majority, while literally true, was wholl y
    misleading and tended to create, in the mind of any uninformed auditor, a con-
    clusion entirely contrary to the facts .
    In Gen . Ansell's letter to Representative Burnett, he further stated (Ex-
    hibit 69, p. 6) :
    " The Judge Advocate General recommended and the department finall y
    adopted an administrative method known as General Orders No . 7, which sus-
    pended certain sentences until the proceedings could be examined in this office
    and the commanding general advised with . This was an administrative pal-
    liative * * * ."
    In order to ascertain the results accomplished by General Orders No . 7, 500
    consecutive records of trial received by the Judge Advocate General imme-
    diately prior to the publication of the same were examined . Five hundred
    cases were selected after the provisions of General Orders No . 7 became opera-
    tive, and 500 additional cases which reached the Judge Advocate General' s
    Office several months later . These cases represented 9 Departments . 38 divi-
    sions, and 15 other miscellaneous general court-martial jurisdictions . Certainly
    they were representative of the twenty thousand and odd cases tried durin g
    the war. A table, indicating the number of dishonorable discharges impose d
    by the courts, and those executed, suspended, remitted, or set aside by the re -
    viewing authorities, is given below :
    Dishonorable discharges .

    First Second Thir d


    period. period. period .

    230 188 233


    Imposed by the court 131 84 33
    Executed :
    Suspen led 47 59 140
    39 41 46
    Remitted ~ 13 4 14
    Set aside

    You might also like