asked 123k views
1 vote
Commanding officers hold quite a bit of power in a court martial, including the ability to set aside a conviction completely. Is this, in your opinion, generally good, bad, or mixed? Defend your position.

1 Answer

1 vote

Answer:

On one hand, some people might argue that this power is necessary for maintaining discipline and order within the military. They might say that commanding officers, having a deep understanding of their unit and its members, are in a good position to make such decisions. Those who hold this view often argue that the military is a unique institution that requires a different set of rules and standards compared to civilian society. They believe that discipline and order are paramount in the military, and that commanding officers, due to their position and experience, are best suited to make decisions that uphold these values.

Commanding officers are typically seasoned military personnel who have risen through the ranks due to their skills, knowledge, and leadership abilities. They often have a deep understanding of their unit's dynamics, including the strengths and weaknesses of their subordinates, the challenges they face, and the context in which they operate. This intimate knowledge, proponents argue, places commanding officers in a unique position to make informed decisions about their subordinates' actions.

Furthermore, proponents might argue that commanding officers have a vested interest in ensuring justice within their ranks. They are responsible for their unit's morale and cohesion, both of which could be negatively affected by perceived injustices. Therefore, they might be motivated to ensure that any punishments meted out are fair and proportionate.

Step-by-step explanation:

answered
User Giorgian
by
8.0k points
Welcome to Qamnty — a place to ask, share, and grow together. Join our community and get real answers from real people.