Military man molested daughter and is free

[dlchicks321]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Indiana
Military man (19) drugged and molested my daughter (13) he was charged with a Felony C and other stuff too. He had since been sent to GA. The MP arrested him and handed him over to the civilian jail. He sat there for 24 hours when Indiana said they wouldn't extradite him back to Indiana. He was released back to military. Question: If he was military personnel...why isn't the military involved? I was told by prosecuter that he is a free man unless he comes back to Indiana and gets stopped by police and they find out he has a warrent. Why doesn't military do something? He was enlisted during crime...what can I do to get justice for my daughter.

[JETX]

Originally Posted by dlchicks321

Question: If he was military personnel...why isn't the military involved?

Simple answer... he didn't violate any 'military' (or even federal) laws. They have no 'physical' jurisdiction over his conduct off base. But I bet his military future is DOA.

The more important issue is WHY DIDN'T INDIANA GET HIM?? They have jurisdiction.

what can I do to get justice for my daughter.

Contact the prosecutor and find out why THEY didn't do THEIR job and extradite the guy back to Indiana!!
If you don't like their answer... contact the media and get some pressure on the local prosecutors ass.

[ERAUPIKE]

Originally Posted by JETX

Simple answer... he didn't violate any 'military' (or even federal) laws. They have no 'physical' jurisdiction over his conduct off base. But I bet his military future is DOA.

The more important issue is WHY DIDN'T INDIANA GET HIM?? They have jurisdiction.


Contact the prosecutor and find out why THEY didn't do THEIR job and extradite the guy back to Indiana!!
If you don't like their answer... contact the media and get some pressure on the local prosecutors ass.

False, he violated Article 120 of the UCMJ, which any military member will be subject to while on active duty. The military is likely conducting their own investigation into the charges and he will answer to them when the investigation is complete. The military will then release him from custody and he will again have to face the same charges on the civilian side in Indiana. This pervert is going to pay dearly for his actions. Get on the horn with his command and start raising hell. They will listen to you.

[JETX]

Originally Posted by ERAUPIKE

False, he violated Article 120 of the UCMJ, which any military member will be subject to while on active duty.

And of course, that is NOT correct. In order for the UCMJ to apply, the crime must have been committed on base or under the control of the military. The fact that the crime happened OFF base and not in a military capacity means that the UCMJ has no affect.
The military, once presented with the civilian arrest charge, should have detained their 'soldier' and turned him over for prosecution.

Under UCMJ, Article 14:
"(a) Under such regulations as the Secretary concerned may prescribe, a member of the armed forces accused of an offense against civil authority may be delivered, upon request, to the civil authority for trial.

(b) When delivery under this article is made to any civil authority of a person undergoing sentence of a court-martial, the delivery, if followed by conviction in a civil tribunal, interrupts the execution of the sentence of the court-martial, and the offender after having answered to the civil authorities for his offense shall, upon the request of competent military authority, be returned to military custody for the completion of his sentence."

[ERAUPIKE]

Originally Posted by JETX

And of course, that is NOT correct. In order for the UCMJ to apply, the crime must have been committed on base or under the control of the military. The fact that the crime happened OFF base and not in a military capacity means that the UCMJ has no affect.
The military, once presented with the civilian arrest charge, should have detained their 'soldier' and turned him over for prosecution.

Under UCMJ, Article 14:
"(a) Under such regulations as the Secretary concerned may prescribe, a member of the armed forces accused of an offense against civil authority may be delivered, upon request, to the civil authority for trial.

(b) When delivery under this article is made to any civil authority of a person undergoing sentence of a court-martial, the delivery, if followed by conviction in a civil tribunal, interrupts the execution of the sentence of the court-martial, and the offender after having answered to the civil authorities for his offense shall, upon the request of competent military authority, be returned to military custody for the completion of his sentence."

Sorry JETX but you are wrong. I would like to see your justification for saying that the UCMJ only applies to members on base or under military control.

The UCMJ Article 2 clearly states otherwise:

a) The following persons are subject to this chapter:

(1) Members of a regular component of the armed forces, including those awaiting discharge after expiration of their terms of enlistment; volunteers from the time of their muster or acceptance into the armed forces; inductees from the time of their actual induction into the armed forces; and other persons lawfully called or ordered into, or to duty in or for training in the armed forces, from the dates when they are required by the terms of the call or order to obey it.

(2) Cadets, aviation cadets, and midshipman.

(3) Members of a reserve component while on inactive-duty training, but in the case of members of the Army National Guard of the United States or the Air National Guard of the United States only when in Federal Service.

(4) Retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay.

(5) Retired members of a reserve component who are receiving hospitalization from an armed force.

(6) Members of the Fleet Reserve and Fleet Marine Corps Reserve.

(7) Persons in custody of the armed forces serving a sentence imposed by a court-martial.

(8) Members of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Public Health Service, and other organizations, when assigned to and serving with the armed forces.

(9) Prisoners of war in custody of the armed forces.

(10) In time of war, persons serving with or accompanying an armed force in the field. (IMPORTANT NOTE: EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2007, CONGRESS CHANGED THIS PROVISION TO READ: "In time of declared war or a contigency operation, persons serving with or accompanying an armed force in the field."

(11) Subject to any treaty or agreement which the United States is or may be a party to any accepted rule of international law, persons serving with, employed by, or accompanying the armed forces outside the United States and outside the Canal Zone, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.

(12) Subject to any treaty or agreement which the United States is or may be a party to any accepted rule of international law, persons within an area leased by or otherwise reserved or acquired for use of the United States which is under the control of the Secretary concerned and which is outside the United States and outside the Canal Zone, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.

(b) The voluntary enlistment of any person who has the capacity to understand the significance of enlisting in the armed forces shall be valid for purposes of jurisdiction under subsection (a) and change of status from civilian to member of the armed forces shall be effective upon the taking of the oath of enlistment.

(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a person serving with an armed force who--

(1) Submitted voluntarily to military authority;

(2) met the mental competence and minimum age qualifications of sections 504 and 505 of this title at the time of voluntary submissions to military authority:

(3) received military pay or allowances; and

(4) performed military duties: is subject to this chapter until such person's active service has been terminated in accordance with law or regulations promulgated by the Secretary concerned.

Member-1 Senior Member-0

[JETX]

Originally Posted by ERAUPIKE

Sorry JETX but you are wrong. I would like to see your justification for saying that the UCMJ only applies to members on base or under military control.

I know WHO the UCMJ applies to.
Please, show me ANYWHERE in the UCMJ where it says an active duty soldier, will face military justice for a crime committed in a CIVILIAN (non-military) location.

The OP's post says that the MP's detained the soldier (presumably ON base), then turned him over to the local CIVILIAN authorities. The OP's 'complaint' arose because her state (Indiana) decided to NOT extradite the subject from Georgia to Indiana. Clearly, this is NOT a military issue.

[ERAUPIKE]

Originally Posted by JETX

I know WHO the UCMJ applies to.
Please, show me ANYWHERE in the UCMJ where it says an active duty soldier, will face military justice for a crime committed in a CIVILIAN (non-military) location.

The OP's post says that the MP's detained the soldier (presumably ON base), then turned him over to the local CIVILIAN authorities. The OP's 'complaint' arose because her state (Indiana) decided to NOT extradite the subject from Georgia to Indiana. Clearly, this is NOT a military issue.

He will still faces charges from the military for his actions.

Soldiers and other service personnel on "active duty" are subject to the UCMJ, whether at home or abroad. Members of the National Guard and Army Reserve are also subject to the UCMJ when activated to serve on active duty. In addition to the UCMJ, these uniformed personnel are still subject to state and federal prosecutions. In Washington, for instance, soldiers are technically not precluded from further criminal prosecution following a state conviction for the same crime. However, the Fifth Amendment, the UCMJ, and the MCM prohibit being tried twice for the same crime in federal district court.

The UCMJ is also governs military members while they are not on duty as part of Federal law. (Title 10 U.S.C.)

[CdwJava]

Well, I am not familiar with the UCMJ but I CAN tell you that when I was in San Diego County the Navy took over the prosecution of Marines and Navy personnel that committed serious offenses even off base. One such case involved two off duty sailors that committed a series of rapes each time their deployments ended. The one they finally got caught and prosecuted on was mine. The DA said they could have a case ready in about 12 months. The JAG said they could go to trial in less than 90 days. The locals ceded jurisdiction to the Navy and these beasts were sent off to 15 and 25 years of making little rocks from big rocks inside of 6 months.

I do not know under what authority this occurred, but is happened with some frequency in San Diego County. In many serious offenses, the military would obtain jurisdiction. Whether it requires the locals to cede that jurisdiction to them, or whether the defendants have to cede that authority, I cannot say. I CAN say that this was not uncommon. And we liked it that way because the military system was very streamlined and did not deal with the same B.S.

- Carl