- Reaction score
I'm appalled that there are so many, while simultaneously being glad that people are being held to account.
If by "rehabilitate" you mean "put the fear of ever having to go back there again in you", then yes, I was rehabilitated. Mostly it was just 12 days out of a 14 day sentence of Belt Fed Cock.A lot of people do not know about or downplay the rehabilitation services that DB offers, they only look at the punishment aspects of the detention barracks. It is easy to punish, a lot hard to rehabilitate.
Also means people trust their CoC to handle it properly, which is also importantJust like an increase in flight safety incident reporting isn’t necessarily a sign that things are worst, the increase im CM could simply be an increase in reporting rather than an increase in assaults. I view an increase in reporting a great thing. It means people are more comfortable reporting those events, which is a good step forward.
If you get sent there for a “long haul”, in addition to “BFC”, there is a healthy dose of counselling and lifestyle rehabilitation that is also added in.If by "rehabilitate" you mean "put the fear of ever having to go back there again in you", then yes, I was rehabilitated. Mostly it was just 12 days out of a 14 day sentence of Belt Fed Cock.
My stint (like Kat's) was 14 days - my boots never looked better, and my drill was pretty sharp.If you get sent there for a “long haul”, in addition to “BFC”, there is a healthy dose of counselling and lifestyle rehabilitation that is also added in.
He was making a joke about "clown noses and rainbow wigs," the inference is that people who wear clown noses and rainbow wigs are politicians.
Just so we're clear here, since it was my post you were replying to, my post was not a suggestion of such. My post was pointing out the hypocrisy in people who are questioning whether a civilian system can prosecute military members competently, given that our current system is asking for a far taller order.... completely unqualified WOs and MWOs to play the role investigators/prosecutors*.
I'm of the same mindset that there's no reason a civilian authority can't investigate/prosecute.
*I know they aren't literally prosecutors, but when you look at a summary trial, they are essentially the version of the prosecutor, putting forth the argument/evidence of why someone is guilty.
Re the part about unqualified WOs and MWOs; I have to semi-agree. I’ve done the UDI/CL training and thought “there’s no practical aspect”. The course should be 5 days and include an actual qual (therefore having a QS and TEP with actual testing of knowledge/competency). Same as the DLN course and qual on Summary Investigation.
I say semi-agree because some of us are fairly capable when it comes to a simple UDI.
That was my life as Adjt except it was the RSM who was the issue. On the plus side he was not immune to saying he was wrong, made our relationship stronger for it.Or you get an Adjt who watched Law and Order when on TD once, thinks they are the world's greatest lawyer, based on the UDI draft a long list of complex charges, and Cpl Bloggins, on getting marched in says "Yeah, I'd like to elect court martial".
Sometimes the JAGs are no better. I drafted an RDP for a soldier in my Coy who had lost a rather expensive piece of kit on a deployment. I sent it to the TF JAG for review (the charge was electable) and when it came back the recommended wording bore no resemblance to the actual alleged offence.Or you get an Adjt who watched Law and Order when on TD once, thinks they are the world's greatest lawyer, based on the UDI draft a long list of complex charges, and Cpl Bloggins, on getting marched in says "Yeah, I'd like to elect court martial".
Improved education/training can certainly help, but there's only so much you can learn in 5 days and it certainly isn't going to measure up to the combination of education and experience of civilian authorities.
I have no doubt that some are. However, there are many who aren't, and quite honestly were never cut from the right cloth to be.
It's not exactly in the job description for most trades, not exactly we can expect someone to have any inclination toward doing.... what the Army does is like going to Syncrude and giving a bunch of labourers, tradesmen, safety inspectors, etc. a shitty course and then saying "well these guys understand Syncrude's operations better than civilian authorities, so the RCMP shouldn't have jurisdiction here." Yeah sure, a small minority of guys will be alright for some simple things (i.e. drunkenness, AWOL, etc.), but the vast majority, no....
Not to mention that you can pick whoever you want, the smartest one available, chances are that WO is juggling numerous jobs because they're doing their normal Ops WO duty which is it's own gongshow at the best of times in today's "everything is last minute" Army, the CSM is gone so they're covering off for him, and the unit is deploying for a 3-week field ex next week.... and now you've asked them to do a UDI on a complaint that someone in the unit forged a signature on a claim... moderately simple but they're now distracted by the fact that it's a financial document, involves FSAs, HRAs, etc. all stuff they're not familiar with. Even if they were the smartest most experience person available, real surprise they botch the investigation.......................
But the Army treats it as, "we received a complaint, we tasked an expert to investigate, there were no grounds for charges, phew, glad that's behind us."
Or you get an Adjt who watched Law and Order when on TD once, thinks they are the world's greatest lawyer, based on the UDI draft a long list of complex charges, and Cpl Bloggins, on getting marched in says "Yeah, I'd like to elect court martial".
Atleast the were passionate about what they did?The worst military law experience I ever had was watching the chaos ensure when the CO (a lawyer) and one of my Pl Comds (a lawyer who worked for him in civvy street) were arguing during a charge parade for a fairly simple 'crime'.
I never wanted to subject anyone, accused of anything, to that again.
The worst military law experience I ever had was watching the chaos ensure when the CO (a lawyer) and one of my Pl Comds (a lawyer who worked for him in civvy street) were arguing during a charge parade for a fairly simple 'crime'.
I never wanted to subject anyone, accused of anything, to that again.
But what level education and experience do we need to investigate the simplest cases; most minor service offences, no election for CM (para's 5 -> 8 at link.)
Chapter 12 of the Military Justice at the Summary Trial Level Manual discusses the purpose and procedure of an Election by an accused during a summary trial process.www.canada.ca
The problem in the context above isn't the skill of the WO/MWO, IMO, it is the decisions of the CO/Snr Leadership.
We shouldn't need civilian investigators in these cases where the consequences/jeopardy to the mbr and CAF is low/negligible. Late for Platoon PT/tasking, proof of clear direction given for timings/location, witnesses that will confirm it was passed to the platoon, a review of the mbr's history to see if this is isolated or a pattern...no requirement for a LEO to be involved in this, IMO.
As for the Ops WO who is the Acting SWO part...that is literally me this month; I have also been working away from normal place of duty on high priority task and without DVPNI. If I was suddenly tasked with a UDI, I'd be speaking to my Flt Comd and DCO saying "something has to fall off" be being replaced on the hi-pri task, or the UDI.
I do share a concern, with the level of UDI/CL trg I was provided...I also have concerns for the level of trg an Assisting Officer receives. I was on the receiving end of several charge reports earlier in my career; the last ST the Sgt-Major came up to me shortly before it proceeded to say "your AO can't make it, we are to delay". I said "no need to delay sir". The AO was of no use to me, basically....
"Who do you choose as your AO, Sapper A?"As Old Soldier says in In accordance with QR&O article 108.14 (Assistance to Accused), as soon as possible after a charge has been laid, a commanding officer shall appoint an officer to assist the accused. A non-commissioned member above the rank of sergeant may be appointed in exceptional circumstances. It is taught that you must have an assisting officer and in fact, you need to fill in the name of the assisting officer on the Record of Disciplinary Proceedings.