Quote:
Originally Posted by oldpotatoe
|
I disagree with the author. I spent 6 years as an enlisted Marine and I seldom saw officers, and senior NCOs for that matter, punished when they should have been and at times a subordinate was punished. Far too often when something happens the guilty (IMO, not an official one) senior officer/enlisted is forced to take 'early retirement' which is essentially no punishment at all since they still get their pension and benefits. It's as though the rules don't apply equally. The Captain of a ship is ultimately the one responsible and I think the charge is appropriate. As the sign on Harry Truman's desk said, "The buck stops here".
As for intent, it is not a requirement for negligent homicide. Negligent homicide falls under Article 134 of the UCMJ, the catch all General Article. From what I can find
online,
"negligent homicide under Article 134, UCMJ, requires: (1) that a certain person is dead; (2) that this death resulted from an act or failure to act of the accused; (3) that the killing by the accused was unlawful; (4) that the accused’s act or failure to act that caused the death amounted to simple negligence; and (5) that, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces."
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptStash
The NAVY seems to be missing the importance of the total lack of training that contributed to the collisions. In fact, I could make a good argument that poor training and / or lack of training was the root cause.
|
I agree....but the Captain of the ship is the one ultimately responsible for that poor training. If his superiors, for whatever reason, did not require adequate training then he should have supplemented that training on his own. That's not to say that those responsible for that inadequate training shouldn't be punished as well.