Military Guilty Pleas

As in most jurisdictions, criminal justice in the military rests heavily on guilty pleas. However, there are some quirks to the system which surprise many when they first encounter it. One quirk in particular, regarding sentencing, is unusually favorable to the accused and is probably one reason why we do so many guilty pleas.

Since the Commanding General is the source of disciplinary authority, a guilty plea in the military is an agreement between the accused and the CG that in exchange for a plea, the CG will not approve a sentence above a certain amount of incarceration or a certain level of discharge. For example, the agreement might bind the CG to approve no more than 180 days of confinement and a Bad Conduct Discharge. It might even have alternative clauses, such as no more than 60 days of confinement if a punitive discharge is adjudged, no more than 180 days if not.

In court, the accused gets another bite at the apple. After his guilty plea is accepted, the government and the defense present evidence and arguments regarding sentencing, and the judge renders a sentence without knowing the quantitative terms of the plea agreement. If the judge's sentence is harsher than the plea, then the accused gets the benefit of the deal, as the CG can not approve any sentence above that in the deal. If the judge is more lenient than the deal, then the accused gets the benefit of his leniency, as the CG can never approve a sentence higher than that adjudged in court.

This makes for a very interesting system, where both sides are trying to anticipate the judge's sentence when negotiating the deal, and then trying to sway the judge's sentence once the guilty plea is accepted. It is a great way, I think, of giving defendants the advantages of pleading guilty without forfeiting all rights to persuade a judge to be lenient.