Is “Military Justice” an Oxymoron…?

IS “MILITARY JUSTICE” AN OXYMORON…?

A Spoof

By

VIKRAM KARVE

I am glad I read the classic war novel CATCH-22 before I joined the Navy.

It made my life easier in the Navy – as Catch-22 helped me understand the crazy ways of the Navy – and – I could draw parallels between the characters in Catch-22 and the eccentric characters I encountered in the Navy.

Written by Joseph Heller – Catch-22 is a fictional spoof – satire – but then – isn’t humor the best way to tell the truth…?

In his inimitable satirical style – Joseph Heller encapsulates the essence of the military justice system in Chapter 8 of Catch-22 – which describes the Trial of Cadet Clevinger.

TRIAL OF CADET CLEVINGER 

Dear Reader – With a view to give you a glimpse into the military justice system – I will give you select “nuggets” from Chapter 8 of Catch-22 here (extracts quoted from the book are in italics)

Military Style “Justice” is the theme of Chapter 8 of Catch-22 – which describes Cadet Clevinger’s Trial – a profound satire on institutional justice in general – and military justice in particular.

Clevinger, an Aviation Cadet at Cadet School, is under the command of Lieutenant Scheisskopf, an ambitious officer.

Clevinger is a Harvard undergraduate who is an intellectual genius.

Joseph Heller satirically describes Clevinger as “a very serious, very earnest and very conscientious dope”.

Lieutenant Scheisskopf resents Clevinger’s cerebral intellect – especially the fact that Clevinger is proved right (and Lieutenant Scheisskopf  is proved wrong) every time – so Lieutenant Scheisskopf is waiting for an opportunity to take revenge and “fix” Cadet Clevinger.

“Clevinger was a troublemaker and a wise guy.

Lieutenant Scheisskopf knew that Clevinger might cause even more trouble if he wasn’t watched.

Yesterday it was the cadet officers; tomorrow it might be the world.

Clevinger had a mind, and Lieutenant Scheisskopf had noticed that people with minds tended to get pretty smart at times.

Such men were dangerous, and even the new cadet officers whom Clevinger had helped into office were eager to give damning testimony against him.

The case against Clevinger was open and shut.

The only thing missing was something to charge him with…”

Look at the last sentence above:

“The only thing missing was something to charge him with…”

In normal circumstances – an individual commits an offence – and then – he is charged for that offence.

But here:

First – you decide to “fix” someone.

Then – you decide what “offences” to charge him with.

You follow a “Topsy-Turvy” Procedure.

First – you find a “scapegoat” – or – a “difficult” individual who you want to “punish” (like Clevinger)

Then – you find a suitable “offence” to charge him with.

Dear Reader – have you seen this happen – especially if you have served in the military – or in civilian life too…?

As I told you earlier – Lieutenant Scheisskopf is waiting for an opportunity to “fix” Cadet Clevinger.

One day – Clevinger stumbles while marching to class.

The next day Clevinger is formally charged with “breaking ranks while in formation, felonious assault, indiscriminate behaviors, mopery, high treason, provoking, being a smart guy, listening to classical music, and so on…”

In short – they throw the book at him – and soon – Cadet Clevinger is facing Trial for the “offences” he is charged with committing.

There are 3 “Judges” in the “Action Board” to conduct the Trial of Cadet Clevinger:  

1. A bloated Colonel – with a big fat mustache

2. Major Metcalf – who is trying to develop a steely gaze

3. Lieutenant Scheisskopf

Yes – Lieutenant Scheisskopf is a member of the “Action Board”…

“…as a member of the Action Board – Lieutenant Scheisskopf was one of the judges who would weigh the merits of the case against Clevinger as presented by the prosecutor.

Lieutenant Scheisskopf was also the prosecutor.

Clevinger had an officer defending him.

The officer defending him was Lieutenant Scheisskopf…”

Lieutenant Scheisskopf is Clevinger’s “Prosecutor”, “Defender”, and a “Judge” in the Trial Board too.  

And – of course – as Clevinger's Commanding Officer – Lieutenant Scheisskopf is the “Accuser” – who has charged Clevinger with the “offences” for which he is on Trial.

Ha Ha – Lieutenant Scheisskopf is a “4-in-1” – the “Accuser”, the “Prosecutor”, the “Defender”, and a “Judge”…

The description of Clevinger’s Trial is hilarious – and – you must read it in Chapter 8 of Catch-22.

Clevinger is tried for a list of nonsensical charges that neither Clevinger nor the three judges can make much sense of.

However – since he has been accused – the aim is to find Clevinger guilty.

Guilty of what…?

That does not matter.

He has to be found GUILTY – that’s all.

So – Cadet Clevinger is found “Guilty” – simply because he was “Accused”

In a unanimous decision – the Trial Board finds Cadet Clevinger GUILTY.

“…Clevinger was guilty, of course, or he would not have been accused, and since the only way to prove it was to find him guilty, it was their patriotic duty to do so…”

MILITARY JUSTICE – COURT-MARTIAL – UNANIMOUS DECISIONS  

To the best of my knowledge – a Navy Court-Martial comprises between 5 and 9 Members (Judges) – and – I guess that Military Courts similarly comprise multiple members – probably odd numbers.

So – a Military/Navy Court-Martial is akin to a “Bench” of a Civilian Court – a “Bench” can comprise of a number of Judges.

However – there is one big difference.

A “Bench” of a Civilian Court may give a “unanimous decision” – or may deliver a “majority verdict”.

In case of a majority verdict – all the judgements are made public – including the dissenting judgements.  

This is not so in a Navy Court-Martial.

To the best of my knowledge:

1. In case the findings are not unanimous – and there is difference of opinion between Members of the Court-Martial – the verdict is decided by the vote of the majority.

2. In case of a majority judgement – the names and views of the dissenting members are not made public – only the decision is announced in open court (unlike in a Civilian “Bench” where names of dissenting Judges and their Judgements are made public)

I don’t know whether it is the same in a Military Court-Martial (Army/AirForce).

But – as far as Navy Court-Martial is concerned – let me quote the relevant sub-sections from Section 118 of the Navy Act, 1957:

Section118 – Drawing up of the finding

(1) The trial judge advocate shall then draw up the finding as announced by the court.

(2) The finding so drawn up shall be signed by all the members of the court by way of attestation notwithstanding any difference of opinion there may have been among the members and shall be countersigned by the trial judge advocate.

…

(5) Neither the court nor the trial judge advocate shall announce in open court whether the finding was unanimous or not; but the president shall make a record of the division of voting on each finding without disclosing the vote or opinion of any particular member of the court-martial and such record shall be communicated to the trial judge advocate for transmission to the Judge Advocate-General of the Navy.

IS “MILITARY JUSTICE” AN OXYMORON…?

Dear Reader:

After reading this – do you feel that “Military Justice” an Oxymoron…? 

VIKRAM KARVE

Copyright © Vikram Karve 
1. If you share this post, please give due credit to the author Vikram Karve
2. Please DO NOT PLAGIARIZE. Please DO NOT Cut/Copy/Paste this post
© vikram karve., all rights reserved.

Disclaimer:

1. This blog post is a spoof, satire, pure fiction, just for fun and humor, no offence is meant to anyone, so take it with a pinch of salt and have a laugh.

2. All Stories in this Blog are a work of fiction. Events, Places, Settings and Incidents narrated in the stories are a figment of my imagination. The characters do not exist and are purely imaginary. Any resemblance to persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.

Copyright Notice:

No part of this Blog may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical including photocopying or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the Blog Author Vikram Karve who holds the copyright.

Copyright © Vikram Karve (all rights reserved)

Mitigation Prevents Litigation – Musings on Military Grievance Management System

MITIGATION PREVENTS LITIGATION 

IS THE PRESENT MILITARY GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL SYSTEM EFFECTIVE...?
Musings of a Veteran
By
VIKRAM KARVE

Over the last few years – from time to time – there have been numerous media reports about military servicemen and ex-servicemen going to tribunals and courts to seek justice. 

Recently – I was shocked to see a news item with a headline: 

OVER 100 ARMY OFFICERS MOVE SUPRMEME COURT CLAIMING ‘DISCRIMINATION’ IN PROMOTION 

A few months ago – I was appalled to read a news item about the Navy: 

TRIBUNAL SLAMS NEPOTISM IN NAVY, IMPOSES Rs 5 LAKH AS FINE ON VICE-ADMIRAL 

What is happening in the Armed Forces...? 

Uniformed Military Servicemen (“Faujis”) are simple individuals and are not litigious by nature.

A Military Serviceman goes to court to seek justice only as a last resort after having tried and exhausted all means to get redressal within the service. 

If the internal grievance redressal system of the defence services is effective – most problems can be resolved “in-house” – and there is no need for servicemen to go to external agencies like bureaucracy, tribunals and courts to seek justice for redressal of their grievances.

Why are there frequent media reports of increasing numbers of aggrieved Defence Personnel, serving and retired, of the Army Navy and Air Force, going to courts to seek redressal of their grievances...?

The increasing tendency to litigation indicates that all is not well with the Internal Grievance Redressal Mechanism of the Armed Forces.

It appears that there are too many grievances in the army navy and air force and the services are probably not able to satisfactorily resolve many of these grievances by their internal mechanism.

The failure of the internal military grievance redressal system is an ominous sign.

The negative publicity in the media about increasing number of court cases by servicemen and ex-servicemen bring ignominy to the Defence Services and tarnish their good reputation.

Also – a large amount of resources, material and emotional, individual and organisational, tangible and intangible – all types of resources are expended in litigation.

I do not know about the other Defence Services – but during my early days in the Navy – the Naval Grievance Redressal System was very prompt and effective. 

It seems that over the years – the system has been allowed to become lax and lethargic.

In the past – grievance redressal system stood the test of time.

What has happened over the years – that today – the military grievance redressal system seems to have become ineffective – resulting in increasing litigation in Tribunals and Courts...? 

This reminded me of an article I had written many years ago on the “Seven Important Attributes of a Good Grievance Management System” 

SEVEN IMPORTANT ATTRIBUTES OF A GOOD GRIEVANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 

A good grievance redressal mechanism is a sine qua non of a well-designed and functional Human Resource (HR) Management System.

In order to be successful – a grievance redressal system must possess seven attributes:

SEVEN ATTRIBUTES OF AN EFFECTIVE GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL SYSTEM

1. SIMPLICITY

It must be a procedurally simple mechanism which is easy to use by every employee across the board.

It is best to have a simple form or an online drop down menu where an employee can effortlessly submit a grievance or complaint as he wishes to offline or online or even by SMS callback.

As one of my bosses used to say about grievance management:

“Don’t ask people to pour their hearts out and write long-winded sob-stories and essays – just give them a simple form to fill.”

Yes, a well-designed form can encapsulate the problem more objectively and avoid communications mismatches.

2. ACCESSIBILITY

All employees must have easy access to the grievance redressal mechanism – and – it should be quick and simple procedure to lodge a grievance.

In earlier days – before the IT Boom and prior to the advent of Internet – there used to be cards or forms which could be filled up and put in easily accessible drop boxes which were located all over the workplace, canteens and shop-floors.

Nowadays – in the digital age – it can be an online system which must be easily accessible 24/7 to all employees from their workplace and their homes as well. 

If employees have a grievance – they must know where and how to submit it – and the procedure must be fast and easy. 

With the increasing proliferation of the Social Media – it may be a good idea to make effective use of Social Media in Grievance Management.

3. EFFECTIVENESS

The grievance redressal mechanism must be effective.

The system must work (and it must be seen to work).

There must be proper monitoring, follow-up and feedback to the employees and all concerned about the status and processing of the complaint.

The grievance redressal procedure must ensure that it is made unambiguously and clearly evident to all employees that there is an honest and transparent effort to resolve all grievances in a fair and just manner.

4. EFFICIENCY and PROMPTNESS

The redressal of grievances and resolution of complaints must be done promptly and speedily in an efficient manner within stipulated time frames – so that employees develop faith in the system.

Remember – justice delayed is justice denied.

5. RESPONSIVENESS

The grievance redressal mechanism must be user-friendly and sensitive to the special needs of the employees.

It must be gender sensitized, culturally consonant and in harmony with the prevailing environment.

Most importantly – it must be modern and technologically savvy – and in sync with contemporary times.

Whatever the nature of the grievance or complaint – it must not be trivialized.

Grievances must be treated with utmost empathy and this fact must be evident to all the employees.

There must constant two-way communication between the senior management and the complainant. 

Sometimes a proactive approach is highly appreciated by employees as it nips grievances in the bud.

An impression must be made on employees that all grievances are taken seriously, treated sympathetically and handled with genuine earnestness with the objective of resolving them amicably, speedily and to the entire satisfaction of all concerned.

6. NON-VINDICTIVE

An employee must be able to submit a complaint or grievance for redressal without fear of retribution from higher management.

The employee must have no fear of reprisal from those who he is complaining against even if they are his seniors.

Checks and balances must be put in place in order to ensure that there is absolutely no victimization or harassment of the employee who is submitting a grievance or making a complaint and whistle-blowers must be protected.

The system must be absolutely non-punitive and there must not be the slightest perception or even a shred of doubt in the mind of the employees that they will be “punished” for making a complaint.

7. FAIR JUST and TRANSPARENT SYSTEM

The grievance redressal mechanism must function without fear or favour.

There must be total transparency in the procedure and justice must be done and justice must also seen to be done in a free and fair manner. 

A good Human Resource Management System is Just Fair and Transparent. 

SUMMARY 

To sum up – the 7 Key Attributes of a Good Grievance Management System are:

1. SIMPLICITY 

2. ACCESSIBILITY 

3. EFFECTIVENESS 

4. EFFICIENCY and PROMPTNESS 

5. RESPONSIVENESS

6. NON-VINDICTIVE 

7. FAIR JUST and TRANSPARENT SYSTEM  

Does the present Military Grievance Management System have these seven attributes...?

On paper – and in theory – the grievance redressal mechanisms may satisfy many of these attributes.

The problem may lie in actual implementation on the ground.

It may be worthwhile to see how many of these attributes the military grievance management system satisfies in actual practice.

With the advent and proliferation of Information Technology – the grievance redressal system can certainly be made more prompt by using modern electronic communication means to reduce the time limits for dealing with complaints. 

This will enable speedy online processing of complaints and early communication of decisions to the aggrieved individuals.

It is important to ensure timely redressal of grievances and one must remember the dictum – justice delayed is justice denied

By online grievance processing – the present time periods of many months can be reduced to a few days.

If redressal of grievances and resolution of complaints is done promptly and speedily in an efficient, fair and transparent manner – officers and soldiers/sailors/airmen will develop faith in the grievance redressal system.

In a regimented organisation like the military – it is very important for the grievance redressal system to be non-vindictive.

An officer or soldier must be able to submit a complaint without fear of retribution from senior officers.

He must have no fear of reprisal from those who he is complaining against even if they are his seniors.

Checks and balances must be put in place in order to ensure that there is absolutely no victimization or harassment of the individual who is submitting a grievance or making a complaint and whistle-blowers must be protected.

In theory and on paper – these exist – but they must be ensured in practice too.

The system must be absolutely non-punitive – and there must not be the slightest perception or even a shred of doubt in the mind of the persons submitting a grievance for redressal – that they will be “punished” for making a complaint.

The grievance redressal mechanism must function without fear or favour.

There must be total transparency in the procedure – and justice must be done – and – more importantly – justice must be seen to be done – in a free and fair manner. 

The hallmark of a good grievance redressal system is that it is absolutely Fair, Just and Transparent 

It is essential that the Grievance Management System is seen by all stakeholders to be absolutely Fair, Just and Transparent.

It is always best way to prevent grievances as far as possible by good HR Management Practices.

Let us now delve and analyse: 

In which areas do Defence Personnel have maximum grievances...?

If one goes by media reports – it seems that the maximum number of grievances pertain to promotion (for serving personnel) – and pay/pension (OROP/Disability Pension etc) for retired military veterans.

If the promotion system is made fair, just and transparent – most of these grievances will disappear.

Is there any need to have so much intrigue and secrecy by making performance appraisal so opaque and selection process so nebulous.

Of course – there may be a need for confidentiality of performance appraisal reports (Annual Confidential Reports aka ACRs) – till the selection board meets.

But once the selection is over – will it not be better to have total transparency – and declare the entire promotion board result publicly – by giving all ACR points, cut-offs etc of the entire batch.

This transparent approach will not only demonstrate fairness and instill confidence in the promotion system – but it will also make it difficult to indulge in favoritism.

Another area where there are grievances, especially among ex-servicemen, pertain to service conditions, pay and pension.

Many of these issues can be mitigated in-house too in order to reduce avoidable litigation. 

Yes – mitigation within the service can resolve many issues and reduce litigation in tribunals and courts.

CONCLUSION

The “powers-that-be need” to introspect whether the present system meets seven attributes of a good grievance management system listed below and whether there is any scope for improvement.

Is there a need to amend the antiquated Army Act (1950), Navy Act (1957) and Air Force Act (1950) to incorporate new grievance redressal mechanisms...?

If the internal grievance redressal management system is effective – most problems will be resolved in-house – and there will be no need for officers and soldiers/sailors/airmen to go to external agencies like bureaucracy, tribunals and courts to seek justice for redressal of their grievances.

The objective of the Defence Services must be to have “grievance-free” Army, Navy, Air Force and Military Veterans.

This will ensure happy servicemen and ex-servicemen with high morale.

Defence Services must follow the Grievance Redressal Motto:
“MITIGATION” PREVENTS “LITIGATION”

VIKRAM KARVE

Copyright © Vikram Karve 
1. If you share this post, please give due credit to the author Vikram Karve
2. Please DO NOT PLAGIARIZE. Please DO NOT Cut/Copy/Paste this post
© vikram karve., all rights reserved. 

Disclaimer:

All Stories in this Blog are a work of fiction. Events, Places, Settings and Incidents narrated in the stories are a figment of my imagination. The characters do not exist and are purely imaginary. Any resemblance to persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.

Copyright Notice:

No part of this Blog may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical including photocopying or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the Blog Author Vikram Karve who holds the copyright.

Copyright © Vikram Karve (all rights reserved)

This is a revised repost of my article on Grievance Redressal System posted online earlier at urls: http://karvediat.blogspot.in/2012/09/grievance-redressal-mechanism-7.html  and  http://karvediat.blogspot.in/2013/07/effective-grievance-redressal-for-good.html  and  https://www.quora.com/profile/Vikram-Karve/Writing-by-VIKRAM-KARVE/Grievance-Redressal and http://karvediat.blogspot.in/2013/07/grievance-redressal-in-army-navy-air.html and http://karvediat.blogspot.in/2013/07/effective-grievance-redressal-for-good.html  and http://karvediat.blogspot.in/2017/01/attributes-of-good-grievance-management.html etc

MORAL versus LEGAL - ETHICS versus EVIDENCE

MORAL versus LEGAL  -  ETHICS versus EVIDENCE

EVIDENCE BASED ETHICS

Musings on Modern “New Age” Ethics

By

VIKRAM KARVE

For the last few years, seeing the news on TV and in newspapers, I have discovered a new type of ethics – “evidence based ethics”.

This is what happens.

People commit a misdemeanor – it may be corruption or some other crime.

When questioned the standard answer is:

“There is no evidence against me.”

No one speaks the truth.

No one tells the actual facts.

No one answers the moot question:

“Did you commit the misdemeanor or not?”

They just answer:

“There is no evidence against me.”

This is the modern “new age” ethics – EVIDENCE BASED ETHICS

The old “moral ethics” is no longer relevant.

Yes, in today’s world, “evidence based ethics” prevails over moral “value based ethics”.

Things like “morals”, “values”, “principles” etc do not matter.

What matters is “evidence”.

You commit a crime, you take a bribe, you indulge in corruption, you perpetuate a scam, you take part in a scandal, you steal, you cheat …

And when someone asks you: “Did you do it?”

You do not speak the truth.

You do not answer directly whether you did it or not.

You never own up your mistake.

You never admit your wrongdoing.

You just say: “There is no evidence against me!”

This “new age” ethics is going to affect the value system of future generations very badly.

Remember that you are a role model to your children.

So beware before you admonish, scold or counsel your children when you think they have done something wrong. 

Your children may answer back: “There is no evidence against me!”

VIKRAM KARVE
Copyright © Vikram Karve 20 July 2013
Vikram Karve has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 to be identified as the author of this work. 

© vikram karve., all rights reserved. 

Disclaimer:

All stories in this blog are a work of fiction. The characters do not exist and are purely imaginary. Any resemblance to persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.

NB

No part of this Blog may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical including photocopying or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the Blog Author Vikram Karve who holds the copyright.

Copyright © Vikram Karve 20 July 2013. All Rights Reserved