Does the military law provide the same amount of fair trial as a civilian court would provide.?

In many respects, a military court is actually more fair than a civilian court.

For one, in a military court, a penalty is not applied until the defendant is found guilty. While the trial is ongoing, they maintain their rank and pay. In contrast, it is explicitly legal to fire civilian government employees who are accused of a severe criminal offense, and the government has no obligation to rehire them if they are found not guilty.

The jury in a military court consists of high-ranking officers, rather than an entirely random selection of service members. This means the jury has some degree of expertise in the military and military law, while also being a jury of the defendant's peers--a civilian jury is likely to be entirely inexperienced the law.

A military defendant is entitled to a military lawyer even if he can afford to pay for his own counsel. Military lawyers are better paid than civilian public defenders, and hence perform better and are more readily available. Even so, a military defendant has the right to hire a civilian attorney if he so chooses.

Although special rules and laws apply to members of the military, meaning they do not have as much freedom as civilians, our troops can expect a high level of jurisprudence in military courts.

In the United States and most western military forces, military law is much fairer to the accused than in their associated civilian legal systems.

US military law provides far more fairness than in civilian law, however, the penalties are more severe on the average.

Some say yes, some say no. It depends on how you measure fairness.

If you're really trying to write a research paper based on a Y!A answer to as complex a question as you asked, you deserve to fail.

Officers who are selected to sit on a Court Martial panel have had training in the military Court Martial proceedings and since they are, in general, better educated and more familiar with current events than the average civilian juror they are better equipped to more objectively evaluate the evidence presented.

Ask any civilian lawyer and he/she will tell you they want the stupidest, least educated people on a jury so they can be swayed by emotion rather than logic or hard evidence.

Given a choice I would rather stand a Court Martial than a civilian court any day.

After serving with the United States Air Force in Korea, Robert W. Toth was honorably discharged. He returned to his home in Pittsburgh and went to work in a steel plant. Five months later, he was arrested by military authorities on charges of murder and conspiracy to commit murder while an airman in Korea. At the time of arrest, he had no relationship of any kind with the military. He was taken to Korea to stand trial before a court-martial under authority of a 1950 Act of Congress. The Court of Appeals sustained the Act, rejecting the contention that civilian ex-servicemen like Toth could not constitutionally be subjected to trial by court-martial. 94 U.S.App.D.C. 28, 215 F.2d 22. We granted certification to pass upon this important constitutional question. so i would say no.