Why would the military have any sort of heightened interest (i.e. an interest greater than the states or the national federal government) in punishing child molesters?
The paper does bring up an interesting point. It makes sense to distinguish the military and civilian systems of justice if, in this instance, there are other distinguishing factors; if the military's definition of rape is different in an important fashion from the civilian legal code, that could justify different punishments...
Anyone have the relevant expertise?
The military has a heightened interest in punishing all sorts of crime.
I was once at a debate where a speaker critical of a book kept noting errors contained in the foot notes. The author finally said, "If all you can do is point out some typos, I'll remain pretty confident in the conclusions contained in my book."
[In reference to my statement that child molestation doesn't seem any more offensive to unit cohesion than to society as a whole:] Statements like those are what I hate about con law. No basis in evidence. No surveys of soldiers. Just an empty statement based solely on the inner life of the speaker. Unfortunately, it's exactly the type of statement that passes as "analysis" in Supreme Court opinions.
If Mr. Yung's premise is correct, could the USMJ be amended so that it authorizes the imposition of forms of punishment against servicemembers found guilty of capital crimes that are universally recognized to be prohibited by the Eighth Amendment? Drawing and quartering? Disembowelling alive? Beheading? Public dissecting? Burning alive?
[e]nlistment is a contract; but it is one of those contracts which changes the status; and, where that is changed, no breach of the contract destroys the new status or relieves from the obligations which its existence imposes. By enlistment the citizen becomes a soldier. His relations to the State and the public are changed. He acquires a new status, with correlative rights and duties; and although he may violate his contract obligations, his status as a soldier is unchanged.
common-law contract rules do not apply to military pay and benefits. Military benefits are determined by statute and regulations, not from a contractual relationship with the government.
The military is also allowed to try soldiers in ways that would NEVER be allowed in the civilian context.
The UCMJ's policy objectives are so different from those of normal crimimal law