These guys exploit every technicality and loophole in the UCMJ to its full extent.

If you put a guy on restriction but have people checking on him or watching him, the goddamn Army lawyers say it’s “conditions tantamount to confinement” and that time gets counted against his sentence.

JAG Corps…a satire upon Soldiership and Honor.

Now for serious crimes soldiers will be put in pretrial confinement. If the first incident never happened and just solely the second incident happened those soldiers would be put in pretrial due to the seriousness of the crime and the evidence involved much less the fact that he broke his prior restriction.

Serious offenders would be locked in a cell, I do believe. There was a case in the 1990s where a soldier held for murder escaped briefly, but I don’t think he broke out of his holding cell but another area.

Here, the way the story is written, it seems to me, invites confusion. For the first incident, I wouldn’t expect he would be locked in a cell on base, but would be fairly free to roam about.

In the 2nd case, I would expect him to be locked up securly, but again, even there, if this were in the US, it wouldn’t be a shocker if he posted bail and were thus pretty much free to roam about — with something like not being able to leave the city or the jurisdiction.

But, what GI Korea pointed out would also come into play. If this were a 2nd offense, and part of that 2nd one was breaking the terms of his limitation of movement, it might not be suprising if bail were denied or raised to the point he couldn’t post it or have some other tougher restriction put on like one of those electronic devices that lets the police know if the person has gone beyond the area they are limited to and helps track them down if they do.

Is it possible that the Korean authorities chose not to hold him for pretrial confinement because they were under the impression his confinement to base would be enforced? (Asking, not saying.)

I’m curious: Is base confinement common, easy, taken seriously?

He broke the restriction and went and caused the second incident. Once again the police gave the soldier to the MP’s to secure which is not uncommon. He is now kept in pre-trial confinement at Camp Humphreys because he has shown due to breaking his prior restriction that he is a flight risk. He will eventually be handed over from Camp Humphreys to the ROK prison Choenan where he will rot for 18 months.

The Korean authorities could have held him for pretrial confinement if they wanted to but they chose not to.

Of course this dickhead soldier deserves to spend more time in prison. Unfortunately, despite the many decent soldiers there’s bound to be a few losers like this guy. He should definitely be put away for awhile, but I think the same should go for anyone committing a violent crime, whether in Korea or the States. The laws back home (canada) are definitely too slack for violent crime.

The soldier was in trouble already before the Christmas robbery, because in March he was in a club and tried to hide a replica gun so he could take it later, and he got in a fight with Koreans who saw him doing it.

For the bar incident, he was on restriction, but he and others robbed and beat a taxi driver at Christmas, for which he is locked up pending being handed over to the Koreans for prison.

If the story were not written somewhat poorly, it would be easier to think about.

It is my understanding the Koreans can demand custody for cases like this, definately the taxi robbery, as soon as an indictment is handed down. It used to be years ago they had to wait until all appeals were exhausted, but that changed in the late 1990s. I have no idea why the guy is convicted but still in USFK custody.

If the Koreans wanted him, they should have been able to get him before now.

The main point of the story, and why it is written jumbled like this, is supposed to be that the guy walking around and being able to do the 2nd crime is somewhat of an outrage.

But, how abnormal is it?

Do they not have bail in Korea?

A Korean who tried to steal a replica gun (toy?) and got in a fight with someone would never be let go pending trial? I doubt it.

What would we normally expect in the US?

Unless the soldier did a lot of bodily damage to the others in the fight, he would have gotten a low bail.

It would not have been unusual for the police to show up, and judging by the story, have the bar owner want to wash his hands of the whole thing and not get involved further (like having to go to court later) by just telling the police he didn’t want the bastard in the place ever again, and if the other party involved in the fight didn’t want to get involved further in the future, the police would more than likely let the soldier go with a warning. This happens a good bit when the police come to the scene of a situation like this.

But, even if the the bar owner or other party in the altercation wanted to press charges, for the event as it is described in the bar, it would be considered abnormal to have the criminal locked up behind bars 24 hours a day until trial —- unless he could not afford bail, and based on the description of this first even, bail would not have been high.

So, what do we have at the end of the day?

The most curious thing for me in the story is why the Koreans did not put the soldier in jail for the taxi case before trial. I thought that had become routine since they gained the right in the previous SOFA revision. I don’t know if the taxi event was of the type that allows Korea to get the suspect after indictment or not, but I think it is.

Beyond that, it is a case of someone committing a crime and getting punished along the lines of what I would expect of a Korean criminal or someone here in the US, execpt I think the soldier would be able to get bail even in the 2nd incident if he could afford it in the US.

I don’t know if Korea has a bail system or not or some other system to release people pending trial? It would be suprising if they didn’t.

Brendon, do they?