OK, so what's wrong with this idea: all pay stops when the accused is indicted. If he is later found innocent, he gets all back pay plus interest.
“OK, so what’s wrong with this idea: all pay stops when the accused is indicted. If he is later found innocent, he gets all back pay plus interest.”
The problem is that constitutionally, it presumes guilt before an adjudication. Don’t get me wrong: in cases like this where there are dozens of witnesses to the offenses, the human side of me says, “just string him up”; however, as we hear ad nauseum: “We are a nation of laws, not of men.” Doing the right thing in the right way at the right time for the right reason is the foundation and responsibility of such a nation.
As you were.
Colonel, USAFR
Since he has NO need for the money, I wonder if he donating it all to a mosque somewheres..
Military man with family is accused of a heinous crime he is innocent of, docked of all pay and benefits - his family starves, his house is foreclosed on, his car is repossessed, and such will continue until he ‘speeds up the process’ and admits to whatever they want him to admit to.
Do you see a problem with that?
Why don't we just get rid off all these lengthy, boring trials and go with, “hey, if the prosecution say someone’s guilty, that's good enough for us and we just punish every defendant on government sayso. The government wouldn't indict these people for crimes unless they were guilty, would they?”