Ethics and Military Justice in A Few Good Men (1992)

Introduction: Military Justice and Ethical Standards

The film A Few Good Men (Rob Reiner, 1992) is set in the world of military justice, which is not as familiar to most people as the civilian court system. The ethical issues are generally the same, though the emphasis in a military court falls more heavily on adherence to military culture and especially on the greater expectation of conformity and loyalty. Still, the ethical concerns for lawyers and judges should be much the same as in a civilian courtroom, encompassing fairness, the rules of evidence, and adherence to justice over expediency.

The Crime and Its Origins

The crime in the film occurs outside the United States when Private Willie Santiago, a marine stationed at Guantanamo, Cuba, offers to inform on a fellow marine who had fired a shot over the dividing line into Cuba proper. That marine, Corporal Dawson, and another, Private Downey, force a rag down Santiago's throat and accidentally choke him to death. Both men are then charged with murder. Both Santiago and the two marines could be considered to have acted unethically: Santiago has no sense of civic duty and only wants to secure a transfer, while the other two respond with an action that is a clear threat to Santiago's life and well-being.

As the story unfolds, it becomes clear that the marines recognized this possibility before it happened, and that Colonel Jessup, the base commander, claims to have ordered protection for Santiago and to have arranged his immediate transfer to the United States. Jessup produces the transfer order, though Santiago was killed the night before it could be put into effect. In truth, however, this crime was not committed by angry marines acting on their own initiative. It was instead carried out at the instigation of Jessup and his subordinates. He ordered them to run what is called a "Code Red" on Santiago — a form of hazing intended to make him recant. The two marines carry out the assignment, which then goes fatally wrong. They are thus being tried not only for committing the act but for supposedly devising it themselves, which they did not.

Prosecutorial Duty and the Bias of Military Courts

As noted by Thomson (2005) in reference to legal requirements, the prosecutor is obligated to seek justice and not merely a conviction. The defense attorney's primary duty is to the client, and the attorney is expected to exercise the full extent of his or her power in that role. In this film, the general picture of military justice is one in which the system protects the leadership from any accusation of wrongdoing in the absence of absolute proof, while lower-ranking personnel may face consequences based on far less. Jessup is a high-ranking officer, and anyone making an accusation against him faces an extraordinarily difficult evidentiary burden.

The military system differs from the civilian system in the special burdens it places on the defense attorney. A civilian defense attorney who accuses a third party of instigating a crime must prove it to prevail, but faces no professional penalty merely for raising the issue. In a military court martial, however, the defense attorney is also a commissioned officer and may face punishment for raising an accusation that is ultimately not proven. His or her career can be damaged beyond repair by such an action. The law does not clearly mandate this outcome, and the system is formally designed to be free from that kind of pressure. In practice, though, the attorney understands that retaliation is possible against both counsel and client. This dynamic is addressed directly in the film: if Jessup is not shown to be lying and responsible for what happened, the lawyers defending the two soldiers stand to be professionally ruined along with their clients.

Essentially, the ethical responsibilities for both sides in the court are supposed to mirror those in a civilian court, but in practice the lawyers understand that they are expected to protect not only the client but the military institution itself. Accusing Jessup amounts to accusing the entire military establishment of wrongdoing, which is only accepted if conclusively proven. From the prosecution's perspective, presenting evidence that someone else caused the crime is easily characterized as a smokescreen. In a civilian court, such evidence is weighed by a jury when admitted by the judge; in a military court martial, the judges serve as the jury. This arrangement should impose a greater responsibility on them to remain objective, but in practice that is not likely to be the case. As the ABA Code indicates, "Judges should not let their personal prejudices influence their decisions" (Thomson, 2005, p. 277). What the film makes clear, however, is that the military judges are generally inclined to believe an officer like Jessup simply because he is one of them, and therefore treat his veracity as beyond question. Other witnesses may be evaluated on what they say, how they say it, and how their testimony squares with the other evidence; an officer like Jessup is simply assumed to be telling the truth because he shares the code the judges themselves follow.