Wisconsin Senate Bill SB166

Wisconsin 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/3/23
• Refer: 4/3/23
• Report Pass: 9/6/23
• Engrossed: 9/14/23
• Refer: 10/11/23
• Enrolled: 11/15/23
• Chaptered: 12/7/23
• Passed: 12/7/23

Caption

Punitive articles in the Wisconsin Code of Military Justice prohibiting certain activities; procedures applicable to courts-martial cases under the Wisconsin Code of Military Justice; treatment of victims of an offense under the Wisconsin Code of Military Justice; defining military offenses under the Wisconsin Code of Military Justice; punishments for violations of the Wisconsin Code of Military Justice; and the removal of gender-specific language from the Wisconsin Code of Military Justice.

Impact

The modifications brought by SB166 will have considerable implications for the enforcement of military justice in Wisconsin. By establishing clear protocols for how victims should be treated—emphasizing dignity, respect, and fairness—it addresses long-standing concerns regarding victim rights in military contexts. Moreover, the bill outlines specific punitive articles concerning retaliation against individuals who report offenses, which strengthens protections for whistleblowers and enhances accountability within the military.

Summary

Senate Bill 166 aims to amend the Wisconsin Code of Military Justice (WCMJ) by modernizing its provisions related to punitive articles, legal procedures, and victim treatment. Notably, the bill introduces changes that align more closely with the federal Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). One significant alteration involves the removal of gender-specific language throughout the WCMJ, fostering a more inclusive legal framework. Additionally, the bill codifies definitions and offenses relating to sexual harassment and assault, marking a robust response to the ongoing issues of misconduct within military ranks.

Contention

While the bill has garnered support for its comprehensive approach to modernizing military justice, it has also drawn attention to potential concerns regarding the balance of authority between military and civilian courts. The clarification that civilian authorities maintain primary jurisdiction over specific serious offenses, such as sexual assault and homicide, has sparked discussions regarding the appropriateness and efficacy of military adjudication in such cases. These dynamics highlight the challenges of addressing offenses that straddle both military and civilian jurisdictions while ensuring justice for all parties involved.