Military judges who declare martial or police authority will have to make sure they’re following the latest scientific definitions of science and medicine, according to a new study from the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.
The study, published Tuesday in the journal Scientific Reports, also includes a summary of the findings and recommendations from the researchers, which include the definition of martial law and the military’s authority to use deadly force.
If military judges declare martial authority, they must submit to an assessment of whether the declaration is “reasonable,” and if so, whether they are “objectively reasonable.”
The military has declared martial law for Maryland since Sept. 15, when President Donald Trump ordered a federal emergency to address the growing threat of the spread of the coronavirus.
The state was under martial law at the time, but was restored in the fall of 2018.
Trump has since repeatedly threatened to declare martial, saying he would declare martial again if it is needed.
He declared martial in early 2018 after the deadly standoff between police and protesters in Seattle, Washington, over the police killing of a mentally ill man.
In his report, the researchers found that the military and police have different definitions of what constitutes “reasonable” and “objective” when it comes to the use of force in the U.S.
A military judge in a criminal trial in Maryland.
The military judge has to make a “compelling and cogent” case to determine whether the use is “necessary and proportionate,” said the report.
“The military judges will also need to explain why they have determined the use to be ‘objectively unreasonable.'”
The military uses military experts to assess its authority and to decide whether to declare a martial law, the report found.
But the military does not have the same authority as a judge.
“Military judges have greater discretion and greater access to the military chain of command,” said study author Dr. Christopher Schmidhuber, a professor in the department of biomedical and medical engineering at the Johns School of Engineering.
The military definition of “objectivity” is a subjective term, but the military is not bound by it, he said.
Schmidhubert said that the definitions of the military definitions are “not necessarily the same” for judges, but “they may overlap.”
Military courts are not the only ones to consider scientific standards.
“Military judges in the past have considered science, as well as the effects of the outbreak, in determining whether to invoke the state of emergency,” the report said.
The government’s definitions of scientific standards are “important in determining the extent of a military judge’s authority,” Schmidhober said.
Military judges are also supposed to consider other factors, such as the effectiveness of the federal response to the crisis, the seriousness of the situation, and the extent to which the military has been able to assist the government in solving the problem.
“It is important that the judge considers the full range of factors in assessing the military judge authority, as these factors are likely to influence the military judges decision on whether to use lethal force,” the study said.
It’s not the first time the military-police relationship has been criticized for being unclear.
The federal government has a history of giving military judges more power than judges in civil court.
The Justice Department in the 1960s ruled that the Justice Department’s role in military courts was limited.
It is unclear what impact that ruling had on the military.
The report does not address the role of the Justice Dept. in civilian courts, where the courts are independent and the decisions are binding.
The Justice Department did not respond to a request for comment.