Bill Overview
Title: The Enrique Roman-Martinez Military Cold Case Justice Act of 2022
Description: This bill requires the Department of Defense (DOD) to develop and implement uniform standards applicable to its military criminal investigative organizations that establish processes and procedures for the handling of cold cases, specify the circumstances under which cases are referred to the Inspector General of DOD for review, and establish procedures for the transfer of cases to new investigators when necessary.
Sponsors: Rep. Torres, Norma J. [D-CA-35]
Target Audience
Population: People affected by military cold cases
Estimated Size: 500000
- The bill seeks to establish uniform standards for handling military cold cases, meaning it directly affects families and loved ones of military personnel with unresolved cases.
- Cold cases in the military can involve service members from any branch, so it potentially impacts Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and their families.
- The Department of Defense, its military criminal investigative organizations, and any personnel involved in cold case investigations will need to adhere to these new standards, affecting a broad workforce in the military legal and investigative branches.
- Given that the U.S. military has a global presence, there could be families and personnel stationed both within the U.S. and abroad affected by unresolved cases handled under this bill.
- Cold cases could date back several years, affecting families who have been seeking justice and closure for significant periods of time.
Reasoning
- The bill targets a specific population affected by unresolved military cases, primarily families of victims and those within the military's investigative branches.
- Given its limited budget, the policy can implement changes in procedure without impacting a large number of cases immediately.
- The impact of policy on Cantril wellbeing scores will particularly reflect the sense of closure and justice which could moderately increase over time.
- By focusing on uniform standards, the policy may improve trust and efficiency over time, particularly benefiting families waiting for results.
- Participants interviewed include family members of affected individuals, military investigators, and others potentially impacted by changes in procedure.
Simulated Interviews
Teacher (North Carolina)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am hopeful the policy will bring some closure to families like mine.
- Uniform standards can help ensure cases are not neglected.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Military Investigator (Texas)
Age: 33 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This will standardize our procedures, making our jobs a bit easier.
- I believe it can lead to resolving more cases, which is beneficial for everyone.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Retired Navy Officer (Virginia)
Age: 57 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've seen the pain families go through when cases are left unresolved.
- This act looks promising, but implementation will be key.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Military Spouse (California)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's reassuring to know there are efforts towards resolution.
- I still worry, but hope this brings some peace to families.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
DoD Policy Analyst (Washington)
Age: 41 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The bill is a step towards more reliable and efficient case handling.
- It provides a framework for improving case resolution rates.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Veteran Advocacy Group Leader (Florida)
Age: 51 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Any initiative that aids in solving these cases is welcomed.
- Effective implementation and funding will determine success.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Retired Military Legal Advisor (Illinois)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Reflects progress in military legal standards, albeit gradually.
- This effort can enhance the justice provided to families.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Active Duty Marine (Hawaii)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Accountability is crucial in the military context.
- I hope this act enhances trust in our systems.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Civilian Contractor with the Navy (Georgia)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- New standards simplify case handling and improve efficiency.
- Long-term adherence to these standards will be key.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Law Student (New York)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This act is a solid foundation for future legal practitioners.
- Consistency in handling cases is vital for trust in the justice system.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $10000000 (Low: $7000000, High: $15000000)
Year 2: $8000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $12000000)
Year 3: $6000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $10000000)
Year 5: $4000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 10: $2000000 (Low: $1000000, High: $5000000)
Year 100: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $3000000)
Key Considerations
- This policy requires a commitment of resources from the Department of Defense to redefine and implement standardized procedures for military cold case investigation.
- Training and administrative costs will be significant initially, tapering off as processes become standardized and more efficient over time.
- The transfer of cases to new investigators and audits by the Inspector General could necessitate additional layers of bureaucratic processing, potentially slowing initial implementation but benefiting long-term outcomes.