Conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline

Last updated

Conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline is an offence against military law and paramilitary in many countries. It has existed in military law since before the 17th century and is an important offence which functions as a catch-all to criminalise offences against military order which are not specified elsewhere.

Contents

Background

The offence of "conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline" has been described as one of the offences that forms the "hardcore of military law". [1] The offence is present in the military law of many countries and is often considered a catch-all offence to criminalise misconduct that is not specified elsewhere. [2] [3]

This kind of offence was first introduced to English military law in the 17th century, the law having previously been "minute in its details" with no catch-all article. [4] However such articles were found in continental military law such as the Swedish Articles of Gustavus Adolphus issued in 1621 which allowed for "whatsoever is not contained in these articles, and is repugnant to military discipline ... shall the several commanders make good, or see severally punished". [4] A form of this catch-all article was introduced to England in the Articles of War for 1625 which stated that "all other disorders whatsoever are to be punished, as these formerly nominated". [5] This had been expanded on in the 1627 articles stated that "all other abuses and offences not specified in these orders shall be punished according to the discipline of war and opinions of such officers and others shall be called to make a Councell of Warr". [5]

The article took on something of its modern form in 1642 when the Earl of Essex's Articles of War stated that "all other faults, disorders and offences, not mentioned in these articles, shall be punished according to the general customs and laws of war". [5] [6] The "conduct to the prejudice" concept was introduced at some point after 1700. [4] By the late 18th century the offence had become article 23 of the British military law and allowed for the punishment of "all disorders or neglects ... to the prejudice of good order and military discipline". [6] This part of British military law was adopted by the Continental Congress for use in the military of the United States in 1775. [6] By 1835 the article was commonly known as the "Devil's article" within the British Army. [7]

Canada

The charge is covered by section 129 of the National Defence Act of 1922. The act allows for two separate offences: conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline or an act prejudicial to good order and discipline. [8]

Gambia

In Gambia the charge is covered by section 78 of the Gambia Armed Forces Act 1985. [9]

United Kingdom

In the British Armed Forces the offence is covered by section 19 of the Armed Forces Act 2006, which applies to all branches. The offence is categorised as an offence of "neglect of duty and misconduct" and the covers "an act that is prejudicial to good order and service discipline" or causing the same through omission. A person may be tried for the offence at a court martial or through a summary hearing in front of their Commanding Officer. Unlike some offences in the Armed Forces Act it is not applicable to civilians subject to service discipline. [10]

A person found guilty of the offence may be punished by one or more of:

United States

In the US Armed Forces the offence is covered by article 134 (the "general article") of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). This section states that "all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces" shall be tried by court martial and punished at the discretion of that court. The general article also covers offences which bring discredit upon the armed forces and "crimes and offenses not capital". [11]

The UCMJ requires that all acts be directly prejudicial to good order and discipline. Examples of misconduct prosecuted under the act includes a chief petty officer "cross-dressing in public view", a sergeant who mooned another servicemember's wife, and a seaman making unauthorized long-distance calls. Examples of conduct listed in the Manual for Courts-Martial include adultery, bribery, fraternization, gambling, straggling, and indecent language. [6]

See also

Related Research Articles

A court-martial or court martial is a military court or a trial conducted in such a court. A court-martial is empowered to determine the guilt of members of the armed forces subject to military law, and, if the defendant is found guilty, to decide upon punishment. In addition, courts-martial may be used to try prisoners of war for war crimes. The Geneva Conventions require that POWs who are on trial for war crimes be subject to the same procedures as would be the holding military's own forces. Finally, courts-martial can be convened for other purposes, such as dealing with violations of martial law, and can involve civilian defendants.

Mutiny Revolt by a group of people against the leaders to which they were previously loyal

Mutiny is a revolt among a group of people to oppose, change, or overthrow an organization to which they were previously loyal. The term is commonly used for a rebellion among members of the military against an internal force, but it can also sometimes mean any type of rebellion against any force. Mutiny does not necessarily need to refer to a military force and can describe a political, economic, or power structure in which there is a change of power.

Military justice is the legal system that governs the conduct of the active-duty personnel of the armed forces of a country. In some nation-states, civil law and military law are distinct bodies of law, which respectively govern the conduct of civil society and the conduct of the armed forces; each body of law has specific judicial procedures to enforce the law. Among the legal questions unique to a system of military justice are the practical preservation of good order and discipline, command responsibility, the legality of orders, war-time observation of the code of conduct, and matters of legal precedence concerning civil or military jurisdiction over the civil offenses and the criminal offenses committed by active-duty military personnel.

Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) also known as the General Article of the UCMJ is an article of military law in the United States that provides for penalties by court-martial various offences that prejudice good order and discipline or bring discredit upon the armed forces, such as for "disloyal" statements made "with the intent to promote disloyalty or disaffection toward the United States by any member of the armed forces or to interfere with or impair the loyalty to the United States or good order and discipline of any member of the armed forces."

The Uniform Code of Military Justice is the foundation of military law in the United States. It was established by the United States Congress in accordance with the authority given by the United States Constitution in Article I, Section 8, which provides that "The Congress shall have Power....To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval forces".

United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces Federal tribunal for appeal of lower military courts

The United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces is an Article I court that exercises worldwide appellate jurisdiction over members of the United States Armed Forces on active duty and other persons subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The court is composed of five civilian judges appointed for 15-year terms by the President of the United States with the advice and consent of the United States Senate. The court reviews decisions from the intermediate appellate courts of the services: the Army Court of Criminal Appeals, the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, the Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals, and the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals.

Summary execution Execution immediately after being accused of a crime, without trial

A summary execution is an execution in which a person is accused of a crime and immediately killed without the benefit of a full and fair trial. Executions as the result of summary justice are sometimes included, but the term generally refers to capture, accusation, and execution all conducted within a very short period of time, and without any trial. Under international law, refusal to accept lawful surrender in combat and instead killing the person surrendering is also categorized as a summary execution.

An Article 32 hearing is a proceeding under the United States Uniform Code of Military Justice, similar to that of a preliminary hearing in civilian law. Its name is derived from UCMJ section VII Article 32, which mandates the hearing.

Courts-martial of the United States are trials conducted by the U.S. military or by state militaries. Most commonly, courts-martial are convened to try members of the U.S. military for criminal violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), which is the U.S. military's criminal code. However, they can also be convened for other purposes, including military tribunals and the enforcement of martial law in an occupied territory. Federal courts-martial are governed by the rules of procedure and evidence laid out in the Manual for Courts-Martial, which contains the Rules for Courts-Martial, Military Rules of Evidence, and other guidance. State courts-martial are governed according to the laws of the state concerned. The American Bar Association has issued a Model State Code of Military Justice, which has influenced the relevant laws and procedures in some states.

Conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman is an offense that is subject to court martial in the armed forces of some nations.

The Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals (NMCCA) is the intermediate appellate court for criminal convictions in the United States Navy and the Marine Corps.

United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals United States Article I court

In the United States military, the Army Court of Criminal Appeals (ACCA) is an appellate court that reviews certain court martial convictions of Army personnel.

Armed Forces Act 2006 United Kingdom legislation

The Armed Forces Act 2006 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom.

The Articles of War are a set of regulations drawn up to govern the conduct of a country's military and naval forces. The first known usage of the phrase is in Robert Monro's 1637 work His expedition with the worthy Scot's regiment called Mac-keyes regiment etc. and can be used to refer to military law in general. In Swedish, the equivalent term Krigsartiklar, is first mentioned in 1556. However, the term is usually used more specifically and with the modern spelling and capitalisation to refer to the British regulations drawn up in the wake of the Glorious Revolution and the United States regulations later based on them.

A general article, in military law is a legal provision that authorizes punishment of military personnel on grounds that are less specific as to the particulars of the offense and as to the punishment, compared to most crimes in modern West European law. The offenses are likely to reflect the effect on the military and its mission than the form the offender's behavior takes, or to be stated in terms of established customs of warfare.

Military courts of the United Kingdom

The military courts of the United Kingdom are governed by the Armed Forces Act 2006. The system set up under the Act applies to all three armed services: the Royal Navy (RN), the British Army, and the Royal Air Force (RAF), and replaces the three parallel systems that were previously in existence.

The main Offences against military law in the United Kingdom are set out in the Armed Forces Act 2006.

The Judge Advocate General's Corps, also known as JAG or JAG Corps, is the military justice branch or specialty of the U.S. Air Force, Army, Coast Guard, Marine Corps and Navy. Officers serving in the JAG Corps are typically called judge advocates.

Unlawful command influence (UCI) is a legal concept within American military law. UCI occurs when a person bearing "the mantle of command authority" uses or appears to use that authority to influence the outcome of military judicial proceedings. Military commanders typically exert significant control over their units, but under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) a commander must take a detached, quasi-judicial stance towards certain disciplinary proceedings such as a court-martial. Outside of certain formal actions authorized by the UCMJ, a commander using their authority to influence the outcome of a court-martial commits UCI. If UCI has occurred, the results of a court-martial may be legally challenged and in some cases overturned.

Section 839(a) of title 10 United States Code § 925 - Article 125. is a punitive article of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

References

  1. ↑ Nichols p. 111
  2. ↑ Davidson p. 79
  3. ↑ Nichols p. 130
  4. 1 2 3 Nichols p. 114
  5. 1 2 3 Nichols p. 113
  6. 1 2 3 4 Davidson p. 80
  7. ↑ Nichols p. 112
  8. ↑ "Report of the Somalia Commission of Inquiry - Notes". Department of National Defence. 2 July 1997. Archived from the original on 21 January 2010. Retrieved 10 February 2010.
  9. ↑ Touray, Suwaibou (2012-07-08). "Gambia's contingent to ECOMOG demonstrated for lack of payment of allowances on their return, creating chaos and panic". Foroyaa. Archived from the original on 21 July 2011. Retrieved 14 February 2010.
  10. 1 2 "Text of the Armed Forces Act 2006". British Government. 2006. Retrieved 16 February 2010.
  11. ↑ "Uniform Code of Military Justice: Subchapter IX". US Government. Retrieved 16 February 2010.

Bibliography

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.