Reduction in rank

Last updated
Alfred Dreyfus, 1895 Degradation alfred dreyfus.jpg
Alfred Dreyfus, 1895

Reduction in rank may refer to three separate concepts:

Contents

History

Reduction in rank (Latin gradus deiectio meaning position degradation) was a Roman military punishment. [2]

United States

In the United States, courts-martial may adjudge reduction to any enlisted member to the lowest or any intermediate pay grade. [3] However, a summary court-martial may not sentence a person to reduction by more than one grade. [4]

Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) authorizes commanding officers to "in addition to or in lieu of admonition or reprimand" impose "reduction to the next inferior pay grade, if the grade from which demoted is within the promotion authority of the officer imposing the reduction or any officer subordinate to the one who imposes the reduction." Additionally, an officer of the grade of major, lieutenant commander, or above is authorized to impose "reduction to the lowest or any intermediate pay grade, if the grade from which demoted is within the promotion authority of the officer imposing the reduction or any officer subordinate to the one who imposes the reduction, but an enlisted member in a pay grade above E-4 may not be reduced more than two pay grades." [5]

Additionally, article 58a of the UCMJ provides that, unless otherwise provided in regulation, an enlisted member above the pay grade of E-1 sentenced by a court-martial to confinement, a dishonorable or bad-conduct discharge, or hard labor without confinement, shall be automatically reduced to the pay grade of E-1. [6]

In other countries

In other countries, there is such a punishment, which is sometimes much more severe than that in the US. It usually is assigned for serious crimes in peacetime and wartime.

Russian Empire and USSR

In the Russian Empire and in the USSR, most often it was a demotion in rank to private. In the Russian Empire to this punishment was added also other penalties such as beatings with whips, which were all the staff. Personnel lined up in formation, then each dealt one blow sentenced. Most often, this has led to the death of the convict from his injuries.

Lieutenant-General Marquis Philip Osipovich Paulucci, being quartermaster general of the Caucasus army, on 3 November 1810, wrote in his diary: "the Tiflis infantry regiment non-commissioned officer Ermolaev, the former in the recruit depot when you split the party on the shelves, took the recruit 5 rubles brazenly. For any impermissible and intolerable service act, reduced thereof in the ordinary non-commissioned officer, require him to drive the rods through 500 people one time, and taken money from him to take away and give to a recruit. Flogging this very same to do tomorrow in 8 hours. This case put the body on view at the end of the Lord to the heads of regiments are strictly watched so that the lower ranks no one had injustices..."

USSR

In the USSR, demotion in rank to private begin to see use as a punishment immediately after the creation of the Red Army. As a rule, it punished those who made unforgivable mistakes during combat, especially those who led to serious losses or tactical defeat. It also punished those who committed serious crimes while serving. In the second case, a demotion in rank was usually not the only punishment administered, and often accompanied an imprisonment or execution. During the second world war, those demoted in rank were not imprisoned away from the front lines but instead made to serve in the penal divisions.

After the Second World War, the punishment no longer meant execution or service in a penal unit, but did mean dismissal from service and forfeiture of all military awards. Most often it was imposed for serious crimes which entail criminal liability. In post-Soviet Russia, this version of punishment is still used.

Germany

During the Third Reich, the SS officer Helmut Knochen was demoted in rank because, during the coup attempt of 20 July 1944, he did not adequately resist the conspirators, and got himself arrested.

See also

Related Research Articles

In the United States Armed Forces, Non-judicial punishment (NJP) is a disciplinary measure that may be applied to individual military personnel, without a need for a court martial or similar proceedings.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Court-martial</span> Judicial action in military forces

A 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.

Military justice is the body of laws and procedures governing members of the armed forces. Many nation-states have separate and distinct bodies of law that govern the conduct of members of their armed forces. Some states use special judicial and other arrangements to enforce those laws, while others use civilian judicial systems. Legal issues unique to military justice include the preservation of good order and discipline, the legality of orders, and appropriate conduct for members of the military. Some states enable their military justice systems to deal with civil offenses committed by their armed forces in some circumstances.

Dereliction of duty is a specific offense under United States Code Title 10, Section 892, Article 92 and applies to all branches of the US military. A service member who is derelict has willfully refused to perform his duties or has incapacitated himself in such a way that he cannot perform his duties. Such incapacitation includes the person falling asleep while on duty requiring wakefulness, his getting drunk or otherwise intoxicated and consequently being unable to perform his duties, shooting himself and thus being unable to perform any duty, or his vacating his post contrary to regulations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Capital punishment by the United States federal government</span> Legal penalty in the United States

Capital punishment is a legal punishment under the criminal justice system of the United States federal government. It is the most serious punishment that could be imposed under federal law. The serious crimes that warrant this punishment include treason, espionage, murder, large-scale drug trafficking, or attempted murder of a witness, juror, or court officer in certain cases.

The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) is the foundation of the system of military justice of the armed forces of the United States. The UCMJ was established by the United States Congress in accordance with their constitutional authority, per Article I Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, which provides that "The Congress shall have Power. .. to make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval forces" of the United States.

A Petty officer third class is a non-commissioned officer in some navies and coast guards.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Military discharge</span> Release from military service

A military discharge is given when a member of the armed forces is released from their obligation to serve. Each country's military has different types of discharge. They are generally based on whether the persons completed their training and then fully and satisfactorily completed their term of service. Other types of discharge are based on factors such as the quality of their service, whether their service had to be ended prematurely due to humanitarian or medical reasons, whether they had been found to have drug or alcohol dependency issues and whether they were complying with treatment and counseling, and whether they had demerits or punishments for infractions or were convicted of any crimes. These factors affect whether they will be asked or allowed to re-enlist and whether they qualify for benefits after their discharge.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces</span> 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.

Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86 (1958), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to revoke citizenship as a punishment for a crime. The ruling's reference to "evolving standards of decency" is frequently cited in Eighth Amendment jurisprudence.

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Courts-martial of the United States</span> Trials conducted by the U.S. military

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 violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). 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 (RCM), 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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Capital punishment by the United States military</span> Use of the death penalty by the U.S. military

The use of capital punishment by the United States military is a legal punishment in martial criminal justice. Despite its legality, capital punishment has not been carried out by the U.S. military in over sixty years.

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals</span> 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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Military courts of the United Kingdom</span>

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.

Conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline is an offence against military law 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.

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

United States of America v. Technical Sergeant Eric P. Marcum, 60 M.J. 198 is a United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) decision which, among other issues, upheld Article 125 (Sodomy) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice against a facial substantive due process challenge, and ruled that the Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) applied in analyzing as-applied challenges. The decision is thus binding precedent on all courts-martial in determining if an Article 125 prosecution is constitutional.

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

References

  1. "degrade" . Oxford English Dictionary (Online ed.). Oxford University Press.(Subscription or participating institution membership required.)
  2. Clarence Eugene Brand (1968). Roman Military Law. University of Texas Press. pp. 172–. ISBN   978-0-292-75817-9.
  3. United States (2016). "Part II". Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2016 ed.). p. 131.
  4. United States (2016). "Part II". Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2016 ed.). pp. 191–192.
  5. United States (2016). "Appendix 2". Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2016 ed.). pp. 5–6.
  6. United States (2016). "Appendix 2". Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2016 ed.). p. 19.