(University
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) is a legislation specific to the military. Provisions align with laws applicable to civilians. There are also provisions that are punishable under the UCMJ when committed within the military, but not subject to prosecution when committed by civilians. Preservation of good order and discipline within the military community is cited as the rationale for UCMJ provisions punishing certain actions that occur within the military. The discussion asserts that these provisions are indeed necessary to preserve good order and discipline among military members.
Good order and discipline are at the core of the nature and role of the military. As an executive arm of the state, the military is expected to exhibit high standards of obedience. Although those in the military enjoy constitutional rights and responsibilities, they do not have the same degree of freedom or autonomy in their behavior as civilians. (Cox, 2007) In the preamble of the Manual for Courts Martial, which was developed in conjunction with the UCMJ, maintaining good order and discipline in the military is integral to strengthening America’s national security (Baker, 2014). The military cannot adhere to its duty to ensure the national security of the United States without good order and discipline among its ranks. Good order and discipline mean that superior officers are able to effectively exercise authority in directing their subordinates during training and actual combat. These also mean that rank-and-file military personnel recognize the authority of their superior officers, work well with their team, and exhibit strong morale in performing their duties. (Puckett & Atwood, 2012) In penalizing certain behaviors by military personnel, which are not punishable when committed by civilians, the Manual for Courts Martial identified the five principles of punishment as rehabilitation, penance, protection of society, preservation of good and order, and deterrence (Baker, 2014).
Good order and discipline are important in training individuals to work as part of a team or unit, which are created for the purpose of completing whole or part of missions. With good order and discipline, superior training officers should be able to exercise authority, which is recognized and respected by trainees, to effectively prepare individuals to become part of a team and act in a manner that adheres to rules and standard operating procedures. On the field, success of missions hinges on the achievement of team training, team cohesion and unit building; transmission of commanding officers of the values of discipline; clear and sufficient understanding of the prevailing rules of conduct and standard operating procedures for different circumstances; and effective communication within teams through verbal and non-verbal cues. It is only fair to exercise disciplinary measures in order to ensure that these factors are achieved for every unit of the military. At the same time, disciplinary measures can also uncover latent or deep-seated psychological or mental issues that need to be addressed within the armed forces. (Puckett & Atwood, 2012).
Actions that are punishable when occurring in the military, but not when committed by civilians, comprise behaviors that diminish good order and discipline. These individual actions reflects on the team, the superior officer, and maybe even the military as well as adversely affect the effectiveness of the team, leadership of superior officers, and morale of the military community (Puckett & Atwood, 2012). Several examples are considered below.
Fraternization is one behavior that is punishable under Article 34 of the UCMJ, but does not apply to civilians. Traditionally, fraternization refers to a senior officer borrowing from or loaning money to an enlisted member of the military or a senior officer getting intoxicated with a subordinate in public. Now, fraternization has also come to mean engagement in sexual relations between superior and subordinate officers. Fraternization is a punishable offense within the military community because it erodes and puts into question a superior officer’s authority to command subordinates and compliance of subordinates with the duty to follow orders from their commanding officer, if the superior officer is indebted to or engage in sexual relations with the junior officer. A weak chain of command limits the effectiveness of the unit in performing missions. (Cox, 2007)
Adultery is also punishable under Articles 133 and134 of the UCMJ because this adversely affects good order and discipline and discredits the armed forces. Adultery has a divisive effect on a unit. Adultery can diminish the respect that unit members have towards another member or their superior officer. Loss of respect affects the manner that unit members work together in completing missions. Anger and vengeful intent, in cases of adultery involving parties within the same unit, could also endanger the lives not only of the parties involved in adultery but also the safety of other team members and civilians. (Cox, 2007)
Fornication is also punishable under the UCMJ when it involves indecency that is disruptive to military readiness. Ordinarily, commercial intercourse and sexual relations between consenting unmarried members of the military are not punishable when done in private. Flagrant sexual activities within the military community reflect poor order and discipline. These could also negatively affect the perception of unit members over the abilities of another member, when indecent sexual activities lead to demeaning sexual allusions. (Cox, 2007)
Punishing behaviors committed within the military community that are not unlawful when committed within the civilian sphere may appear unreasonable. It is not so, when considered within the context of good order and discipline that are integral to the nature and role of the armed forces to ensure national security. Behaviors punishable under the UCMJ are inimical to good order and discipline and have adverse consequences on military effectiveness.
References
Baker, J. R. (2014). Is military justice sentencing on the march? Should it be? And if so, where should it head? Court-martial sentencing process, practice, and issues. Federal Sentencing Reporter, December, 72-87. Retrieved from http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/1468/
Cox, W. T. III (2007). Consensual sex crimes in the Armed Forces: A primer for the uninformed. Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy, 14, 791-813. Retrieved from http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/djglp/vol14/iss2/3/
Puckett, N. A., & Atwood, M. (2012). Crime in the battlefield: Military fate or individual choice? In J. Laurence & M. Matthews (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of military psychology (pp. 79-88). New York: Oxford University Press.
