NCJ Number
17849
Journal
Capital University Law Review Volume: 3 Issue: 2 Dated: (1974) Pages: 302-322
Date Published
1974
Length
21 pages
Annotation
IN THIS 1973 CASE, THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS RULED THAT ARTICLE 134 OF THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE (UCMJ) VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF FAIR WARNING UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE.
Abstract
SPECIFICALLY, IT HELD THAT ARTICLE 134 PROVIDES NO FAIR WARNING OF THE PROSCRIBED OFFENSE AND FAILS TO PROVIDE ANY ASCERTAINABLE STANDARD OF GUILT. THIS COMMENT EXAMINES THE TWO 'GENERAL ARTICLES' (ARTICLES 133 AND 134) OF THE UCMJ IN LIGHT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT OF DUE PROCESS WHICH PROSCRIBES VAGUENESS IN CRIMINAL STATUTES. ARTICLE 133 PROHIBITS 'CONDUCT UNBECOMING OF AN OFFICER AND A GENTLEMAN' AND ARTICLE 134 MAKES PUNISHABLE 'ALL DISORDERS AND NEGLECTS TO THE PREJUDICE OF GOOD ORDER AND DISCIPLINE' AND 'ALL CONDUCT OF A NATURE TO BRING DISCREDIT UPON THE ARMED FORCES'. DISCUSSED ARE THE HISTORICAL AND PERSPECTIVE ASPECTS OF MILITARY JUSTICE, INCLUDING THE REASONS FOR A SEPARATE SYSTEM, THE JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT OVER MILITARY JUSTICE, AND THE MILITARY'S CONCEPT OF THE GENERAL ARTICLES AND DUE PROCESS. THE AUTHOR CONCLUDES THAT SINCE MILITARY LAW SHOULD CONFORM TO CIVILIAN STANDARDS, THE GENERAL ARTICLES SHOULD BE CONDEMNED AS BEING UNCONSTITUTIONALLY VAGUE, THE CRIMINAL STATUTES OF THE UCMJ REVISED TO BE MADE MORE SPECIFIC, AND THE WHOLE UCMJ SHOULD REQUIRED TO CONFORM TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS OF DUE PROCESS.