Military Criminal Justice System
November 2, 2021
Background
Military law comprises federal law, constitutional authority, and inherent command authority. It is meant
to promote justice, efficiency, and discipline in the armed services. Jurisdiction under military law is
based on the U.S. Constitution and relevant aspects of international law. Military law jurisdiction is
exercised through four distinct forums: (1) courts-martial, (2) courts of inquiry, (3) military commissions,
and (4) non-judicial punishment proceedings (10 U.S.C. §§815, 816, 935).
Throughout the 1940s, Congress received evidence of military justice maladministration. The primary
concerns were the system’s lack of due process and independence. Congress responded to these concerns
by enacting the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) in 1950, which applies to each armed service
and replaced the prior military justice system.
The punitive articles in the UCMJ are military law offenses (10 U.S.C. §§877-934). Many of the punitive
articles are criminal conduct offenses that have a referent offense in modern penal codes or historical
common law (e.g., rape, murder, robbery). Other punitive articles are military misconduct offenses that
have a referent offense in medieval chivalric codes or Roman military practices (e.g., mutiny, desertion,
cowardice).
Judge Advocates
Each armed service has a senior legal officer known as the Judge Advocate General (JAG) (10 U.S.C.
§801(1)) who is the principal legal officer responsible for military justice matters. The attorneys whom
they appoint to serve as legal officers throughout the service are responsible for implementing the military
justice system (10 U.S.C. §806). When serving as a military justice practitioner, the roles and functions of
these judge advocate officers resemble those of attorneys in a civilian criminal justice system.
Although legislative reforms establishing the UCMJ relied on civilian criminal law and procedure as a
model, the reforms also preserved many historical attributes of military justice, such as a commander’s
discipline and disposition authority. This meant that while the UCMJ replicated a civilian criminal justice
system overall, the reforms did not allow military lawyers to make decisions regarding the criminal
