Some leaders try to correct behavior by publicly embarrassing a subordinate, through forced public confessions, humiliating signs, ridicule in front of the unit, or similar tactics meant to shame rather than to train. Article 93 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which prohibits cruelty and maltreatment, can reach this conduct. This article explains how the offense is defined and how it applies to discipline that crosses into public humiliation.
What Article 93 prohibits
Article 93 makes it an offense for any person subject to the code to be cruel toward, oppress, or maltreat any person subject to the accused’s orders. The offense has two basic elements: that a person was subject to the orders of the accused, and that the accused was cruel toward, oppressed, or maltreated that person.
The phrase “subject to the orders of the accused” is read broadly. It covers not only those in the accused’s direct chain of command but also anyone who, because of some duty, is required to obey the lawful orders of the accused. That reach is what makes Article 93 a natural fit for abuses of a leadership position, including a leader who uses authority to humiliate a subordinate.
The objective standard for maltreatment
Maltreatment under Article 93 does not have to be physical. Mental humiliation, ridicule, and degradation can qualify. The conduct is measured by an objective standard: whether, viewed reasonably and in light of the totality of the circumstances, the accused’s actions could have caused physical or mental harm or suffering. Importantly, the government does not have to prove that the victim was actually harmed. It is enough that the conduct reasonably could have caused harm or suffering when judged objectively.
That objective focus is central to public shaming cases. A leader cannot defend the conduct simply by saying the subordinate was not visibly upset or claimed not to mind. The question is whether the shaming, as an objective matter, was the kind of treatment that could reasonably cause mental harm or suffering. Nor can a leader rely on the subordinate appearing to go along with the measure, since a person subject to the accused’s orders is rarely in a position to refuse, and apparent acquiescence under command pressure does not convert degrading treatment into acceptable discipline.
Where legitimate discipline ends and maltreatment begins
Article 93 does not criminalize hard or demanding leadership. The imposition of necessary or proper duties, and the requirement that those duties be performed, does not constitute maltreatment even when the duties are difficult, unpleasant, or hazardous. Lawful corrective training, counseling, and discipline remain available to leaders.
The line is crossed when the purpose and effect of the conduct shift from correction to degradation. Public shaming designed to humiliate, rather than to correct a deficiency through a legitimate means, falls on the maltreatment side. Relevant considerations include whether the measure served a genuine training or disciplinary purpose, whether it was proportionate, whether it singled the person out for ridicule, and whether less humiliating alternatives were the obvious choice. Forcing a member to wear a degrading sign, to make a humiliating public statement, or to be mocked in formation tends to look like oppression or maltreatment rather than proper discipline, because the humiliation is the point.
Why “induced” or ordered shaming still implicates the leader
When a commander or supervisor orders or orchestrates the public shaming, the leader’s authority is the very thing being misused. Because Article 93 targets cruelty toward persons subject to the accused’s orders, a leader who uses command authority to compel a subordinate to participate in their own humiliation is acting squarely within the conduct the article addresses. The fact that the shaming was framed as discipline does not insulate it; an order to carry out a humiliating measure can itself be unlawful, and compelling a subordinate to submit to degradation is the kind of abuse of position the article guards against.
Related and overlapping exposure
Conduct that amounts to public shaming may also trigger other provisions, depending on the facts, such as conduct unbecoming an officer or general article offenses involving conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline. It may also violate service regulations governing the treatment of subordinates, hazing, and bullying, which can support separate administrative or punitive action. Article 93 remains the core punitive article aimed specifically at cruelty and maltreatment of those subject to one’s orders, but it rarely stands alone in a shaming case.
Defenses and contested points
A leader accused under Article 93 may argue that the measure was legitimate corrective training rather than maltreatment, that it served a proper disciplinary purpose, and that, judged objectively, it could not reasonably have caused harm or suffering. The defense may also contest whether the alleged victim was actually subject to the accused’s orders. Because the standard is objective and does not require proof of actual harm, these cases turn heavily on the nature of the conduct, its purpose, and how a reasonable observer would assess it.
Bottom line
Article 93 can apply directly to command-induced public shaming when a leader uses authority over a subordinate to humiliate or degrade that person, because maltreatment includes non-physical conduct measured by an objective standard and does not require proof of actual harm. The decisive question is whether the conduct was legitimate discipline or degradation dressed up as discipline. Given the fact-intensive nature of this line, a service member who believes they have been subjected to, or who is accused of, this kind of treatment should consult a qualified military defense attorney.
Disclaimer
This article is provided strictly for general educational and informational purposes. It is intended to explain how the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), the Rules for Courts-Martial, the Military Rules of Evidence, and related military administrative processes work as a matter of public legal education. It does not constitute legal advice, a legal opinion, or a recommendation about any particular case, and it is not a substitute for advice from a qualified military defense attorney who can evaluate the specific facts and command, service, and jurisdictional circumstances involved.
Reading this article, or contacting any website on which it appears, does not create an attorney-client relationship between the reader and any law firm, attorney, or author. Every court-martial, nonjudicial punishment action, administrative separation, and security-clearance matter turns on its own facts, the charged articles, the convening authority, the service branch, and the evidence, and outcomes vary widely from one case to another.
Military law also changes over time. The Military Justice Act of 2016 (effective January 1, 2019) and subsequent National Defense Authorization Acts renumbered and rewrote many punitive articles, revised the Article 32 preliminary hearing, and altered sentencing, clemency, and appellate procedures. Statutes, regulations, executive orders, the Manual for Courts-Martial, and decisions of the service Courts of Criminal Appeals and the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces may have been amended, superseded, or reinterpreted after this article was written, and article numbers or procedures cited here may have changed.
For these reasons, no reader should act or decline to act based on this content without first consulting a licensed attorney experienced in military justice about their own situation. The author and publisher make no warranty, express or implied, as to the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or current applicability of the information provided, and disclaim any liability for any action taken or not taken in reliance on it. If you are facing investigation, charges, or an adverse administrative action, time limits may apply, and you should seek qualified counsel promptly.