When a service member is charged with cruelty and maltreatment under Article 93, UCMJ, the legal standard requires the prosecution to prove that the accused’s conduct was, under the circumstances, cruel, abusive, or oppressive. This is an objective standard, viewed from the perspective of a reasonable person. The offense can be committed by any service member who is in a position of authority over another, and it applies to their treatment of anyone subject to their orders.
The prosecution must prove three elements beyond a reasonable doubt. First, that the victim was subject to the orders of the accused. Second, that the accused was cruel toward, oppressed, or maltreated the victim. This can include physical abuse, but also verbal or psychological abuse, such as public humiliation, degrading treatment, or harassment that goes beyond acceptable corrective training. Third, that the accused’s actions were without a justifiable cause. A leader using necessary force to suppress a mutiny is justified; a leader physically striking a subordinate for a minor mistake is not.
A military defense attorney will challenge the charge by arguing that their client’s actions did not meet the legal definition of cruelty or maltreatment. They might argue that the action was a legitimate, albeit strict, form of corrective training designed to address a performance deficiency. They would present evidence to show that the leader’s actions were not intended to be abusive but were for a valid military purpose. The key legal battle is over whether the leader’s conduct crossed the line from hard but acceptable training into illegal maltreatment.