UCMJ Article 96: Release of Prisoner Without Authority

On this page

Article 96 is aimed at the custodian, not the prisoner, and it contains four offenses with different ceilings: releasing a prisoner without authority (dishonorable discharge, 2 years), allowing an escape through neglect (bad-conduct discharge, 2 years), allowing an escape through design (dishonorable discharge, 5 years), and unlawfully drinking alcohol with a prisoner (1 year of confinement and forfeiture of two-thirds pay per month for 1 year).

The custodian’s offenses in § 896

Under 10 U.S.C. § 896(a), a person subject to the UCMJ commits an offense who, “without authority to do so, releases a prisoner,” or who, “through neglect or design, allows a prisoner to escape.” Either is punished as a court-martial may direct, “whether or not the prisoner was committed in strict compliance with the law.”

Subsection (b) adds a separate offense for anyone who “unlawfully drinks any alcoholic beverage with a prisoner.” The article took its present form in the Military Justice Act of 2016 (Pub. L. 114-328, § 5413).

The last clause of subsection (a) matters in practice. A custodian cannot defend a release or an escape by arguing that the prisoner should not have been confined in the first place.

Who is a prisoner, and who may release one

The Manual for Courts-Martial (2024 ed.), Part IV, ¶ 24.c(1), defines a prisoner as a person in confinement or custody imposed under R.C.M. 302, 304, or 305, or under a court-martial sentence, who has not been set free by a person with authority to release. A release is “removal of restraint by the custodian rather than by the prisoner” (¶ 24.c(2)(a)).

Release authority depends on the kind of prisoner. R.C.M. 305(g) governs pretrial prisoners. For a post-trial prisoner, the Manual states that the lowest authority normally competent to order release is the commander who convened the court-martial that sentenced the prisoner, or the officer exercising general court-martial jurisdiction over the prisoner (¶ 24.c(2)(b)).

Neglect and design

The two escape offenses are separated by the custodian’s state of mind, and the Manual defines both:

  • Neglect is “the absence of conduct that would have been taken by a reasonably careful custodian in the same or similar circumstances” (¶ 24.c(3)(b)). The government must also prove that the escape was the proximate result of the neglect.
  • Design means the custodian intended the escape. That intent “may be inferred from conduct so wantonly devoid of care that the only reasonable inference which may be drawn is that the escape was contemplated as a probable result” (¶ 24.c(4)).

What happens after the escape does not undo the offense: it is no defense that the prisoner returned, was captured, or died (¶ 24.c(3)(d)).

Drinking with a prisoner

Under ¶ 24.c(5), “unlawful” means without legal justification or excuse, and “any consumption of alcohol with a prisoner would be unlawful unless the accused had been granted specific authority to do so by competent authority.” The Manual’s example of such authority is a confinement facility commander allowing limited alcohol consumption on a holiday or special occasion.

Maximums for the four custodial offenses

From ¶ 24.d:

Offense Maximum
Releasing a prisoner without authority Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, 2 years
Allowing a prisoner to escape through neglect Bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, 2 years
Allowing a prisoner to escape through design Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, 5 years
Drinking with a prisoner Confinement for 1 year and forfeiture of two-thirds pay per month for 1 year

Neglect and an unauthorized release carry the same 2 years of confinement; what separates them in punishment is the type of discharge. Drinking with a prisoner authorizes no punitive discharge, but its confinement ceiling is a full year.

The prisoner’s offense and unlawful detention

The prisoner who escapes is charged under Article 87a, resistance, flight, breach of arrest, and escape. A custodian who confines someone without authority, rather than releasing someone, falls under Article 97, unlawful detention.

Sources

General information about military law, not legal advice for any individual case.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *