RightNation.US
News (Home) | Righters' Blog | Hollywood Halfwits | Our Store | New User Intro | Link to us | Support Us

RightNation.US: No More Bread And Water: U.S. Navy Scraps An Age-Old Penalty - RightNation.US

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

No More Bread And Water: U.S. Navy Scraps An Age-Old Penalty Rate Topic: -----

#1 User is offline   Liz 

  • ***-----------***
  • Group: Moderator
  • Posts: 50,243
  • Joined: 28-February 03

Posted 26 December 2018 - 01:01 AM

No More Bread And Water: U.S. Navy Scraps An Age-Old Penalty

The New York Times
By Dave Philipps
Dec. 25, 2018

Excerpt:

The United States Navy has come a long way, from its first wooden frigates to today’s nuclear carriers. But in all that time, one thing remained almost as fixed as the North Star: A skipper’s power to throw troublesome sailors in the brig with nothing to eat but bread and water.

Though it sounds like something from an old pirate movie, the antique penalty is not only still on the Navy’s books, it is still actually imposed, despite a century of abolition efforts.

On New Year’s Day, it will finally go by the boards.

A sweeping update of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, passed by Congress in 2016, will take effect on Jan. 1, bringing dozens of changes that are intended to make the system fairer and more efficient. Most are the kind of procedural tweaks that concern lawyers, not sailors. But the bread-and-water part will be felt on all decks.

Commanders throughout the armed services will still have the authority to punish minor misconduct in various ways without a trial. But the new law deletes the regulation that authorized ship commanders to confine low-ranking sailors on “diminished rations” — bread and water — for up to three days at a time.

That regulation is no mere neglected relic from a bygone era. As recently as 2017, a destroyer in the Pacific was known as the U.S.S. Bread and Water because of the skipper’s liberal use of the penalty to punish missteps like missing a curfew or drinking under the legal age.

Many in the Navy will be happy to see it go. But some mourn what they see as an expedient and effective tradition of the seas.

“It sounds medieval, and that is sort of the point,” said Capt. Kevin Eyer, who regularly sentenced sailors to bread and water for minor misconduct before he retired in 2009. “Sometimes you just need to scare a kid. We want them to succeed, but you need to give them a kick in the pants.”

Captain Eyer said that when he joined the Navy in 1982, the penalty was common and never frowned upon by the top brass, who traditionally give ship commanders broad authority.

But just as attitudes about spanking children have shifted, the culture in the Navy has drifted away from corporal penalties like bread and water, and officers increasingly view them as counterproductive.

“It just seems anachronistic and stupid,” said Capt. Scott Tait, who joined the Navy in 1992 and has commanded two destroyers.

“I actually can’t believe it’s still around,” Captain Tait said, adding that he had never imposed the punishment himself, nor had he seen it used. “People used to joke about putting guys on bread and water, but I was well into my career before I realized I was actually allowed to do that.”

*snip*

Full Story
0

#2 User is offline   USNJIMRET 

  • Rule 1:The Chief is right Rule 2:If in doubt, check Rule 1
  • View blog
  • View gallery
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 20,130
  • Joined: 28-February 03

Posted 26 December 2018 - 01:13 AM

Story makes it sound like it happened a lot.
In 24 years of active duty, never heard of it being imposed even once.
Which is not to say it never was anywhere, but that it was exceedingly rare.
As for a ship being known as USS Bread and Water...….if a sailor was STUPID enough to knowingly risk that penalty, then he/she/it effing deserved that and worse, IMO.
0

#3 User is offline   Liz 

  • ***-----------***
  • Group: Moderator
  • Posts: 50,243
  • Joined: 28-February 03

Posted 26 December 2018 - 01:21 AM

View PostUSNJIMRET, on 26 December 2018 - 01:13 AM, said:

Story makes it sound like it happened a lot.
In 24 years of active duty, never heard of it being imposed even once.
Which is not to say it never was anywhere, but that it was exceedingly rare.
As for a ship being known as USS Bread and Water...….if a sailor was STUPID enough to knowingly risk that penalty, then he/she/it effing deserved that and worse, IMO.

Well, I guess we have to take it with a grain of salt. It is the New York Times.
0

#4 User is offline   donsaliman 

  • <no title>
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 2,790
  • Joined: 19-March 03

Posted 26 December 2018 - 02:02 AM

My punishment for them and civilians criminals would be, put them in old age homes that are known for their mistreatment of their patients
0

#5 User is offline   Dean Adam Smithee 

  • School of the Cold Hard Facts
  • View gallery
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 19,852
  • Joined: 11-December 04

Posted 26 December 2018 - 08:12 AM

View PostUSNJIMRET, on 26 December 2018 - 01:13 AM, said:

Story makes it sound like it happened a lot.
In 24 years of active duty, never heard of it being imposed even once.
Which is not to say it never was anywhere, but that it was exceedingly rare.
As for a ship being known as USS Bread and Water...….if a sailor was STUPID enough to knowingly risk that penalty, then he/she/it effing deserved that and worse, IMO.


Only 6 years here ('78-'84), also not aware of it ever being imposed. Nor do I recall any of the older generation talking about it having been imposed in their day.

I think what's MORE interesting is not what they've taken out but what they've added:

Article 117a. Wrongful broadcast or distribution of intimate visual images

(a)Prohibition.—Any person subject to this chapter—

(1) who knowingly and wrongfully broadcasts or distributes an intimate visual image of another person or a visual image of sexually explicit conduct involving a person who—

(A) is at least 18 years of age at the time the intimate visual image or visual image of sexually explicit conduct was created;

(B ) is identifiable from the intimate visual image or visual image of sexually explicit conduct itself, or from information displayed in connection with the intimate visual image or visual image of sexually explicit conduct; and

(C ) does not explicitly consent to the broadcast or distribution of the intimate visual image or visual image of sexually explicit conduct;


(2) who knows or reasonably should have known that the intimate visual image or visual image of sexually explicit conduct was made under circumstances in which the person depicted in the intimate visual image or visual image of sexually explicit conduct retained a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding any broadcast or distribution of the intimate visual image or visual image of sexually explicit conduct;

(3) who knows or reasonably should have known that the broadcast or distribution of the intimate visual image or visual image of sexually explicit conduct is likely—

(A) to cause harm, harassment, intimidation, emotional distress, or financial loss for the person depicted in the intimate visual image or visual image of sexually explicit conduct; or

(B ) to harm substantially the depicted person with respect to that person’s health, safety, business, calling, career, financial condition, reputation, or personal relationships; and


(4) whose conduct, under the circumstances, had a reasonably direct and palpable connection to a military mission or military environment, is guilty of wrongful distribution of intimate visual images or visual images of sexually explicit conduct and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct


Seems a bit awkwardly worded, but it's long overdue. And relevant especially after the Marine Corps scandal of a year or two ago.

I'm surprised this has never been criminalized before, though I suppose it could have been charged as a generalized Article 134 "conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline" offense.
0

#6 User is offline   Severian 

  • Order of the Seekers for Truth & Penitence
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 13,242
  • Joined: 14-February 04

Posted 26 December 2018 - 10:32 AM

May sound bad, but I bet it was effective when used. Even the Romans had something similar, if a legion or cohort or other military unit needed punishment they would put them on barley rations instead of normal food. Apparently it was effective, and more benevolent than decimation.
0

#7 User is offline   USNRETWIFE 

  • Tiki Barbie
  • Group: +Silver Community Supporter
  • Posts: 15,069
  • Joined: 02-April 03

Posted 26 December 2018 - 11:18 AM

View PostUSNJIMRET, on 26 December 2018 - 01:13 AM, said:

Story makes it sound like it happened a lot.
In 24 years of active duty, never heard of it being imposed even once.
Which is not to say it never was anywhere, but that it was exceedingly rare.
As for a ship being known as USS Bread and Water...….if a sailor was STUPID enough to knowingly risk that penalty, then he/she/it effing deserved that and worse, IMO.

Husband says in his 20 years it happened a couple of times, on a couple of carriers he was on. But he said it was never the first response, the sailor was given several chances before he got the bread and water treatment. Some are just slow learners and sometimes that can affect the whole crew, not just that sailor. And it was effective. It couldn't have bothered my husband that much that some had to be disciplined like that because in the 20 years I didn't know it happened. I had to ask him if he had heard of it.

This post has been edited by USNRETWIFE: 26 December 2018 - 11:19 AM

0

#8 User is offline   zurg 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 25,950
  • Joined: 19-October 09

Posted 26 December 2018 - 04:49 PM

It was probably labeled “torture” by McCain.
0

#9 User is offline   JerryL 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 11,495
  • Joined: 06-October 03

Posted 27 December 2018 - 03:21 AM

View PostUSNJIMRET, on 26 December 2018 - 01:13 AM, said:

Story makes it sound like it happened a lot.
In 24 years of active duty, never heard of it being imposed even once.
Which is not to say it never was anywhere, but that it was exceedingly rare.
As for a ship being known as USS Bread and Water...….if a sailor was STUPID enough to knowingly risk that penalty, then he/she/it effing deserved that and worse, IMO.

One reason it was not used much was that the sentence has to be carried out in a Brig with supervision. On anything but the really large decks, that meant it can't be given at sea.

My first CO on an Adams Class back in the late 80's used it regularly. He never seemed to get the connection that with really low morale a ship's performance can dive, sailors don't care and equipment breaks, which make it hard to get underway, which leads to long stays in port where unhappy sailors do stupid things. But hey, at least he could punish them with bread and water.

I had a sailor sentenced to it and I was required to go and visit him in the Brig for health and welfare check ups something like every two days. Frankly, the sailor was just happy to be off that ship with that psycho CO for a week.

This post has been edited by JerryL: 27 December 2018 - 03:21 AM

0

#10 User is offline   oki 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 24,261
  • Joined: 14-October 04

Posted 27 December 2018 - 09:09 AM

Nine years in the Army, heard of it, but never knew of any instances. And yeah, it's gotta' be a pretty severe case.

Oki
0

#11 User is offline   oki 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 24,261
  • Joined: 14-October 04

Posted 27 December 2018 - 09:13 AM

View PostJerryL, on 27 December 2018 - 03:21 AM, said:

One reason it was not used much was that the sentence has to be carried out in a Brig with supervision. On anything but the really large decks, that meant it can't be given at sea.

My first CO on an Adams Class back in the late 80's used it regularly. He never seemed to get the connection that with really low morale a ship's performance can dive, sailors don't care and equipment breaks, which make it hard to get underway, which leads to long stays in port where unhappy sailors do stupid things. But hey, at least he could punish them with bread and water.

I had a sailor sentenced to it and I was required to go and visit him in the Brig for health and welfare check ups something like every two days. Frankly, the sailor was just happy to be off that ship with that psycho CO for a week.


Surprised that CO didn't end up having a nice long swim. Thank fully most of the CO's I had were at least decent to quite good. Never had any that rose to the level you describe. Did have one or two 1st Sergeants who made a lot of peoples('will have a nice talk with them') list should I ever see them again. You'll have to excuse me as I forget the Naval Rank Equivalent to an Army First Sergeant.

Oki
0

#12 User is offline   JerryL 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 11,495
  • Joined: 06-October 03

Posted 27 December 2018 - 09:24 AM

View Postoki, on 27 December 2018 - 09:13 AM, said:

Surprised that CO didn't end up having a nice long swim. Thank fully most of the CO's I had were at least decent to quite good. Never had any that rose to the level you describe. Did have one or two 1st Sergeants who made a lot of peoples('will have a nice talk with them') list should I ever see them again. You'll have to excuse me as I forget the Naval Rank Equivalent to an Army First Sergeant.

Oki


I can guarantee that there were those who thought about tossing him over the side.

First Sergeant is an E-8, so Senior Chief Petty Officer would be Navy equivalent.
0

#13 User is offline   oki 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 24,261
  • Joined: 14-October 04

Posted 27 December 2018 - 11:57 AM

View PostJerryL, on 27 December 2018 - 09:24 AM, said:

I can guarantee that there were those who thought about tossing him over the side.

First Sergeant is an E-8, so Senior Chief Petty Officer would be Navy equivalent.



One of the terms I remember hearing time and again in the Army was desert Sniper and how even in the flattest and most deserted desolate deserts Senior NCO's and an occasional officer had to be reminded that there was still such a thing. Or, especially in Vietnam it was believed that a large chunk of all Officer K.I.A.'s where either from snipers or friendly fire. %100 true story. Growing up a friend of mines Dad was a truck driver in Vietnam. And yeah, he swore up and down to have taken people and supplies in and out of the places they weren't supposed to be. And, on one occasion some reporters where waiting for them. He remembered one of them(the reporters) yelling into the mike YES THOSE ARE AMERICAN'S.. and about the same time the LT un holstering his .45 and telling everyone, okay boys, follow me... Then the next thing was the same reporter yelling and they are shooting at us! They dropped there gear and hauled ass. He said they were not shooting to kill or even wound, just a few shots over their heads and beside them. He always told that one with a huge sh$t eating grin. True? I don't know, but a damn good story none the less.

The other very believable thing he told was when they would get fresh Officers, Second Lieutenants(O-1), A.K.A. Butter Bars. If he wasn't some cocky little pr$ck they would take him under their wings and held guide him to learn what he needed. But, if was some little you will Salute me, you will shine your boots, and press your uniform type.... well you did the former and sadly the problem took care of itself within a day or two. As he said, you absolutely hated doing this, but, if you didn't these guys would get you and others killed. Soo.. the scene from Forest Gump where Forrest and Bubba' try to Salute Lt. Dan and he scolds them for it is quite accurate. https://www.youtube....h?v=gh2DzGccvJc


Oki
0

#14 User is offline   Dean Adam Smithee 

  • School of the Cold Hard Facts
  • View gallery
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 19,852
  • Joined: 11-December 04

Posted 27 December 2018 - 02:19 PM

View Postoki, on 27 December 2018 - 09:13 AM, said:

Surprised that CO didn't end up having a nice long swim. Thank fully most of the CO's I had were at least decent to quite good. Never had any that rose to the level you describe. Did have one or two 1st Sergeants who made a lot of peoples('will have a nice talk with them') list should I ever see them again. You'll have to excuse me as I forget the Naval Rank Equivalent to an Army First Sergeant.

Oki

View PostJerryL, on 27 December 2018 - 09:24 AM, said:

I can guarantee that there were those who thought about tossing him over the side.

First Sergeant is an E-8, so Senior Chief Petty Officer would be Navy equivalent.


I never had any issues with any of the Chiefs, Senior Chiefs, Master Chiefs or higher that I served under. Seems like everyone I knew that was a real A-hole was an E-6 (Petty officer 1st class in the Navy, the you culd add a couple of E-6 Marine Corps Staff Sgts to the list of people I'd have loved to have meet again in my barfighting days.)

Seemed like, in the Navy at least, it seemed like there was something about being E-6 that brought out the "inner A-hole" in people. Most would mellow out after a time but there were those who didn't. Maybe it's because if you were in a high-tech field at the time it was the first promotion you really had to work at; I got E-4 right out of A-school (Tech School) and E-5 a couple years later just for passing a written test.

I never made it to E-6 myself, the calendar was against me. By the time my 6 years were up, I'd been E-5 for just over 3 years (minimum time in rate) but they only give the test once a year, and I'd have been 9 or 10 months into a re-enlistment and I'd already decided to get out.

My younger brother was almost caught with that same calendar issue when he was in several years later. But in his case they waived a year off his time-in-rate requirement so he could make E-6 early... in exchange for re-enlisting. I don't remember that being an option in my day, buy I wouldn't have been interested anyway.

Besides, I don't *need* to have the rank of E-6 to be an A-hole; I can do it quite well as it is.
0

#15 User is offline   oki 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 24,261
  • Joined: 14-October 04

Posted 27 December 2018 - 03:40 PM

View PostDean Adam Smithee, on 27 December 2018 - 02:19 PM, said:

I never had any issues with any of the Chiefs, Senior Chiefs, Master Chiefs or higher that I served under. Seems like everyone I knew that was a real A-hole was an E-6 (Petty officer 1st class in the Navy, the you culd add a couple of E-6 Marine Corps Staff Sgts to the list of people I'd have loved to have meet again in my barfighting days.)

Seemed like, in the Navy at least, it seemed like there was something about being E-6 that brought out the "inner A-hole" in people. Most would mellow out after a time but there were those who didn't. Maybe it's because if you were in a high-tech field at the time it was the first promotion you really had to work at; I got E-4 right out of A-school (Tech School) and E-5 a couple years later just for passing a written test.

I never made it to E-6 myself, the calendar was against me. By the time my 6 years were up, I'd been E-5 for just over 3 years (minimum time in rate) but they only give the test once a year, and I'd have been 9 or 10 months into a re-enlistment and I'd already decided to get out.

My younger brother was almost caught with that same calendar issue when he was in several years later. But in his case they waived a year off his time-in-rate requirement so he could make E-6 early... in exchange for re-enlisting. I don't remember that being an option in my day, buy I wouldn't have been interested anyway.

Besides, I don't *need* to have the rank of E-6 to be an A-hole; I can do it quite well as it is.



What I saw is that often young E5's became or should I saw where already a$$holes to begin with and it amplified it. Guess some where simply drunk with power. Myself, yeah, I was a little late in the game when I got mine, but I was in no hurry and by that point had already stuck around a lot longer than I expected anyways. Had I stayed in though at the time I got out I probably would have been in line to at least go to school for my E-6.
For that Army at least E-6 is kinda' a preparation or stepping stone if you will between E-5 and E-7. Most of the E-6's I knew where actually very decent and I had no issue with them. All but a hand full of the E-7's I knew I can say the same. Seemed that rank went one way or the other. Either total a$$holes or decent people. It's a short list of people whom I would love to 'meet up with again'. And believe you me, it takes a really special person to make this list. Not just someone who was an a$$hole, but someone who went out of their way, above and beyond duty to be one. Someone who made it their mission to f with people and enjoy their power. No officers made my list(well one Colonel kinda' did because he lied through his damn teeth about something, he didn't cause the episode but still), the other two one is an E-7(probably dead by know from a fat induced heart attack), the other was an E-8 1st Sergeant. He is on many peoples list.

Oki
0

#16 User is offline   corporal_little 

  • What is your major malfunction....
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 8,253
  • Joined: 09-January 04

Posted 27 December 2018 - 10:24 PM

View PostJerryL, on 27 December 2018 - 03:21 AM, said:

One reason it was not used much was that the sentence has to be carried out in a Brig with supervision. On anything but the really large decks, that meant it can't be given at sea.

My first CO on an Adams Class back in the late 80's used it regularly. He never seemed to get the connection that with really low morale a ship's performance can dive, sailors don't care and equipment breaks, which make it hard to get underway, which leads to long stays in port where unhappy sailors do stupid things. But hey, at least he could punish them with bread and water.

I had a sailor sentenced to it and I was required to go and visit him in the Brig for health and welfare check ups something like every two days. Frankly, the sailor was just happy to be off that ship with that psycho CO for a week.


I was a legal services specialist the first couple years I was in. When I was assigned to the 31st MEU, I saw this punishment used several times at sea.

Never made much sense to me.

Edited... 31st MEU, not 32nd....

This post has been edited by corporal_little: 28 December 2018 - 03:14 AM

0

#17 User is offline   JerryL 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 11,495
  • Joined: 06-October 03

Posted 28 December 2018 - 12:53 AM

View Postcorporal_little, on 27 December 2018 - 10:24 PM, said:

I was a legal services specialist the first couple years I was in. When I was assigned to the 32nd MEU, I saw this punishment used several times at sea.

Never made much sense to me.

What ships were you on? Did you have a brig?

3 destroyers and an AC Carrier for me. Not used at sea on any of the DD/DDGs because you couldn’t confine someone and supervise the punishment. You could on the carrier although that CO never would have given the punishment.
0

#18 User is offline   corporal_little 

  • What is your major malfunction....
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 8,253
  • Joined: 09-January 04

Posted 28 December 2018 - 03:12 AM

View PostJerryL, on 28 December 2018 - 12:53 AM, said:

What ships were you on? Did you have a brig?

3 destroyers and an AC Carrier for me. Not used at sea on any of the DD/DDGs because you couldn’t confine someone and supervise the punishment. You could on the carrier although that CO never would have given the punishment.


I was on the USS Boxer and I processed 2 Marine Lance Corporals who were given this punishment, if I remember correctly.
0

#19 User is offline   JerryL 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 11,495
  • Joined: 06-October 03

Posted 28 December 2018 - 04:18 AM

View Postcorporal_little, on 28 December 2018 - 03:12 AM, said:

I was on the USS Boxer and I processed 2 Marine Lance Corporals who were given this punishment, if I remember correctly.

Large deck Amphib. That makes sense.
0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users