Court Limits Bread-And-Water Punishment

WASHINGTON - The nation's highest military court has narrowed the Navy's ability to confine problem sailors to a bread-and-water diet but did not address whether the centuries-old punishment violates the Constitution's prohibition of "cruel and unusual" punishment.

In two unanimous decisions issued Monday, the U.S. Court of Military Appeals invalidated the dietary punishments assessed two sailors at the Philadelphia Navy Yard because the defendants' ship was in drydock.

The five civilian judges found that the two sentences violated the military justice code's ban on "cruel or unusual" punishments. But the judges did not rule whether bread-and-water punishment in general violated the Constitution.

The decision means that Navy captains may - as they have for more than 200 years - impose the punishment on sailors while their ship is at sea.

Over the past decade, several state courts have outlawed the use of bread-and-water punishment, and the private organization that accredits prisons has also deemed diet-based punishments improper.

Citing those actions, attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania had asked the Court of Military Appeals to abolish bread and water as a punishment in the Navy.

Instead, the court limited its decision to the proper use of bread and water as a punishment. Its two rulings focused on whether sailors whose ship was in drydock were eligible for dietary punishment.

Under military law, confinement on bread and water may be ordered only for sailors who are "attached to or embarked in a vessel." Congress determined that the practice was not necessary if a sailor was shorebound.

The sailors whose cases were decided by the court Monday were assigned to the USS Kitty Hawk during a period when the aircraft carrier was undergoing repairs at the Philadelphia Navy Yard.

Nathan Lorance was charged with unauthorized absence and cocaine possession. Brice Yatchak was charged with unauthorized absence.

Both were sentenced to three days' confinement in the Navy Yard's brig on bread and water, plus longer terms in the Navy Yard's brig without dietary restrictions.

Lorance was placed on bread and water despite a Navy doctor's conclusion that his health might suffer. Navy regulations require that a doctor certify that dietary punishment will not be a health danger.

The Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review affirmed both sentences last year, prompting the appeals to the Court of Military Appeals.

Attorneys for the Navy conceded that the punishments imposed on Lorance and Yatchak had not complied with military law. But they contended that the issue raised did not require a ruling on whether bread-and-water punishments violated the Eighth Amendment.