Sounds like a good step recommended by an independent commission formed by Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin. Also seems to have rare bipartisan support in the senate. I hope it is effective for...
Sounds like a good step recommended by an independent commission formed by Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin. Also seems to have rare bipartisan support in the senate. I hope it is effective for victims seeking justice.
This is also the approach we need to take with police abuse and misconduct. Each state should really have a separate apparatus for prosecuting police officers. It's currently very hard to hold...
This is also the approach we need to take with police abuse and misconduct. Each state should really have a separate apparatus for prosecuting police officers. It's currently very hard to hold officers accountable because of the conflicts of interest involved in the existing justice system. Prosecutors don't want to prosecute the cops they have to work with on a daily basis, and the same goes for judges. Police cover for each other, and they face no penalties for perjuring themselves in court or on official reports.
What states really need is a completely separate system for prosecuting police officers. Just like we have often have separate courts for things like family law, for juveniles, etc, we should have one for police misconduct. And they should have separate prosecutors who do nothing but handle police misconduct cases.
It's about damn time. No matter where anyone stands on this (regarding UCMJ/commanders 'losing' jurisdiction to maintain good order and discipline) you can't argue with handing it to an office...
It's about damn time. No matter where anyone stands on this (regarding UCMJ/commanders 'losing' jurisdiction to maintain good order and discipline) you can't argue with handing it to an office whose whole job is to give due process on a reasonable amount of time. I think 90 percent of the problems the U.S. military has prosecuting these crimes aren't because the commander isn't taking it seriously or is grossly out of step with the legal consensus. It's because they are focused on getting their unit through a CTC rotation before deploying somewhere AND a million other things to include a multitude of smaller legal problems. Taking something off their plate is huge.
This is good for victims, this is good for commanders, and this is good for those who have been stuck in legal limbo waiting for their turn to get prosecuted for their crimes. They deserve a fair trial reasonably quickly and allocating these resources is what needed to happen 15 years ago. DoD better not mess up the implementation.
You are incorrect. Stop making excuses for others. Many people reporting sexual assault in the military, or sexual assault by service personnel, claim that their report was not taken seriously,...
Exemplary
I think 90 percent of the problems the U.S. military has prosecuting these crimes aren't because the commander isn't taking it seriously... It's because they are focused on getting their unit through a CTC rotation before deploying somewhere AND a million other things...
You are incorrect. Stop making excuses for others.
Many people reporting sexual assault in the military, or sexual assault by service personnel, claim that their report was not taken seriously, that there was no mechanism for escalating the report above a commander who would not see the report actioned, and so on. To suggest otherwise is to blatantly endorse systemic social ills and a system that assault survivors do not trust to protect them. Do not come even close to making excuses for problems that we should be solving. No one should have to live with the status quo as it is now.
There have been Congressional hearings and testimony, in addition to men and women going on the public record, that there is a larger, systemic problem in taking sexual assault and related crimes seriously. This is not a scenario where, to paraphrase what you said, "the commanding officer was too busy doing important things." There are few things that should be more important to a commanding officer than insuring the health and personal safety of people under their command, regardless of whether they are in an active combat situation, looking forward to deploying to a war zone (recall that most military personnel do not see combat), or performing any other function. The CO is not in charge of the investigation, it's their duty to escalate the report to the appropriate place. Individuals who do not do this are not doing their duty and, in some cases, are complicit in the crime itself because the CO is the rapist (see above link). To suggest otherwise is to willfully endorse the people and ideology that seeks to minimize the evil that has been perpetrated and marginalize the survivors. To suggest otherwise is to endorse a disgusting social norm of ignorance and excuse-making summarized in the phrase "boys will be boys" and that assault survivors, of any gender, should never be taken seriously and should not have a right to their body or a legal right to their own defense.
An interview from Protect Our Defenders, a non-profit seeking to end "sexual violence, victim retaliation, misogyny and racism in the (US) military and combating a culture that has allowed it to persist": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4J8Z09zHXA (8 minutes)
There is a documentary called The Invisible War with long, detailed accounts by individuals across several branches of the military and US Coast Guard. See if you can watch it for free somewhere. It used to be free for Amazon Prime Video subscribers, but presently you need a free trial of another service to watch it. There are several news segments about the documentary, including a 1-hour news segment interviewing survivors, from back when the documentary was released.
This is a thoughtful and well supported post and I appreciate the receipts you brought to the discussion as well. That said, this depiction of military handling of sexual harassment/assault, or...
Exemplary
This is a thoughtful and well supported post and I appreciate the receipts you brought to the discussion as well. That said, this depiction of military handling of sexual harassment/assault, or the UCMJ in general, does not match with my (admittedly) individual—read anecdotal—experience with the matter. Without divulging too much private information, I have been on both sides of this issue over the last decade plus in a very very personal way. While I 100 percent acknowledge the existence—and abhorrent nature—of sexual harassment/assault (SHARP/etc), I have yet to witness a command team that hasn't given full seriousness and attention to any reported misconduct across a broad range of theaters and unit types. That is absolutely not to be interpreted as a statement denying the existence of miscarried justice and abuse within chains of command being suppressed. This absolutely does, and has throughout military history, occurred in disgusting frequencies. What I would like to highlight, is that this is not an accurate characterization of military culture and those who feel that the military has such a permissive attitude towards the issue is mistaken or (for the more cynical) possibly pushing a narrative.
For those who haven't been exposed to military culture, or haven't spent time around military command structures higher than the Company level, every commander (literally every one) gets a very detailed and serious orientation on career altering events. To a command team, each (non-interim) commander receives a dedicated training regimen on proper management SHARP issues and continuing education every year (although no one will argue these refreshers are more than a CYA exercise). The gravity of mishandling a SHARP complaint is 100% clear as a cultural norm within the military. The top fears of the average commander in the military are death of a service member under their command, SHARP incidents, and loss of accountability over property (at the company level, ask anyone what losing a set of night vision optics feels like). These issues derail careers and are maters of serious concern across the vast majority of the force.
The issue is our military is made up of an enormously diverse cross section of the U.S. population (more than any other organization I have encountered) and you CAN NOT re-socialize individuals who have already ingrained their values and beliefs (past high-school) in a meaningful way through 18 weeks of basic training and yearly SHARP briefs. Like any large organization, SHARP issues are a fact life because the body the military is composed of, is made up of people. Anyone who has worked in hospitality, retail, construction, or healthcare will vouch for similarly depressing rates of harassment/abuse (at statistically higher rates that reported military SHARP as well - See RAND's numbers for comparison).
What makes this a fantastic policy development isn't that it is finally addressing a culture of systemic abuse, but rather that it formalizes treating the issue with the seriousness it deserves.
The military has a problem with SHARP, but every large organization does. What this should be looked at as, is a model for every organization that employs large numbers of personnel. I can say that as a commander, there is a huge sigh of relief (across the board) that now there's a dedicated team to manage the issue that doesn't rely on a bunch of well-meaning, but inexperienced, professionals to carry the matter through. Even the best commander has bad apples in the force, and now they can offload some of the most difficult UCMJ concerns to a dedicated team. This is an absolute win for victims and command teams alike, but don't mistake it as a cure all.
The military already prosecutes more SHARP violations than the civilian world because they don't have the same aversion to bringing cases that aren't winnable—like civilian DAs. These aren't easy cases for a multitude of reasons, but no one should think that this will fundamentally change how many perpetrators are brought to justice. It's certainly a positive step, but we have a long way to go as a society before rates come down. The policy does set the conditions for a more uniform general expectation for the results of misconduct within the force. Like I stated up earlier, you can't typically re-socialize people, but you can set expectations for behavior and that will help police misconduct even in poor commands that aren't representative of the norm. SHARP issues need much more than UCMJ authority tweaks to fundamentally change conduct though. If we want to get serious about reducing the number of assaults in the military, we have to do something about alcohol use. There aren't a bunch of rapists running around the military (there are a statistically average #), but there are an awful lot of functioning alcoholics who make unwanted advances at a barracks party or say something awful to an S1 OIC at a O-call when inhibitions are down.
Thank you for putting it this way. That's the point I was trying to get across - that people in the chain of command aren't deciding to put in the effort that the situation demands. I was trying...
Thank you for putting it this way. That's the point I was trying to get across - that people in the chain of command aren't deciding to put in the effort that the situation demands. I was trying to explain why people say they're making the decisions they do, not pass any judgment on where it was justified (it's not).
I wholeheartedly agree that this should be a separate process because "the good old boys" generally don't get it.
I appreciate that we're all on the same side of this and it's important that we are viewing things from this perspective. Thanks for the comment and have a great rest of your weekend!
I appreciate that we're all on the same side of this and it's important that we are viewing things from this perspective. Thanks for the comment and have a great rest of your weekend!
Thank you for that info, seeing the difference in how this was treated from AIT and other units. It's like giving each company, or each police unit the ability to investigate its own members.
Thank you for that info, seeing the difference in how this was treated from AIT and other units. It's like giving each company, or each police unit the ability to investigate its own members.
This is great. I could see people arguing this will get in the way of mission readiness. I just hope the crimes are brought to the appropriate people in the command and a firm no retaliation rule,...
This is great. I could see people arguing this will get in the way of mission readiness. I just hope the crimes are brought to the appropriate people in the command and a firm no retaliation rule, against victims, is enforced.
I mean, what gets in the way of mission readiness more: investigating and punishing crimes, or leaving a rapist in the unit to commit crimes against their fellow soldiers? It seems like one is...
I mean, what gets in the way of mission readiness more: investigating and punishing crimes, or leaving a rapist in the unit to commit crimes against their fellow soldiers? It seems like one is painful in the short term, but the other is deeply corrosive to the overall efforts to recruit and maintain a quality military force.
That's like saying "this won't change much except stop the cover ups and allow for cases to be properly prosecuted." Look, I'm certain that sexual assaults will still happen. I'm not going to say...
except hold officers and high ranked enlisted more accountable as well.
That's like saying "this won't change much except stop the cover ups and allow for cases to be properly prosecuted."
Look, I'm certain that sexual assaults will still happen. I'm not going to say it's a fact of life but, ya know, people. The bigger issue for the military is that it gets covered up, ignored or swept under the rug. This happens a lot in general but the military is directly under the purview of the federal government and they don't have to wade through layers of state and local governments to find a solution.
That in itself seems worth doing, at least to me. High ranking perpetrators could easily have more victims per offender either because of longer time in the service or greater access to more people.
That in itself seems worth doing, at least to me. High ranking perpetrators could easily have more victims per offender either because of longer time in the service or greater access to more people.
Sounds like a good step recommended by an independent commission formed by Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin. Also seems to have rare bipartisan support in the senate. I hope it is effective for victims seeking justice.
This is also the approach we need to take with police abuse and misconduct. Each state should really have a separate apparatus for prosecuting police officers. It's currently very hard to hold officers accountable because of the conflicts of interest involved in the existing justice system. Prosecutors don't want to prosecute the cops they have to work with on a daily basis, and the same goes for judges. Police cover for each other, and they face no penalties for perjuring themselves in court or on official reports.
What states really need is a completely separate system for prosecuting police officers. Just like we have often have separate courts for things like family law, for juveniles, etc, we should have one for police misconduct. And they should have separate prosecutors who do nothing but handle police misconduct cases.
It's about damn time. No matter where anyone stands on this (regarding UCMJ/commanders 'losing' jurisdiction to maintain good order and discipline) you can't argue with handing it to an office whose whole job is to give due process on a reasonable amount of time. I think 90 percent of the problems the U.S. military has prosecuting these crimes aren't because the commander isn't taking it seriously or is grossly out of step with the legal consensus. It's because they are focused on getting their unit through a CTC rotation before deploying somewhere AND a million other things to include a multitude of smaller legal problems. Taking something off their plate is huge.
This is good for victims, this is good for commanders, and this is good for those who have been stuck in legal limbo waiting for their turn to get prosecuted for their crimes. They deserve a fair trial reasonably quickly and allocating these resources is what needed to happen 15 years ago. DoD better not mess up the implementation.
You are incorrect. Stop making excuses for others.
Many people reporting sexual assault in the military, or sexual assault by service personnel, claim that their report was not taken seriously, that there was no mechanism for escalating the report above a commander who would not see the report actioned, and so on. To suggest otherwise is to blatantly endorse systemic social ills and a system that assault survivors do not trust to protect them. Do not come even close to making excuses for problems that we should be solving. No one should have to live with the status quo as it is now.
There have been Congressional hearings and testimony, in addition to men and women going on the public record, that there is a larger, systemic problem in taking sexual assault and related crimes seriously. This is not a scenario where, to paraphrase what you said, "the commanding officer was too busy doing important things." There are few things that should be more important to a commanding officer than insuring the health and personal safety of people under their command, regardless of whether they are in an active combat situation, looking forward to deploying to a war zone (recall that most military personnel do not see combat), or performing any other function. The CO is not in charge of the investigation, it's their duty to escalate the report to the appropriate place. Individuals who do not do this are not doing their duty and, in some cases, are complicit in the crime itself because the CO is the rapist (see above link). To suggest otherwise is to willfully endorse the people and ideology that seeks to minimize the evil that has been perpetrated and marginalize the survivors. To suggest otherwise is to endorse a disgusting social norm of ignorance and excuse-making summarized in the phrase "boys will be boys" and that assault survivors, of any gender, should never be taken seriously and should not have a right to their body or a legal right to their own defense.
A Congressional hearing from 2013: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zrEIiM3_Rk
A Human Rights Watch piece on sexual assault survivors who experience retaliation that goes unpunished: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlwxR1ES4T8 (5 minutes)
An interview from Military Times with a survivor speaking out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ays9ho9WkBg (13 minutes)
An interview from Protect Our Defenders, a non-profit seeking to end "sexual violence, victim retaliation, misogyny and racism in the (US) military and combating a culture that has allowed it to persist": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4J8Z09zHXA (8 minutes)
The Guardian has two short segments on the subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LtqdsihXPI (5 minutes)
There is a documentary called The Invisible War with long, detailed accounts by individuals across several branches of the military and US Coast Guard. See if you can watch it for free somewhere. It used to be free for Amazon Prime Video subscribers, but presently you need a free trial of another service to watch it. There are several news segments about the documentary, including a 1-hour news segment interviewing survivors, from back when the documentary was released.
This is a thoughtful and well supported post and I appreciate the receipts you brought to the discussion as well. That said, this depiction of military handling of sexual harassment/assault, or the UCMJ in general, does not match with my (admittedly) individual—read anecdotal—experience with the matter. Without divulging too much private information, I have been on both sides of this issue over the last decade plus in a very very personal way. While I 100 percent acknowledge the existence—and abhorrent nature—of sexual harassment/assault (SHARP/etc), I have yet to witness a command team that hasn't given full seriousness and attention to any reported misconduct across a broad range of theaters and unit types. That is absolutely not to be interpreted as a statement denying the existence of miscarried justice and abuse within chains of command being suppressed. This absolutely does, and has throughout military history, occurred in disgusting frequencies. What I would like to highlight, is that this is not an accurate characterization of military culture and those who feel that the military has such a permissive attitude towards the issue is mistaken or (for the more cynical) possibly pushing a narrative.
For those who haven't been exposed to military culture, or haven't spent time around military command structures higher than the Company level, every commander (literally every one) gets a very detailed and serious orientation on career altering events. To a command team, each (non-interim) commander receives a dedicated training regimen on proper management SHARP issues and continuing education every year (although no one will argue these refreshers are more than a CYA exercise). The gravity of mishandling a SHARP complaint is 100% clear as a cultural norm within the military. The top fears of the average commander in the military are death of a service member under their command, SHARP incidents, and loss of accountability over property (at the company level, ask anyone what losing a set of night vision optics feels like). These issues derail careers and are maters of serious concern across the vast majority of the force.
The issue is our military is made up of an enormously diverse cross section of the U.S. population (more than any other organization I have encountered) and you CAN NOT re-socialize individuals who have already ingrained their values and beliefs (past high-school) in a meaningful way through 18 weeks of basic training and yearly SHARP briefs. Like any large organization, SHARP issues are a fact life because the body the military is composed of, is made up of people. Anyone who has worked in hospitality, retail, construction, or healthcare will vouch for similarly depressing rates of harassment/abuse (at statistically higher rates that reported military SHARP as well - See RAND's numbers for comparison).
What makes this a fantastic policy development isn't that it is finally addressing a culture of systemic abuse, but rather that it formalizes treating the issue with the seriousness it deserves.
The military has a problem with SHARP, but every large organization does. What this should be looked at as, is a model for every organization that employs large numbers of personnel. I can say that as a commander, there is a huge sigh of relief (across the board) that now there's a dedicated team to manage the issue that doesn't rely on a bunch of well-meaning, but inexperienced, professionals to carry the matter through. Even the best commander has bad apples in the force, and now they can offload some of the most difficult UCMJ concerns to a dedicated team. This is an absolute win for victims and command teams alike, but don't mistake it as a cure all.
The military already prosecutes more SHARP violations than the civilian world because they don't have the same aversion to bringing cases that aren't winnable—like civilian DAs. These aren't easy cases for a multitude of reasons, but no one should think that this will fundamentally change how many perpetrators are brought to justice. It's certainly a positive step, but we have a long way to go as a society before rates come down. The policy does set the conditions for a more uniform general expectation for the results of misconduct within the force. Like I stated up earlier, you can't typically re-socialize people, but you can set expectations for behavior and that will help police misconduct even in poor commands that aren't representative of the norm. SHARP issues need much more than UCMJ authority tweaks to fundamentally change conduct though. If we want to get serious about reducing the number of assaults in the military, we have to do something about alcohol use. There aren't a bunch of rapists running around the military (there are a statistically average #), but there are an awful lot of functioning alcoholics who make unwanted advances at a barracks party or say something awful to an S1 OIC at a O-call when inhibitions are down.
Thank you for putting it this way. That's the point I was trying to get across - that people in the chain of command aren't deciding to put in the effort that the situation demands. I was trying to explain why people say they're making the decisions they do, not pass any judgment on where it was justified (it's not).
I wholeheartedly agree that this should be a separate process because "the good old boys" generally don't get it.
I appreciate that we're all on the same side of this and it's important that we are viewing things from this perspective. Thanks for the comment and have a great rest of your weekend!
Thank you for that info, seeing the difference in how this was treated from AIT and other units. It's like giving each company, or each police unit the ability to investigate its own members.
This is great. I could see people arguing this will get in the way of mission readiness. I just hope the crimes are brought to the appropriate people in the command and a firm no retaliation rule, against victims, is enforced.
I mean, what gets in the way of mission readiness more: investigating and punishing crimes, or leaving a rapist in the unit to commit crimes against their fellow soldiers? It seems like one is painful in the short term, but the other is deeply corrosive to the overall efforts to recruit and maintain a quality military force.
All of my military friends have said this won’t change much except hold officers and high ranked enlisted more accountable as well.
That's like saying "this won't change much except stop the cover ups and allow for cases to be properly prosecuted."
Look, I'm certain that sexual assaults will still happen. I'm not going to say it's a fact of life but, ya know, people. The bigger issue for the military is that it gets covered up, ignored or swept under the rug. This happens a lot in general but the military is directly under the purview of the federal government and they don't have to wade through layers of state and local governments to find a solution.
That in itself seems worth doing, at least to me. High ranking perpetrators could easily have more victims per offender either because of longer time in the service or greater access to more people.