Should we remove military chain of command from military sexual assault cases?

[jamesrage]

Should we remove military chain of command from military sexual assault cases?

Yes
No
I do not know/other

Military Sexual Assault Bill Could Remove Chain Of Command From Legal Process | Texas Public Radio

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-New York, filed the bill to change the way the military investigates sexual assault. The bill removes commanders from the decisions on whether sexual assault cases should be investigated and prosecuted. The companion legislation did not make it to committee in the House.
Congresswoman Jackie Speier, D-San Francisco, who visited Lackland at the height of the sexual assault investigation, said of the 60-plus victims of sexual assault, the number reporting to their commanders was zero.
"The only way this has ever seen the light of day was when two MTIs (military training instructors) had had enough and took it to the chain of command and the chain of command said, 'You know, he's such a good guy, that couldn't possibly be true.' And was about to dismiss it. It wasn't until a third MTI went out of the chain of command to the chaplain and reported it. Then they thought, 'Well, maybe we should look into this.'" Speier said.
Chuck Parrish of Protect Our Defenders, a non-profit organization formed to advocate for military sexual assault victims who feared reprisal for reporting sex crimes, said 26,000 service members are attacked every year at a rate that is five times that of civilian offenses.
Parrish said he believes Congress must intervene and mandate a professional, unbiased justice system in the military.

I say yes.There should be an unbiased 3rd party that could care less about the alleged victim's and alleged assailant's rank that investigates these cases. I would also like to see it apply to other crimes too. I do not know if these numbers of alleged unreported sexual assault cases are true or if its just some attempt to smear the miltiary.I do not care. I do know that when I was in the Army a person integrity or credibility was based on rank.Basically the soldier with higher rank was believed more than the lower ranking soldier.

 

[Risky Thicket]

Great question. At this point I would say the chain of command should be removed from sexual assault cases. It clearly is not working now.

 

[mak2]

But doesnt that remove the Commander from responsiblity? There is (or at least used to be) a block on the form the results of the courts-martial was typed out on, that the service members CO could set the whole thing aside. I think that is all they are trying to take away from the CO, but I am not sure about this. I dont think changing the chain of command is gonna help.

Great question. At this point I would say the chain of command should be removed from sexual assault cases. It clearly is not working now.

 

[HonestJoe]

It seems to me that there is a general argument against a whole military legal system running in parallel to the civil one. The military (and society in general) has change massively since that concept was introduced and I'm not convinced there is any good reason why alleged crimes within the military shouldn't be treated in the same way as alleged crimes in any other place of work.

I fear the military justice system isn't focused on protecting individual victims of crime but is in fact focused on protecting the military and it's public image.

 

[mak2]

You can go to the brig for putting your hand in your pocket. I dont think civilians are ready for that.

It seems to me that there is a general argument against a whole military legal system running in parallel to the civil one. The military (and society in general) has change massively since that concept was introduced and I'm not convinced there is any good reason why alleged crimes within the military shouldn't be treated in the same way as alleged crimes in any other place of work.

I fear the military justice system isn't focused on protecting individual victims of crime but is in fact focused on protecting the military and it's public image.

 

[Kobie]

Serious question, because I really don't know the answer ...

Let's say one serviceman kills another intentionally. Does that get removed from the chain of command?

 

[Kobie]

You can go to the brig for putting your hand in your pocket. I dont think civilians are ready for that.

You'd know better than those who didn't serve ... yes, you can be arbitrarily punished in the military for stupid ****. We know that.

However, in heinous crimes like sexual assault, should that be turned over to local authorities, and why or why not? Asking seriously, because I only have tertiary knowledge of the culture of the military, but it seems to me that certain crimes transcend the UCMJ.

 

[molten_dragon]

In general I think it's a bad idea for organizations to regulate themselves. It generally leads to some kind of abuse of the system.

So yes, I think a neutral third party should investigate military sexual assault charges.

 

[mak2]

No. He would probably stand a General Courts-Martial, conducted by hte CG.

Serious question, because I really don't know the answer ...

Let's say one serviceman kills another intentionally. Does that get removed from the chain of command?

 

[BlackAsCoal]

Without question the military chain of command should be removed from these cases .. immediately.

They have consistently demonstrated themselves to be nothing more than the old boy's club rather than an honest and fair form of judgement and review.

More American soldiers kill themselves than die in combat, and its time this government took the lives of soldiers more seriously than they do.

 

[BMCM]

that's when the NCIS come into play.

 

[apdst]

Great question. At this point I would say the chain of command should be removed from sexual assault cases. It clearly is not working now.

You will remove all responsibility to react to and prevent sexual harassment.

 

[apdst]

You can go to the brig for putting your hand in your pocket. I dont think civilians are ready for that.

No you can't!

 

[apdst]

You'd know better than those who didn't serve ... yes, you can be arbitrarily punished in the military for stupid ****. We know that.

However, in heinous crimes like sexual assault, should that be turned over to local authorities, and why or why not? Asking seriously, because I only have tertiary knowledge of the culture of the military, but it seems to me that certain crimes transcend the UCMJ.

No, you can't be arbitrarily punished, under the UCMJ. Let's don't get carried away.

 

[apdst]

Without question the military chain of command should be removed from these cases .. immediately.

They have consistently demonstrated themselves to be nothing more than the old boy's club rather than an honest and fair form of judgement and review.

More American soldiers kill themselves than die in combat, and its time this government took the lives of soldiers more seriously than they do.

It's a soldier's right to be judged by a jury of his peers. There's no way a civilian jury can meet that requirement.

It's untrue that more soldiers commit suicide than die on the battlefield.

 

[HonestJoe]

You will remove all responsibility to react to and prevent sexual harassment.

I don't see how. Superiors and managers in any other field don't loose that responsibility just because they're not involved in any legal process. In fact the allegation is the opposite, that senior officers are singularly failing to do that.

It's a soldier's right to be judged by a jury of his peers. There's no way a civilian jury can meet that requirement.

Rubbish. There is nothing special about soldiers that make them any different to anyone else in regards to a "jury of our peers". They certainly do a difficult and dangerous job but they're hardly alone in that. I could see an argument for incidents actually in theatre but there is absolutely no reason why "domestic" accusations like this shouldn't be dealt with by conventional legal authorities.

 

[apdst]

I don't see how. Superiors and managers in any other field don't loose that responsibility just because they're not involved in any legal process. In fact the allegation is the opposite, that senior officers are singularly failing to do that.

Rubbish. There is nothing special about soldiers that make them any different to anyone else in regards to a "jury of our peers". They certainly do a difficult and dangerous job but they're hardly alone in that. I could see an argument for incidents actually in theatre but there is absolutely no reason why "domestic" accusations like this shouldn't be dealt with by conventional legal authorities.

It's not Rubbish. It's the Constitution. It's unconstitutional to try a soldier in a civilian court for a violation that falls under the UCMJ.

 

[HonestJoe]

It's not Rubbish. It's the Constitution. It's unconstitutional to try a soldier in a civilian court for a violation that falls under the UCMJ.

It's rubbish that there is anything generally specially about soldiers (and other members of the military) that means a civilian jury is incapable of giving them a fair trial.

The Constitution gives the US Federal government the authority to regulate the armed forces but I see no reason why they couldn't delegate that in most cases, to civilian authorities. There is certainly no moral or practical reason they couldn't - just because something is in the constitutional doesn't automatically mean it's right.

 

[apdst]

It's rubbish that there is anything generally specially about soldiers (and other members of the military) that means a civilian jury is incapable of giving them a fair trial.

The Constitution gives the US Federal government the authority to regulate the armed forces but I see no reason why they couldn't delegate that in most cases, to civilian authorities. There is certainly no moral or practical reason they couldn't - just because something is in the constitutional doesn't automatically mean it's right.

A civilian doesn't know enough about military customs, traditions or circumstances to give a serviceman a fair trial. That's why the framers left military justice to the military.

Most civilians don't know anything about the UCMJ. You would have to send to school to learn it, before the trial started and if you do that, then it makes more sense to let servicemembers make up the jury.

 

[mak2]

Excuse me, you certianly can.

No you can't!

 

[Redress]

Should we remove military chain of command from military sexual assault cases?

Yes
No
I do not know/other




I say yes.There should be an unbiased 3rd party that could care less about the alleged victim's and alleged assailant's rank that investigates these cases. I would also like to see it apply to other crimes too. I do not know if these numbers of alleged unreported sexual assault cases are true or if its just some attempt to smear the miltiary.I do not care. I do know that when I was in the Army a person integrity or credibility was based on rank.Basically the soldier with higher rank was believed more than the lower ranking soldier.

It is a good question. I tend to think that eliminating the chain of command would be inappropriate, but things are not working as is, which means some change is needed. Instead of eliminating the chain of command, supplement their tools and add oversite. I do not know enough about how sexual harassment assault cases are handled now nor really how any serious case is handled in the military since we only had one case like that and I had bigger things going on at the time. So I am kinda unsure exactly how it could be done. Possibly maybe each sexual assault charge gets an outside observer/adviser who works with the command?

 

[apdst]

Excuse me, you certianly can.

Under what regulation? Becaise violations of the uniform regulation--in the Army AR670-1--isn't a court martial offense.

 

[apdst]

It is a good question. I tend to think that eliminating the chain of command would be inappropriate, but things are not working as is, which means some change is needed. Instead of eliminating the chain of command, supplement their tools and add oversite. I do not know enough about how sexual harassment assault cases are handled now nor really how any serious case is handled in the military since we only had one case like that and I had bigger things going on at the time. So I am kinda unsure exactly how it could be done. Possibly maybe each sexual assault charge gets an outside observer/adviser who works with the command?

Who rules the roost? The commander, or the observer? How do you keep activists from becoming observers?

The biggest question: who has to deal with a breakdown in discipline and morale should their be a rash of wrongful convictions.

 

[mak2]

I did not say a word about the Army. In the Marine Corps if you stick your hands in your pockets you are out of uniform. If you are out of uniform you can get NJP and thrown in CC or the Brig for a certain period of days (3 I think). A certain PFC Joe S. I knew real well got thrown in the brig on Friday night and they kept him until Monday AM when someone from our command had to go get him. He had both hands in his pockets.

Under what regulation? Becaise violations of the uniform regulation--in the Army AR670-1--isn't a court martial offense.

 

[mak2]

If Joe had gotten busted for the same thing again before the NJP I gurantee he would have gotten at least a Summary CM.

I did not say a word about the Army. In the Marine Corps if you stick your hands in your pockets you are out of uniform. If you are out of uniform you can get NJP and thrown in CC or the Brig for a certain period of days (3 I think). A certain PFC Joe S. I knew real well got thrown in the brig on Friday night and they kept him until Monday AM when someone from our command had to go get him. He had both hands in his pockets.