Skip to main content

View Diary: Guess why the Army's top sexual assault prosecutor's been suspended (109 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Ill say what I've said all along (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CharlieHipHop, jqb

    I've seen how civilian courts work for rape cases, you'd have fewer prosecutions with fewer convictions because the military takes cases the civilians don't.  I know...I prosecuted (or defended) in courts-martial the locals rejected (and most resulted in acquittals).

    Going civilian isn't going to solve the problem.

    •  Probably not (0+ / 0-)

      But it would at least eliminate the appearance/actuality of an "Old Boys' Club."  

      They tell me I'm pretty amusing from time to time working with 140 characters or less.

      by CharlieHipHop on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 05:49:54 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Id rather have (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        actual better results than bad appearances.

        You want to see an Old Boy's Club? Go to down town podunkville where most Army bases are located.

        Most Army bases at least are in rural areas.  It's not exactly progressive central or woman-friendly.

    •  Oh, I forgot to say... (0+ / 0-)

      Is it bad that the courts rejected the cases or that they resulted in acquittals?  

      Honestly, this case makes me feel a little sorry for this guy.  Yes, he's a buffoon, a pig, an idiot, an a-hole.  But it seems... blown out of proportion.  Did he display his penis?  I mean, we've all been rejected; it's not a crime to try -- just to keep trying after being rejected.

      If the standard is simply, "He attempted to kiss me and groped at my body," that opens the door for other kinds of abuses.  Maybe she (or someone else) doesn't like the guy so she leads him on and sets him up.  He never rapes her.  He does what any heterosexual man does when he's tipsy with an attractive woman in an intimate setting -- he gives it a shot.  

      I don't want to live in a world where men can't make awkward passes.  I know it's inappropriate for a guy to hit on a subordinate, but is it illegal?  Is it even unusual?  Is it even unnatural?

      Now I'll probably get HRed to hell for saying that, but I calls 'em like I sees 'em.

      They tell me I'm pretty amusing from time to time working with 140 characters or less.

      by CharlieHipHop on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 05:57:18 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  depends on the case (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        I mean the default is supposed to be innocent til proven guilty so no in and of itself I don't believe it's bad.  Having said that, odds are at least some of the victims were telling the truth in those cases so justice wasn't served.

        Ideally every single innocent person would go free and every single guilty person would be convicted.  We can't ever achieve that, but we can try to get it as close as possible.

        Some of the cases were bad cases truly, but some were just tough cases the Army took on that the civies wouldn't (because who needs a low conviction rate come re-election time?).

        I think tough cases should be taken to court. So I think the extreme I see in rural justice systems towards sexual assault goes too far the other way.

        We don't know what happened yet, we don't even know the specifics of the allegation, so we don't know if he's a "buffoon" or any of the other things you list.  My personal dealings with him strongly suggest he isn't, but since my ability to read human nature is as flawed as any other human, I could very well be wrong.

        Time will tell, and the judicial process will take it's course.  I DO object to the mentality present in this diary of an allegation equaling guilt.

        It's absolutely inappropriate to hit on a subordinate.  It's right in the UCMJ.  It's also in AR 600-20.  I dated a junior who wasn't a subordinate (by one rank, both officers), and while it was nothing improper, it was still something that had to be vetted somewhat by my superiors (and ultimately my boss was fine with it)...but if it was my actual subordinate, it wouldn't have just been no you can't it would have been what the heck are you thinking?

        He shouldn't have "given it a shot" if she worked for him which apparently she did.  So if that happened, even if no SA happened, he was wrong.  We will see what the facts bear out.

      •  No, we have not all been rejected. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bluehammer, jqb

        No, it isn’t true that any heterosexual man gives it a shot when he’s tipsy with an attractive woman in an intimate setting.

      •  Errrrrr... I Guess You're Forgetting (0+ / 0-)

        this is the MILITARY? not some doofus down at Clancy's Bar on Saturday night hoping he gets lucky?

        "We are beyond law, which is not unusual for an empire; unfortunately, we are also beyond common sense." Gore Vidal

        by Superpole on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 06:16:15 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Under the UCMJ (0+ / 0-)

        "sexual assault" as defined there can be committed if one person "commits a sexual act" upon a second person, and the second person involved is under the influence of an intoxicant and thus legally cannot consent.

        For the details of this and other sexual crimes under the UCMJ:

        The rules are different under the UCMJ than in civilian courts, in many ways (including the legal process).

        •  not as much as you appear to believe (0+ / 0-)

          the laws/rules are based very much on the Federal rules and the most recent changes to sexual assault crimes under Article 120 mirror a lot of the language of some states.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site