Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Congress
Related: About this forumMilitary sex-assault case shows need for far-reaching reforms
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2014/03/22/jeffrey-sinclair-sex-assault-trial-makes-case-for-kirsten-gillibrand-bill/3iicsl2orxHy8XqZi0pPcI/story.htmlMilitary sex-assault case shows need for far-reaching reforms
March 22, 2014
Two weeks ago, the Senate blocked legislation championed by Kirsten Gillibrand to overhaul the broken process of rooting out sexual assault in the military. The New York Democrats bill would have taken away commanding officers power to decide when to prosecute, entrusting that authority instead to neutral military lawyers outside the chain of command. Gillibrand won a bipartisan 55-45 majority but was short of the 60 votes needed to avoid a filibuster. The Senate then unanimously passed a bill sponsored by Missouris Claire McCaskill that made some good reforms most notably in eliminating the good soldier defense, in which defendants invoke exemplary service records to suggest they could not have possibly committed sexual assault. But the Senate bill still leaves commanding officers with too much influence over these cases. The House should do better.
The dysfunction of the current system has been evident over the last two weeks in the trial of Brigadier General Jeffrey Sinclair. A former deputy commander of the 82d Airborne in Afghanistan, he faced significant prison time and permanent registration as a sex offender after being accused of sexual assault on an Army captain 17 years his junior with whom he was having an affair. The case riveted the Army, as Sinclair was only the third general in 60 years to face court-martial. In the end, Sinclair pleaded guilty to lesser charges, after the case took many confusing turns that left no one satisfied that justice was served.
In this case, there were suggestions that command influence worked to the defendants disadvantage: Early last week, the judge publicly questioned whether the prosecution rejected an earlier plea-bargaining attempt because commanders felt politically pressured to prosecute Sinclair to the fullest extent. This winter, President Obama gave the Pentagon a year to show it was attacking sexual assault, and career military officials are coming to understand that theyll be judged by whether they take such accusations seriously.
Historically, though, complaints about command influence have run in the opposite direction: Accusers fear that defendants who are held in high esteem by a commanding officer are likely to be protected from legal consequences for any misconduct. Whats needed is a more impartial system as contemplated in Gillibrands legislation. As the House takes up the issue, it should learn the lessons from the Sinclair trial and of many other cases that preceded it.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
1 replies, 1274 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (1)
ReplyReply to this post
1 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Military sex-assault case shows need for far-reaching reforms (Original Post)
unhappycamper
Mar 2014
OP
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)1. He pleaded out
It was weird because it was so last minute.