On Thursday President Obama signed a defense authorization bill aimed to reform sexual assault policies in the military, a much needed piece of legislation considering the slew of military scandals regarding sexual assault this year. The provisions of this bill include ending the statute of limitations for sexual assault or rape cases in military, so that even after a certain period of time has passed the perpetrator can still be prosecuted for the charges. Military commanders are now barred from overturning jury decisions in such cases and are mandated to dishonorably discharge or dismiss those convicted of sexual assault. In the Wilkerson case linked above, Wilkerson's commander even attempted to give him a promotion after the commander overturned the jury decision.
One measure, however, did not make the cut. Many survivors are advocating for sexual assault cases in the military to be prosecuted independently. As of now these cases are prosecuted within the chain of command for the purpose of "order and discipline," but how valid is that reasoning when it's clear that these cases are ignored or even harmful to victims that report them? Changes are happening -- the increased reporting of sexual assault indicate that the definition of sexual assault is becoming more clear to victims, and a decreasing of the fear and stigma that comes with reporting these cases. However, do you think change is happening fast enough? Obama has given a year for the military to conduct a review of its changes regarding sexual assault policies, but how effective can these changes be without the key measure mentioned above?
4 comments:
I had heard multiple stories of rape within the military before reading this, and it only reinforces my belief that change is definitely not happening fast enough. Despite the fact that rape in the military has been a serious issue for quite some time now, we have waited until now to pass legislation that actually does something about it, and even now it still allows commanding officers to prosecute accused attackers. This could potentially hinder efforts to get to the bottom of these crimes, and that's why I believe that the commanding officers should not be the ones to prosecute the accused attackers. Though this bill is a step in the right direction, in my opinion it does not do enough.
I agree with Alex that obviously change isn't coming fast enough. At this rate, I absolutely do not think our government is not being effective enough without including that key provision. It doesn't seem fair for the victim to have to prosecute within the "chain of command," because many military officers won't accuse due to their fear of retaliation from higher ranks. After all, there is no point in making changes when accusations are limited. I think Obama, as commander in chief, should focus on this provision more instead of waiting a year to review changes. I think implementing this provision is a big important step in the huge issue over rape in the military.
I think it's certainly a good thing that these changes have taken place. It seems ridiculous to me that there was a time limit to report a crime, for one thing.
While I do understand the desire for cases to be prosecuted within the chain of command, if said chain of command is doing an inadequate job, then I also agree that independent trials are in order. Sexual assault is not merely a crime specific to the military - it is (obviously) illegal nationwide. As such, it doesn't make sense that the setting of the crime changes the way in which justice is served in any way.
It is a shame that people within the military are harming each other. The danger is supposed to be from outside, not within.
This issue reminds me a lot of that article we read on the bureaucracy. We talked about having efficiency in the government while also having transparency and accountability is very difficult. In this situation, while it is important to ensure the safety of the soldiers and to prosecute those guilty of sexual assault, it is also important to retain some semblance of authority, order, and discipline in the military. Thus, I can understand why they would want to keep prosecution within the chain of command. I agree that the system is far from perfect, and there may be flaws in prosecuting within the chain of command. However, I believe it's a significant step in the right direction and that it will take some time before we can establish the proper balance between upholding the law and retaining that "order and discipline" necessary in the military.
Post a Comment