The military has a sexual assault problem. Endless effort is being spent trying to figure out why: Stress on the troops? Difficulty integrating women into the ranks? Too little supervision? In the long run, these questions matter little. There is only one certain way to stop sexual abuse: Victims must feel that coming forward will be taken seriously within the military justice system, and assailants must feel that they will face consequences. But the military justice system isn’t equipped to handle this problem, and the Pentagon must reform it for the thousands of women who have suffered under its negligence.
The system grants commanding officers the power to be both prosecutor and judge. Such leaders have both the capacity to initiate a case (or not) and dismiss a verdict (or not). This set-up is far too prone to bias and whim, as male leaders often turn a blind eye to the egregious behavior of subordinates, leading to further abuse and fewer women coming forward.
Comments
Lt. Gen. Franklin should be tried for dereliction of duty. Having military authority requires it be used judiciously and responsibly, and if the facts of the case have been reported accurately he's failed on both counts.
Geo, it is always interesting when someone spouts off without having knowledge of their subject. You obviously do not know what "dereliction of duty" means legally. But it sounded good to you.
In the military justice system, a commanding officer has essentially the same powers as a judge. In the civilian world, we cannot charge a judge for for overturning a case just because we do not like the fact that it was done. There is no such crime. The same thing is true in the military legal system.
Just for your edification, the following is from definitions.us.legal:
"Generally, dereliction of duty refers to failure through negligence or obstinacy to perform one’s legal or moral duty to a reasonable expectation. In other words, it means willful or negligent failure to perform assigned duties or performing them in a culpably inefficient manner. Dereliction of duty is a specific offense in military law. Under the regulations of military law, avoidance of a duty or failure to follow an order from a superior, noncompliance with procedural rules, misbehavior, malingering, self-injury with intent to avoid service, or straggling can result in a charge of dereliction of duty. Ineptitude is a defense against the charge. A person convicted of dereliction of duty can be given a dishonorable or bad behavior discharge from his or her branch of service, and may forfeit pay or be sentenced to six months confinement. U.S. Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), addresses dereliction of duty within the regulations governing the failure to obey an order or regulation."
Notice the first several sentences would make it appear that the CO could be charged, but in the military, dereliction of duty is the failure to follow orders or avoid a duty. In the CO's case, he did not FAIL to do anything, he actually acted.
All that said, unlike civilian judges who can make one horrendous decision after another, this guy's career is over. He will be quietly shuffled off to some little office to organize paper clips, never to be heard from again.
Gee, either I've made an enemy, or you've decided that posts accually should have a factual basis. (you WWII history knowledge kinda took it on the chin yesterday.)
Why would all this be a surprise? This is a mercenary army.
Really? How so?
And why exactly should only allegations of sexual assault be given a unique place under military law? This case has been wildly politicized and this column is more of the same. The Washington Post reported that the accused's wife, who was in the house when the alleged assault took place, gave testimony which directly contradicted the testimony of the victim in a case with no physical evidence. In fact, the wife testified that she herself asked the woman to leave because she was behaving improperly in their home. The accused's attorney also felt that the military jury was under unusual pressure to convict, which compromised his client's ability to get a fair trial. As usual, there is more to the story than meets the eye. Any judge can set aside a verdict he or she feels is unjust or incorrect under certain circumstances upon review of the evidence. Don't accused military men deserve the same when their commanders are the final judges? But protesting this makes a good, rabble rousing column, I'll say that.
Now, now Mass, you are going against the credo that states anyone of the fair gender who says she has been wronged, has in fact, been wronged. Evidence not withstanding.
"...anyone of the fair gender..." Wow, 19ty century style misogyny, harder and harder to find these days.
What would be a better Globe article would be one that talks about Conduct unbecoming the military's Commander in Chief. Towards his own troops.