2 more USAFA cadets charged with sexual misconduct

Luigi59

Luigi59

Banned
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
4,566
Tuesday Sep 18, 2012

http://www.csindy.com/IndyBlog/archives/2012/09/19/academy-cadets-charged-with-sex-crimes

One cadet is accused of attempting to commit sodomy against an academy cadet candidate at the prep school in August or September 2009. The same cadet also is charged under the Uniform Code of Military Justice article dealing with rape and carnal knowledge for allegedly fondling a cadet in November 2011 in which he used "restraint ... sufficient that she could not avoid or escape the sexual conduct," according to the charge sheet. A third charge alleges the cadet committed sodomy "by force" in November 2011.

The other cadet faces two charges, both of which arose from alleged incidents in May 2011. The cadet is accused of attempting to commit sodomy. He's also accused of the article dealing with rape and carnal knowledge by engaging in sexual acts "by threatening or placing her in fear that she would be subjected to bodily harm," the charge sheet says.

The academy hasn't explained why the investigation took so long, or whether the 2009 alleged incident might have arisen more recently after the subsequent allegation in 2011 came to light. If the allegation was reported in 2009 while the accused was at the prep school, it's curious why the academy would promote the cadet to the academy with a sex crime investigation pending.

The prep school has been used in large part to indoctrinate athletes into the academy system.
Click to expand...
 
Just remember, as far as UCMJ is concerned, sodomy is anything non-vaginal (including oral sex).

Of course, with the repeal of DADT since my departure, I'm not sure if that's still true, but it used to be....
 
LineInTheSand said:
Just remember, as far as UCMJ is concerned, sodomy is anything non-vaginal (including oral sex).

Of course, with the repeal of DADT since my departure, I'm not sure if that's still true, but it used to be....
Click to expand...

There is no change in the definition of sodomy (the same as you posted). The laws on consensual sodomy in the UCMJ haven't held legal standing since Lawrence v Texas. As far as I know, DADT repeal had no impact on the laws regarding sodomy as no change was needed with that Supreme Court case. Legally, I think they use sodomy as a definition of the type of assault. In these cases, it's probably forced oral sex.
 
hornetguy said:
Legally, I think they use sodomy as a definition of the type of assault. In these cases, it's probably forced oral sex.
Click to expand...

Not always physical force. A perceived threat as in "you did something wrong last summer, and if you don't do this... people could find out".
 
That's what my classmate got popped for when the rape charges didn't stick...
 
FYSA, in response to Lawrence vs. Texas, the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces came up with a three-pronged test on consensual sodomy.

United States v. Stirewalt, 60 MJ 297 (constitutional challenges to Article 125, UCMJ, based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Lawrence v. Texas must be addressed on an as applied, case-by-case basis; there is a tripartite framework for addressing Lawrence challenges within the military context: First, was the conduct that the accused was found guilty of committing of a nature to bring it within the liberty interest identified by the Supreme Court? Second, did the conduct encompass any behavior or factors identified by the Supreme Court as outside the analysis in Lawrence? and, Third, are there additional factors relevant solely in the military environment that affect the nature and reach of the Lawrence liberty interest?)
Click to expand...

where consensual sodomy occurred between a commissioned officer department head and a subordinate enlisted crew member, and where this conduct was prohibited by Coast Guard regulations and policy, the conduct fell outside any protected liberty interest recognized in Lawrence and was appropriately regulated as a matter of military discipline under Article 125; thus, Article 125 was constitutional as applied
Click to expand...

http://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/newcaaf/digest/IIIA51.htm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top