3 USNA Football Players Face Sexual Assault Probe

[usnabgo08]

At the academies and colleges - women are shamed for having been assaulted and then reporting it. Their own peers blame them for 'getting the football player expelled'....So your answer is complicated with no simple and easy solution.

Obviously, this cannot stand when it does happen and needs to be stomped on immediately, if it does happen. I'd agree there is no easy answer and that is why I was saying rhetorical...the answer isn't something that can be decided on in 10 seconds, but probably important to consider.

If the military is serious about changing the rape culture they need to talk to victims - find out why they were reluctant to report and how women can be encouraged to report going forward.

I think the DOD survey is suppose to garner this information; but it probably doesn't get the response/attention it does deserve. I am not sure if the current investigative services look into this when interviewing the victims. Hopefully this is something that will be looked into in the future.

Any person who knowingly and willingly makes a false accusation, of course should be held accountable. This should be easy at the Academy - since this is lying and cause for dismissal. That said - an acquittal is not synonymous with a false accusation.

Agreed that acquittal and false accusations are not one and the same. I will have to ask a JAG-friend more about false accusations to see what the process is.

 

[Buddy]

"1. This is very tricky and difficult - encouraging victims to testify. Even when there is plenty of physical evidence it is very difficult for a woman who has been raped to go forward. How can we encourage women to go forward? We (as a society) can start by believing them. We can treat rape as a violent crime of abuse instead of subtly or overtly telling the victim that she must have 'asked for it'. "

To the extent that this seems to imply that women alleging that they have been sexually assaulted should be given a presumption of credibility that is greater than that afforded other alleged crime victims, I disagree. I think there is a real potential for a witch-hunt here. The accused have a presumption of innocence that shouldn't be disregarded just because sexual assault is such an emotionally and politically charged issue.


"2. False accusations -actually the FBI puts the number at between 2% and 8%. Trained professional investigators who respond to the victims complaint in a timely manner can ferret out the vast majority of false accusations -- before charges are filed."

Actually, the 2 to 8% figure, while widely quoted, is probably not accurate and has been pretty thoroughly debunked. There have been a lot of studies done to try to come up with a number for "false rape accusations" (and defining that term is pretty problematic). Studies have had widely divergent results, although 10% seems to be what many come up with . Even if it is "only" 10%, that is a significant number.

"Any person who knowingly and willingly makes a false accusation, of course should be held accountable. This should be easy at the Academy - since this is lying and cause for dismissal. That said - an acquittal is not synonymous with a false accusation. "

True but what are you getting at. A defendant is presumed innocent. if he is acquitted, it is because there is not enough evidence to overcome the presumption of innocence.

"Some folks want to look to the infamous Duke lax case as a classic false allegation that destroyed the lives of the lax players. However, it was not the false claim but the incompetent DA who lost his law license by fraudulently prosecuting the case."

He wasn't incompetent, he was evil. He knew that the accused was not credible and that there was no corroborating evidence to support her lies, but he prosecuted anyway. And it was the accusation that destroyed their lives--- you might recall that the entire team was pretty much declared guilty (complete with "wanted" posters posted throughout campus and marches and signs declaring their guilt) before the first indictment.

"Far more common than false accusations are victims who choose not to report their assault. "

Perhaps, perhaps not. How can we possibly know?

We don't know what really happened in the case under discussion but I have a real problem when two parties are drinking and make bad decisions and only one is held accountable for their actions. Hypothetically, if an alleged victim is drinking, consents to sexual intercourse and then later says she cannot remember what happened because she was so drunk, I don't necessarily think that she has been sexually assaulted. I imagine that a huge number of these cases involve fairly heavy drinking and bad decisionmaking. But, part of being an adult is bearing the responsibility for your decisionmaking, be it driving a car while drunk or having sex while drunk

 

[usnabgo08]

Buddy,

One of the 5 definitions that satisfies the rape condition and the definition of consent is provided below:

(5) Administering to that other person by force or threat of force, or without the knowledge or consent of that person, a drug, intoxicant, or other similar substance and thereby substantially impairing the ability of that other person to appraise or control conduct;

Consent
(A) The term ‘consent’ means a freely given agreement to the conduct at issue by a competent person. An expression of lack of consent through words or conduct means there is no consent. Lack of verbal or physical resistance or submission resulting from the use of force, threat of force, or placing another person in fear does not constitute consent. A current or previous dating or social or sexual relationship by itself or the manner of dress of the person involved with the accused in the conduct at issue shall not constitute consent.
(B) A sleeping, unconscious, or incompetent person cannot consent. A person cannot consent to force causing or likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm or to being rendered unconscious. A person cannot consent while under threat or fear or under the circumstances described in subparagraph (C) or (D) of subsection (b)(1).
(C) Lack of consent maybe inferred based on the circumstances of the offense. All the surrounding circumstances are to be considered in determining whether a person gave consent, or whether a person did not resist or ceased to resist only because of another person’s actions.

If a person knows or suspects that another has been drinking too much to reasonably consent to sexual conduct, then that person DID NOT give consent in the eyes of UCMJ. As noted above, the totality of circumstances is considered on whether an individual gave (or could give) consent or not.

 

[hornetguy]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/03/opinion/time-to-change-military-justice.html?hp&_r=0

Time to Change Military Justice
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
Published: June 2, 2013
In his commencement address at the United States Military Academy late last month, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel urged the newest graduates of the two-centuries-old academy to help stamp out the “scourge” of sexual assaults in the military. His call had special resonance. It had been revealed just days before that a sergeant responsible for advising cadets had been charged with secretly videotaping female cadets in the shower — just one of an alarming cascade of incidents in recent weeks evidencing the depth, frequency and sheer brazenness of the military’s sexual misconduct problem.
Related

Naval Academy Is Shaken by Student’s Report of Rape by Athletes (June 1, 2013)
Hagel Calls Sex Assaults in Military a ‘Scourge’ (May 26, 2013)
Today's Editorials

Last Friday, allegations surfaced that three members of the United States Naval Academy football team had sexually assaulted a female midshipman in April 2012. When she reported the attack, her lawyer said, she was disciplined for drinking but the academy did not bring charges against the three and allowed them to keep playing football.

A Pentagon report released in early May estimated that as many as 26,000 people in the military were sexually assaulted in 2012, up from an already unacceptable 19,000 in 2011. Only a small fraction of victims — 3,374 in all — reported their attacks, despite new assistance programs, with many fearing harm to their careers and that their complaints would not be taken seriously anyway.

The issue will get an airing Tuesday at a hearing convened by Senator Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who heads the Senate Armed Services Committee, to consider possible changes in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, using the annual defense authorization bill as a vehicle. The question, however, is whether Congress will undertake the broad reforms necessary to encourage more victims to come forward and to show that legislators take seriously the pledge of zero tolerance for such crimes that military leaders and successive administrations have been making for decades.

A bill offered by Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, Democrat of New York, and co-sponsored by four Republicans and 13 other Democrats aims to do just that. Under the current system, senior officers with no legal training but with lots of conflicts of interest get to decide whether court-martial charges can be brought against subordinates. They also pick the jury pool, and they can throw out a guilty finding even after a verdict is rendered. A recent series in The San Antonio Express-News detailed instances in which senior officers put pressure on victims to get them to drop charges.

Ms. Gillibrand’s bill would mandate immediate referral of formal complaints of sexual misconduct to investigators, and would take charging decisions out of the hands of commanders and give them to senior military lawyers independent of the chain of command. While not the entire answer, this is a necessary step for bolstering the system’s credibility. The bill would also strip commanders of the power to toss out verdicts involving serious crimes.

Mr. Hagel supports eliminating the power of senior officers to overturn court-martial verdicts in serious cases, and there is a good chance Congress will approve legislation to take that positive step. But the outlook for broader reform along Ms. Gillibrand’s lines is not encouraging. Mr. Levin’s witness list, for instance, includes the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the heads of the different service branches, who have already voiced objections to that approach. Only at the last minute did Mr. Levin add two witnesses from victims’ advocacy groups.

The top brass can be expected to argue that moving the disposition of cases outside the chain of command would somehow undermine order and discipline. Yet while commanders must have the authority and respect to lead troops into battle, it does not follow that they are the right people to decide whether someone should be prosecuted for rape or other crimes. These witnesses need to explain why the troubling status quo is worth preserving, and why it should not be replaced by an approach like Ms. Gillibrand’s, which has a real chance of helping to change the military’s entrenched culture of sexual misconduct.

 

[Luigi59]

"Better that 10 guilty men go free than for one innocent man be convicted."

(Paraphrasing a combination of Genesis, Fortescue, Franklin, Blackstone, and Mather).

 

[Christcorp]

Buddy,

One of the 5 definitions that satisfies the rape condition and the definition of consent is provided below:



If a person knows or suspects that another has been drinking too much to reasonably consent to sexual conduct, then that person DID NOT give consent in the eyes of UCMJ. As noted above, the totality of circumstances is considered on whether an individual gave (or could give) consent or not.

This can get really tricky when "BOTH PARTIES", the accuser and the accused have both been drinking heavily.

I am in no way condoning any of this. Don't read into my statement. But I think it's important that all individuals become more responsible for themselves. If the evidence shows that a lot of rape accusations included heavy alcohol drinking, then I believe that all individuals need to be more responsible with their drinking. And for those under 21 years old, there's no reason you should be drinking in the first place. If the victim can use alcohol as an excuse, so can the accused. And I don't believe that alcohol should be an excuse for either individual.

 

[BlahuKahuna]

If the victim can use alcohol as an excuse, so can the accused.

Not legally.

 

[Christcorp]

Not legally.

Legally is not the issue. Drinking too much.... is Drinking too much. If a victim can drink too much and say s/he doesn't remember or didn't give consent; the accused can have had too much alcohol and they don't remember being told no or something similar.

The goal isn't what's LEGAL and who's right or wrong. The goal is that our cadets, airmen, officers, and civilians have respect for each other and they aren't comitting crimes such as rape against each other.

 

[LineInTheSand]

Legally is not the issue. Drinking too much.... is Drinking too much. If a victim can drink too much and say s/he doesn't remember or didn't give consent; the accused can have had too much alcohol and they don't remember being told no or something similar.

The goal isn't what's LEGAL and who's right or wrong. The goal is that our cadets, airmen, officers, and civilians have respect for each other and they aren't comitting crimes such as rape against each other.

It has been a long time, but I distinctly remember in one of my law classes at CGA, hearing from a lawyer that, in the military, consent can not be given by someone under the influence.

Of course, MANY do have "relations" while intoxicated, but that doesn't change the fact that it could hurt you in the end.

The same is not true for civilians, but that is the standard members of the military are held to (which I cannot currently cite.)

EDIT: I'm late to the "party", usnabgo08 already posted what I was talking about above.

 

[Christcorp]

Totally agree LITS. But again, I want to impress my point that i don't care what's "Legal". I don't care if the victim has a certain legal position and the accused doesn't.

What i care about is that our cadets, enlisted, officers, and military civilians have respect for each other. That they are responsible individuals. And "IF" it's a fact that a good number of rapes/assaults include excessive alcohol use, then individuals need to be more responsible with their own actions. Which includes not putting yourself in a position of compromise. Again, do NOT READ INTO MY POST!!! i am not condoning or making excuses. But I don't buy "Alcohol" as an excuse for ANYTHING. We are all adults. "Including Cadets". ACT LIKE ONE!!! Be responsible for your own actions. No excuses.

 

[Luigi59]

Totally agree LITS. But again, I want to impress my point that i don't care what's "Legal". I don't care if the victim has a certain legal position and the accused doesn't.

What i care about is that our cadets, enlisted, officers, and military civilians have respect for each other. That they are responsible individuals. And "IF" it's a fact that a good number of rapes/assaults include excessive alcohol use, then individuals need to be more responsible with their own actions. Which includes not putting yourself in a position of compromise. Again, do NOT READ INTO MY POST!!! i am not condoning or making excuses. But I don't buy "Alcohol" as an excuse for ANYTHING. We are all adults. "Including Cadets". ACT LIKE ONE!!! Be responsible for your own actions. No excuses.

Hmmm.

It certainly sounds like you are assigning a degree of blame to the victim.

How else could anyone interpret these comments:

"Which includes not putting yourself in a position of compromise."

and

"Be responsible for your own actions."​

Sounds like you are taking a position that she wouldn't have been raped had she not been drinking, therefore she shares some of the blame for the crime?

Are you really saying that?

If not, then please explain what "responsible for your own actions" and "not putting yourself in a position of compromise" actually mean...

 

[Christcorp]

I said not to read into it; yet, you did.

I simply said, that "IF" Alcohol is found to be a contributing factor in many of these cases, then maybe people need to be more responsible with their actions. "Both Parties".

Would you walk through an undesirable part of town by yourself at 2am? Would you drive a vehicle after drinking? Would you go to a bar looking for fight?

I believe that each of us needs to be responsible for our own actions. That doesn't mean that the victim is at fault. If you get mugged at 2am in the bad part of town, then you are definitely a victim. And legally, you are totally in the right. You have the law on your side. You had every right in the world to go to that part of town. But, just because you're legally in the right, doesn't take away the fact that you're an idiot. An idiot for going to that part of town at 2am.

Obviously, you're going to read into it. I've come to expect that. "Not from you necessarily, but in general". That's the problem with forums. But the truth is, as individuals, we need to take responsibility for our own actions. And sometimes those actions, while totally legal and in the right, were stupid. They put us in the wrong place or wrong situation at the wrong time. I'm not rationalizing or justifying the rapist. I say if found guilty, cut his nuts off. But again; I don't care about what's "LEGAL". I care about it not happening in the first place. Just because an individual is found guilty, isn't going to make the rape go away. Make like it never happened. But as individuals, if we are responsible for our own actions, we can protect ourselves. I'd rather be safe than be able to clame that I was on the "Right side of the law". Being on the right side of the law doesn't mean crap if you are left for dead in an alley after being mugged.

 

[Pima]

Mike stated this in his earlier post

I am in no way condoning any of this. Don't read into my statement. But I think it's important that all individuals become more responsible for themselves.

I read it as his statements saying it for both sides. Couldn't it be said the men need to take responsibilities of their own actions? Be honest, if you did it, admit it. Have Honor and do not put her through more pain.

Let's be honest, there are 3 football players regarding this situation. 1 person typically is a ring leader, very rarely do 3 people at the same very second say...hey, let's do this!

Placing yourself in a situation with these people to do it for whatever reason, coolness factor, fun, peer pressure, pick one; placed them all on a bad path.

As you see, they placed themselves (FB players) also in a compromising situation.

As for her, my heart goes out to her, but it reminded me to remind my DD AGAIN any friend that knows you are intoxicated and leaves you at a party with no other friend, is not your friend. I know she has personally pulled drunk friends out of house parties. They argue./fight because they are drunk, but she has never left without everyone she came to the party with.

It appears in the story that she was very intoxicated, and her friend looked for her, but couldn't find her. Let's be honest these houses are not 10,000 sqft are they? Had her friend took more time and did not leave without her, this situation could have been handled completely differently. Maybe it would have never happened.

Thus, don't put yourself in the compromising situation. It is ironic that these kids are told for yrs that they must always be a team, and leave no man/woman behind. Yet, it did not seem to be pounded it in their craniums enough to understand that includes every aspect of your life.

 

[BlahuKahuna]

Had her friend took more time and did not leave without her, this situation could have been handled completely differently. Maybe it would have never happened.

Maybe. But that still means we have cadets/mids who are liable to committ felonies if given the chance.

 

[LineInTheSand]

I agree. That respect is the building blocks and should exist at the most fundamental level. If it doesn't, anything could happen; not just rape but any crime that displays a lack of respect for your comrade or community.

 

[Pima]

I am not disagreeing BlahuKahuna.

Actually, in my mind, if they are guilty, it probably would have happened sooner or later to somebody else. JMPO, if at any age, especially at 21, 22 you think Gang rape is sexy, or on your bucket list, there is something off with you and you need therapy! Just My Opinion.

I was just saying, as a woman, I agree with CC, don't put yourself in the situation.

I am not saying it was right and she deserved it. IN NO MEANS AM I SAYING THAT. I am saying she had to learn in the worst way, never to be in that situation again. Emotionally her life is forever changed whatever the outcome will be regarding the case.

To illustrate the situation aspect. A few weeks ago we were having dinner with another family, there were 4 men, and 4 women. Somehow the conversation came about to how we are different.

The 1st thing all of us said as women was how we walk to a car in a parking lot at night. Car keys in hand, and with the keys between our fingers as a defense measure. How we always park under a light, and walk around the back of the car to the front door checking the backseat.

It was pretty shocking to some of the guys because they don't do that at all. It was never even a thought in their mind what we feel when entering a car at night in a parking lot. Bullet has been with me for 30 yrs., and he knows that is a NJ/NY thing every girl is taught when they get their license. I was the only NJ girl, the rest were good old southern girls in a town of 50K people where people don't lock their doors at night. Yet, when I said that about the car keys, and they chimed in, that they do it too, it was shocking to them that their partners had the same fears as me, and took the same precautions.

We can't necessarily control the environment, but we are cognizant of the situation we are entering, and do what we can do to protect our bodies when there is risk.

My heart goes out to the female in many ways, all regarding trust. How do you trust men again? How do you trust friends? Your friend left you there because she couldn't find you. If I am asking how long she looked for her, don't you think she is asking herself the exact same question, followed with: Why did you leave me there when you knew I was drunk? Do you honestly think she will not need therapy to trust anyone ever again?

Kids get drunk. The assumption it won't happen is akin to being an ostrich. It is akin to not teaching contraception in sex ed along with abstinence because the assumption they won't do it. By ignoring the fact that they may get drunk, it allows them to be ignorant of the bad that can occur when they do get drunk, not talking hangovers.

 

[Buddy]

"Sounds like you are taking a position that she wouldn't have been raped had she not been drinking, therefore she shares some of the blame for the crime?

The problem is that there is that in so many cases the scenario is unclear. If she was drunk, and then someone raped her, that is one thing. But what about a scenario where both parties are drunk, they have consensual sex, and later, the alleged victim claims that she was sexually assaulted because her consent was given while she was impaired? I see those as two very different situations. And if the alleged victim cannot actually remember what happened because she was blacked out, how can she establish that she didn't consent?

Obviously, part of the problem is that the term "sexual assault" means different things to different people. Most people hear it and think of stranger-to-stranger rape. But sex between two people when they have been drinking and where consent might or might not have been given is probably the more common scenario. And one that raises a lot of questions.

I have a great deal of difficulty with the double standard of excusing an accuser from the consequences of her bad decision (drinking until becoming intoxicated and then consenting to sex) but then holding the accused criminally liable for the same bad judment. (This is speaking generally and not to the particular scenario under discussion in this thread, and also setting aside the legal argument that consent while intoxicated cannot be effective.) And I think it is especially reprehensible for women to claim that they should be able to do whatever a man can but, in this area, they should be given special protection from their own bad judgment.

Like PIMA, we have always warned our daughters about going to parties where there would be drinking and urged them to watch out for their friends in those situations. Not just because they might become intoxicated and then be preyed upon and forced to have sex against their will. But also because, while drunk, they might stupidly agree to sex and then regret it mightily later. I do not see the latter scenario as sexual assault, however. It would be a bad and regrettable mistake. But I would think that the guilt resulting from ruining someone's life by accusing them of sexual assault when you willingly drank yourself into an intoxicated state and engaged in sex with them would be far worse.

 

[LineInTheSand]

I simply said, that "IF" Alcohol is found to be a contributing factor in many of these cases, then maybe people need to be more responsible with their actions. "Both Parties".

That used to be the case, but the rape cases at the Air Force Academy in 2003 changed that.

Their reasoning, as it was explained to our cadets, was that the threat of punishment was keeping victims from reporting. So, yes, underage drinking is against the rules, but between catching that or someone who commits the capital crime of rape? I'd prefer catching the rapist. So... USAFA's issues lead to changes at each of the service academies.

The issues I've seen here, that people have with only one party being punished for things they both controlled (at some point), such as both underage drinking, are the same kinds of issues cadets and midshipmen raised when USAFA's sexual assault task force tackled it 10 years ago.

 

[catchthefever]

I read elsewhere that the reason the victim did not want to press charges was because she was under the influence and, therefore, felt that she had contributed to the situation. This is so tragic on so many levels because there are so many factors that need to be investigated and what's legal becomes muddied with what's right and what's good judgment and comment sense: is there subtle or outright intimidation of the victim; has the so-called perpetrator been falsely accused; was there consent or is that a moot point because the alcohol negated the issue of consent; were there other crimes committed, such as underage drinking, coercian, false impisonment? However this is sorted out legally, you still have many damaged souls and, potentially, damaged futures.

I completely relate to the point you are trying to make Christcorp. I am a mother of a young women who will join the class of 2017 at USCGA. I also have a son. I would tell them both, "Do not put yourself in a position to become a victim." The courts will sort through the legalities, but whomever they deem guilty or not guilty in the end really only matters as far as the criminal consequences go but has nothing to do with the psychological and sociological fallout that all those involved (and the people who love them and care about them) will still deal with. I was thinking of the same analogy that you referenced: It's perfectly legal and within one's right to walk through a crime-ridden part of town, but it would not be wise to do so as it could substantially increase your odds of being victimized.

When my daughter was about 12, we saw a young girl coming out of a 7/11 with five guys and they had just purchased a lot of beer. To me, they all looked underage. She got in the front seat between two guys and the other three got in the back seat. I looked over at my young daughter at the time and said, "That's an accident (or even a crime) waiting to happen. Please don't ever put yourself in a position like that!"

I believe what Christcorp is saying is what most parents are already preaching long before their kids get to a service academy. How many of you never told your children to stay away from parties where they knew there would be drugs or alcohol or to choose their friends wisely and to steer clear of kids who engage in self-destructive and/or criminal behavior? I did and I checked up on them, too. And I can only hope that now that they are at an age where they are accountable to themselves rather than their parents, they will have learned by now to make wise choices for their own benefit and not just to stay out of trouble with their parents.

Finding out why so many adults are incapable of assessing potential consequences before they act or of understanding (or maybe even caring about) the gravity of their actions needs more scrutiny. Even though this is a growing problem at service academies, it's also a growing problem in all facets of society. The service academy angle just makes it a more prominent headline. Same for when it's the Catholic church, but that doesn't mean that priests are the only clergy engaging in deviant behavior.

I don't think a woman deserves what she gets either, but I would certainly want my daughter to be smart enough to not put herself in that potential position. Having said that, I think any human being is capable of faltering, especially when alcohol is involved and/or there is the pack mentality at play. All the more reason to stress not putting yourself (male or female) in a position to become a victim ... on either side of that crime!!!

++++ Christcorp

 

[aglages]

We don't know what really happened in the case under discussion but I have a real problem when two parties are drinking and make bad decisions and only one is held accountable for their actions. Hypothetically, if an alleged victim is drinking, consents to sexual intercourse and then later says she cannot remember what happened because she was so drunk, I don't necessarily think that she has been sexually assaulted. I imagine that a huge number of these cases involve fairly heavy drinking and bad decisionmaking. But, part of being an adult is bearing the responsibility for your decisionmaking, be it driving a car while drunk or having sex while drunk

While this may not be the "military way", I agree with this opinion.