Sea Year Sexual Assault Report(s)

As a former Merchant Marine officer and manager of a shipping company: The solution needs to be multi pronged. One prong to get the attention of companies that own/operate the ship is to have regulations or another process for USCG to seize (arrest) the ship. Not sure what would be needed to ensure fairness (prevent false arrest) but stopping a ship will take it OFF CHARTER and cost multi thousands of $ per day. This is how to get the operators to actually prevent sexual assault. Follow the money ... and it will make an impact.
 
The same requirements should be applied to any US-controlled vessel (not just US flag) if its legally possible, otherwise they will just re-flag.
With the implementation of the Maritime Labour Convention this is actually easier to enforce in the non-US fleet. The US not being a signatory means there are less rules related to toxic work environments on US flag ships than on many dreaded "Flags of Convenience".

The Coast Guard is the most difficult party to get in the game because without an empowering law and implementing regulation they really can't do anything and even then the Constitution and due process of law prevent them from doing much if anything until a person is actually convicted of a crime.

I will guarantee every shipping company has a very robust anti-harassment policy/program in place for shore side staff , why does this not apply to seagoing personnel? The companies needs to have a system in place that takes quick and decisive action against someone once a credible accusation is made. To me that is removing them from the vessel immediately. The unions need to get out of the way of the company and let them enforce these policies without interference. If neither party takes it seriously then some very serious public shaming should happen in addition to the likely civil legal exposure.

If the accusations turn out to be not true than said seafarer should have some recourse to ensure he/she is made whole at least financially.
 
With the implementation of the Maritime Labour Convention this is actually easier to enforce in the non-US fleet. The US not being a signatory means there are less rules related to toxic work environments on US flag ships than on many dreaded "Flags of Convenience".

The Coast Guard is the most difficult party to get in the game because without an empowering law and implementing regulation they really can't do anything and even then the Constitution and due process of law prevent them from doing much if anything until a person is actually convicted of a crime.

I will guarantee every shipping company has a very robust anti-harassment policy/program in place for shore side staff , why does this not apply to seagoing personnel? The companies needs to have a system in place that takes quick and decisive action against someone once a credible accusation is made. To me that is removing them from the vessel immediately. The unions need to get out of the way of the company and let them enforce these policies without interference. If neither party takes it seriously then some very serious public shaming should happen in addition to the likely civil legal exposure.

If the accusations turn out to be not true than said seafarer should have some recourse to ensure he/she is made whole at least financially.
All good points. Does anyone know of an actual draft regulation that we could push to congress and USCG to implement on the regulation side...or a potential law change? We need something tangible to give USCG more immediate regulatory authority. Then the issue is USCG resources. Again, if ship can be arrested for credible investigations...that may help. Does anyone know of an actual proposal we can support?
 
The Big 3 send their men and women to fight wars on foreign soil. CG grads patrol our waters, interdict violent offenders, and carry out dangerous rescue missions. KPers, on the other hand, enter a different world. It ain't the Love Boat. And people sitting inside the beltway who think of Central Park when they hear the term RoRo are incapable of changing it. I would love to see criminal charges brought against offenders but I wonder if our government and the rest of the world have the desire to do so. A recent Olympics was held in a country in which soccer, beach volleyball, and rape are the national past times. No complaints. Our president bowed to a king who celebrated his countrymen for forcing young girls back into a burning building because their heads weren't covered. We gave billions of dollars to a country which executes gays and billions worth of arms to the Taliban. Drug crimes are capital offenses elsewhere. Pirates roam the seas. KP was the first SA to admit women but doesn't anyone tell them what they are getting into or were the political gains too great. (The risks at the others are much more obvious.) I guarantee DW and I had long talks with DD long before Indoc and we have had many sleepless nights. But like those at the other 4, DD chose to accept the risks. They must watch their and their buddy's sixes. The merchant marine is one of the oldest professions; its culture is thousands of years old. And the first law of genetics has nothing to do with Gregor Mendel and rose colors. It's "Where armies and ships go, genes flow." but this is not just on ships. Though NJROTC may think mariners are a dumb bunch, I doubt he could bunker a ship, go to the machine shop to fabricate a part for an engine, nor navigate coastal waters. And how does that explain the actions on Rodeo Drive, Martha's Vineyard, and Broadway? I wish I had an easy answer to the problem. Laying all on KP for political points because it is low lying fruit is not it.
 
All good points. Does anyone know of an actual draft regulation that we could push to congress and USCG to implement on the regulation side...or a potential law change? We need something tangible to give USCG more immediate regulatory authority. Then the issue is USCG resources. Again, if ship can be arrested for credible investigations...that may help. Does anyone know of an actual proposal we can support?
The thing that hamstrings the CG the most is that almost all the CFRs require conviction of a crime. An accusation enough, no matter how credible or accurate is not enough under the CFR to suspend or revoke. The only thing that got him in this case was the alcohol. There is this section of 46 USC:

(d)(1) The Secretary may temporarily, for not more than 45 days, suspend and take possession of the license, certificate of registry, or merchant mariner's document held by an individual if—
(A) that individual performs a safety sensitive function on a vessel, as determined by the Secretary; and
(B) there is probable cause to believe that the individual—
(i) has, while acting under the authority of that license, certificate, or document, performed the safety sensitive function in violation of law or Federal regulation regarding use of alcohol or a dangerous drug;

If there was no reason to believe alcohol was involved the CG would have been largely powerless to do anything. Even when renewing a license, the CFRs require conviction before it can be held against you.

The most difficult procedural issue is I see is the preservation of evidence needed to secure the conviction in court that would predicate the suspension, revocation, or non-renewal of a credential. As soon as the rape happens, the clock is ticking and the ability to get the victim to the appropriate person who can collect the necessary evidence is darn near impossible.

The CG requires non-US flag cruise ships operating in US waters or carrying US passengers to have rape kits on board, personnel sufficiently trained to use them, and a process in place to ensure they can be processed at an appropriate facility in a timely fashion. Seems like something along that line could be explored but expect significant hurdles of all kinds on that one.

The CG is bound by the CFRs and the Constitution, the union is bound by their own by-laws, it seems like the party with the most flexibility and ability to act quickly is the vessel operator.
 
The thing that hamstrings the CG the most is that almost all the CFRs require conviction of a crime. An accusation enough, no matter how credible or accurate is not enough under the CFR to suspend or revoke. The only thing that got him in this case was the alcohol. There is this section of 46 USC:

(d)(1) The Secretary may temporarily, for not more than 45 days, suspend and take possession of the license, certificate of registry, or merchant mariner's document held by an individual if—
(A) that individual performs a safety sensitive function on a vessel, as determined by the Secretary; and
(B) there is probable cause to believe that the individual—
(i) has, while acting under the authority of that license, certificate, or document, performed the safety sensitive function in violation of law or Federal regulation regarding use of alcohol or a dangerous drug;

If there was no reason to believe alcohol was involved the CG would have been largely powerless to do anything. Even when renewing a license, the CFRs require conviction before it can be held against you.

The most difficult procedural issue is I see is the preservation of evidence needed to secure the conviction in court that would predicate the suspension, revocation, or non-renewal of a credential. As soon as the rape happens, the clock is ticking and the ability to get the victim to the appropriate person who can collect the necessary evidence is darn near impossible.

The CG requires non-US flag cruise ships operating in US waters or carrying US passengers to have rape kits on board, personnel sufficiently trained to use them, and a process in place to ensure they can be processed at an appropriate facility in a timely fashion. Seems like something along that line could be explored but expect significant hurdles of all kinds on that one.

The CG is bound by the CFRs and the Constitution, the union is bound by their own by-laws, it seems like the party with the most flexibility and ability to act quickly is the vessel operator.
Good points. Seems to me we need a multi-pronged approach: 1. give the USCG more authority, if possible, consistent with law. Also 2. Enhance the ability to arrest a vessel (get the ship off hire-$ will make an impact. 3. Strengthen ability of USCG to revoke licenses if possible. 4. Pass tougher criminal laws for those committing these crimes onboard a U.S. Ship. 5. How about special penalties or criminal charges agains a ship operator company officers who dont do enough to prevent these actions (Tough like anti-trust law). I will say it over and over again...go after the ship, operator, cargo - cause a financial hit-that will make an impact to help PREVENT these crimes. I don't know much about USCG authority and regulations, or criminal law, but I do know much more needs to be done and can be done if we could get our Fed. Govt. to take action. Someone on this forum should know a high ranking active duty USCG Admiral or Federal MOC ... to talk about how action can be started. This should be a bi-partisan issue in congress...but who will take the lead?
 
The Big 3 send their men and women to fight wars on foreign soil. CG grads patrol our waters, interdict violent offenders, and carry out dangerous rescue missions. KPers, on the other hand, enter a different world. It ain't the Love Boat. And people sitting inside the beltway who think of Central Park when they hear the term RoRo are incapable of changing it. I would love to see criminal charges brought against offenders but I wonder if our government and the rest of the world have the desire to do so. A recent Olympics was held in a country in which soccer, beach volleyball, and rape are the national past times. No complaints. Our president bowed to a king who celebrated his countrymen for forcing young girls back into a burning building because their heads weren't covered. We gave billions of dollars to a country which executes gays and billions worth of arms to the Taliban. Drug crimes are capital offenses elsewhere. Pirates roam the seas. KP was the first SA to admit women but doesn't anyone tell them what they are getting into or were the political gains too great. (The risks at the others are much more obvious.) I guarantee DW and I had long talks with DD long before Indoc and we have had many sleepless nights. But like those at the other 4, DD chose to accept the risks. They must watch their and their buddy's sixes. The merchant marine is one of the oldest professions; its culture is thousands of years old. And the first law of genetics has nothing to do with Gregor Mendel and rose colors. It's "Where armies and ships go, genes flow." but this is not just on ships. Though NJROTC may think mariners are a dumb bunch, I doubt he could bunker a ship, go to the machine shop to fabricate a part for an engine, nor navigate coastal waters. And how does that explain the actions on Rodeo Drive, Martha's Vineyard, and Broadway? I wish I had an easy answer to the problem. Laying all on KP for political points because it is low lying fruit is not it.
Wow almost sounds like you are saying boys will be boys and it is the girls problem that boys can't stop themselves from raping.
 
Wow almost sounds like you are saying boys will be boys and it is the girls problem that boys can't stop themselves from raping.
That is not my take at all. We need to teach our children, both young women and young men, that it is a dangerous world out there no matter what their path. The maritime industry is more hazardous because our kids are far from home and do not have the opportunity to distance themselves from dangerous situations when they are aboard a ship in the middle of the ocean. It is important for cadets to have the skills to survive and thrive in the culture that is the maritime industry. My kids have worked alongside some very capable mariners of good character who taught them a lot and were kind and considerate. They have also worked alongside some real creeps who wouldn't think twice about taking advantage of them if they thought they could get away with it. Most ships they served on had abundant alcohol on board which often brought out the worst in crew members just like it does ashore. The point is not that boys will be boys, but that people are flawed. Our sons and daughters need to be able to perceive when a situation could turn into something bad so they can avoid it, to look out for their sea partner, and to develop the right kind of relationships with the right kind of people aboard ships who can have their backs. Looking at the world through rose colored glasses and hoping that someone who has never been aboard a ship will instantly and miraculously save them from every possible threat is naive.
 
I will say it over and over again...go after the ship, operator, cargo - cause a financial hit-that will make an impact to help PREVENT these crimes.
I agree 100% that this should be done and would suggest that it would be the most effective and the most responsive. Bad PR and shutting off the money are the quickest way to get the operator to take action.

I would always be cautious about trying to streamline the government process when there are potential criminal charges involved. My view is to get an offender off a ship as quickly as possible and then let any criminal process proceed as appropriate while the offender is sitting at home. If you force government consequences too early in the process you potentially taint the criminal process and prevent conviction.
 
I agree 100% that this should be done and would suggest that it would be the most effective and the most responsive. Bad PR and shutting off the money are the quickest way to get the operator to take action.

I would always be cautious about trying to streamline the government process when there are potential criminal charges involved. My view is to get an offender off a ship as quickly as possible and then let any criminal process proceed as appropriate while the offender is sitting at home. If you force government consequences too early in the process you potentially taint the criminal process and prevent conviction.
Roger that!
 
That is not my take at all. We need to teach our children, both young women and young men, that it is a dangerous world out there no matter what their path. The maritime industry is more hazardous because our kids are far from home and do not have the opportunity to distance themselves from dangerous situations when they are aboard a ship in the middle of the ocean. It is important for cadets to have the skills to survive and thrive in the culture that is the maritime industry. My kids have worked alongside some very capable mariners of good character who taught them a lot and were kind and considerate. They have also worked alongside some real creeps who wouldn't think twice about taking advantage of them if they thought they could get away with it. Most ships they served on had abundant alcohol on board which often brought out the worst in crew members just like it does ashore. The point is not that boys will be boys, but that people are flawed. Our sons and daughters need to be able to perceive when a situation could turn into something bad so they can avoid it, to look out for their sea partner, and to develop the right kind of relationships with the right kind of people aboard ships who can have their backs. Looking at the world through rose colored glasses and hoping that someone who has never been aboard a ship will instantly and miraculously save them from every possible threat is naive.
Glad my work place isn't like that
 
U.S. Law applies to all onboard U.S.Flag Merchant ships when at sea. Follow the law AND act responsible-there is NO other acceptable behavior. None.
 
Two questions and I ask this as a previously trained professional in the area of rape and dealing with those who had been raped.

Is consensual sex ok on the ship?

Is booze and drinking ok on the ship?
 
Two questions and I ask this as a previously trained professional in the area of rape and dealing with those who had been raped.

Is consensual sex ok on the ship?

Is booze and drinking ok on the ship?
Consensual sex? I guess, but not recommended. The only consensual (or any kind for that matter) I ever had onboard was when my wife visited while in port. . . . Booze and drinking? Not legally. Does it happen? You bet. I found that on larger ships, where there were day workers and watch standers, and it was handled well, it was rarely a problem. For smaller crews, like tugboats and ATBs, much less so. I know personally, on the tugs, I never drank. Ships as a day worker. . .well. . . . .
 
Consensual sex? I guess, but not recommended. The only consensual (or any kind for that matter) I ever had onboard was when my wife visited while in port. . . . Booze and drinking? Not legally. Does it happen? You bet. I found that on larger ships, where there were day workers and watch standers, and it was handled well, it was rarely a problem. For smaller crews, like tugboats and ATBs, much less so. I know personally, on the tugs, I never drank. Ships as a day worker. . .well. . . . .
Sex consensual sex among ship mates while at sea is either OK or its not.

Not recommended is like a suggestion that students should not cheat on exams.

And drinking——there are few of societies issues not made worse when people are drinking booze.

So someone should know the answer to this—-when the sea assaults happen how many are connected to drinking?
 
Sex consensual sex among ship mates while at sea is either OK or its not.

Not recommended is like a suggestion that students should not cheat on exams.

And drinking——there are few of societies issues not made worse when people are drinking booze.

So someone should know the answer to this—-when the sea assaults happen how many are connected to drinking?
I think it is all based on company policy. Coast Guard does not regulate it but has law enforcement authority if a law is broken.

I'm guessing life on Military Sealift Command is vastly different than sailing on Maersk.
 
Booze and drinking? Not legally.
Technically incorrect. By law/CFR you can have and consume alcohol while on board depending on how much you drink and the time proximity to work. Beyond that it is all based on company policy.

If I was an owner I would be VERY VERY hesitant to allow alcohol on my ships. I am not a fan of tolerance clauses in general but in this case and in cases of SASH I would lean towards it. I would definitely want the Master on the hook very explicitly policy wise and I wouldn't want anyone to absolve themselves simply by turning a blind eye.
 
It's been a long time since I reviewed alcohol regs for operating U.S. Flag Merchant ships...there are regulations on that. I note that the post testing U.S.C.G. regs relate to casualties ....perhaps there's an opportunity to tighten the alcohol regs ...and the post incident testing regs to include credible sexual incident complaints. Seems to me I recall regs about not consuming alcohol 4 hrs before standing a watch (that might be just for tank vessels). This needs to be reviewed and probably tightened. It will take some legal work and likely receive negative reactions from some industry groups. Seems to me there is likely a correlation between sexual crimes and alcohol consumption (no scientific evidence-but probably so). Also a NAVIC on the subject may help a tiny bit (NAVICS don't have the force of regulation or law). @KPEngineer do you know the regs on alcohol consumption-they are not easy to find. Another thing the USCG could to is to address this issue in the ISM Requirements for U.S. Flag vessels. Seems to me the U.S.C.G. is slow to respond. Anyone know the right U.S.C.G. group to contact?
 
Back
Top