rjb
10-Year Member
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2014
- Messages
- 522
Sexual Assault Pilot Program at Academies
- Thread starter rjb
- Start date
"The number of sexual assaults at the military service academies has more than doubled — I repeat, doubled — from 327 to 747 (from) 2013 to 2018," Speier said. "Over that time, reporting rates decreased from 16% to 12%."
How the heck do they know how many assaults occurred if only 12% are reported?
Also, how the heck do you know only 12% are reported, since presumably they don't know about alleged assaults that weren't reported. Wouldn't the reported assaults constitute 100% of the alleged assaults they know about?
Shouldn't you have to investigate a report to determine whether it has any merit before concluding an assault took place? (spoiler alert: it depends on whether doing so would detract from your agenda).
Garbage in, garbage out.
How the heck do they know how many assaults occurred if only 12% are reported?
Also, how the heck do you know only 12% are reported, since presumably they don't know about alleged assaults that weren't reported. Wouldn't the reported assaults constitute 100% of the alleged assaults they know about?
Shouldn't you have to investigate a report to determine whether it has any merit before concluding an assault took place? (spoiler alert: it depends on whether doing so would detract from your agenda).
Garbage in, garbage out.
It's not GIGO. It's statistics.
As victims feel more comfortable reporting (and as more can correctly identify that what occurred to them was or was not an assault), the number of reports will go up-- which is a good thing.
Don't confuse raw reporting numbers with the numbers that come out of anonymous surveys (where many victims are more honest, given the lower odds of retribution), and in the soft statistics that can be generated from restricted reports.
Restricted reports go into the overall raw number of sexual assaults, but do not necessarily count as an actual report, since identities are not revealed and due process is not triggered. For example, chaplains can say "I had 5 sexual assaults reported to me this month", but cannot disclose the personally identifiable details of those assaults unless the victim choses to make an unrestricted report.
Lastly, there are known assumptions that are baked into the statistics. For example, male-on-male assault victims are MUCH less likely to report than male-on-female. I don't have the exact number in front of me, but the assumption is for every 1 M-M assault reported, there are 7 or 8 unreported cases out there.
My take on Rep Speier's comments is that she may be referring to the fact that the number of restricted reports has doubled while the percentage of unrestricted reports has dropped. That is not a good trend, and indicates victims' declining confidence in the response system.
Sexual assault reporting is a tricky thing to assess and analyze given all the involved factors.
To put a finer edge on this.
Understand the difference between a restricted and unrestricted report. No external investigation takes place (other than capturing evidence on the victim) with a restricted report.
It has nothing to do with politics or agendas.
They don't classify them as restricted or unrestricted reports - or even alleged assaults - they classify them as assaults despite the fact that the vast majority have never been investigated or prosecuted, much less prosecuted successfully. Proponents have been trying for years to move sexual assault investigations and prosecutions outside the chain of command. To say that there is no politics or agenda involved in the use of these statistics isn't accurate.
I understand your frustration about the possibility of political bias.
I don't think you fully understand my point. Perhaps Rep. Speier's proposal does not suit your liking-- I understand that. What I am speaking to is that the numbers cited have no basis in politics or agendas. They are simply numbers that speak to the prevalence of sexual assault at the service academies (which is unacceptably high, and has been an ongoing issue for decades).
To quote directly from the article: "Rep. Jackie Speier, chairwoman of the Military Personnel Subcommittee, pushed through a four-year program that would require the commandants of the service academies to follow the recommendation of an independent prosecutor in cases of sexual assault." In the case of the service academies, where the cadets involved are not yet full members of the uniformed services, there is somewhat of a grey area in that they are still college students and are in a training environment. I see it as very similar to the Lackland basic trainee sexual assault-- the victims in these cases do not always know how to properly navigate the sexual assault response process, especially when those in authority over them (whether it is MTI's or upperclassmen) might be the offenders. Given that the service academies have not always been that hot at handling this ongoing issue, I see no issue with a carve-out in this case where an independent panel of experts would be best suited to handle complaints.
I am NOT advocating for the kangaroo court approach most universities have adopted under Title IX where due process is completely tossed out the window. My assumption is that the UCMJ and due process would still be followed with the independent authority. That certainly has not always been the case in the past at the service academies.
Thanks for the response.
My frustration is with the numbers being advanced as something they aren't. A report of an assault is not the same as an assault, especially when the report can't be investigated. Look no further than the appeal that just came down involving the USMA - that is the result when politics enter the criminal justice system - whether civilian or UCMJ. Statistics are made to say whatever the proponent of them wants to say, to lead the simple minded reader to the conclusion desired by the author. Let's look at the raw numbers - let's look at fluctuations over time - is there a statistical significance to the variation in the data set? When the data set is misrepresented from the very beginning, its a good sign to question everything
An "independent panel of experts"? an "independent prosecutor" ? who decides who that will be? who decides who is independent? I guarantee as long as politics are in play, the appointees will be anything but.
I'll engage a little further, but with some background. I'm an actively-serving Air Force officer who in my past enlisted life taught sexual assault prevention and response curriculum. I've been in a pretty long time and have seen both the "before" and "after" of the USAFA scandal and the USAF BMT scandal. I know MTI's who pushed flights during the Lackland scandal period, and also officers who attended the USAFA during the sexual assault scandals in the early part of this century. My views are shaped by my conversations from their perspective and also from having witness the evolution of both the USAF and the DoD's stance on the issue. They are also shaped by my experience in unit-level administration and command. Things are getting better, but there is a lot of structure in place that makes it difficult to handle this particular issue from a purely military standpoint (readiness, retention, reporting, and accountability all play a major role).
Briefly looking at your previous posts, it seems you might still be in officer training. Is that the case? Do you have any previous military experience as an enlisted member? If you are still fairly junior (or are still in officer training), then I am confident your perspective will change as you move into command at some point down the road.
Either way, on to answer your questions.
As for the independent panel, I am refering to a panel and/or prosecutor that is independent from command influence. Similar to JAG.
I can answer a few more questions, if needed, but I think I have reached about the most I can input on this topic without repeating myself. Thanks again for the response!
Briefly looking at your previous posts, it seems you might still be in officer training. Is that the case? Do you have any previous military experience as an enlisted member? If you are still fairly junior (or are still in officer training), then I am confident your perspective will change as you move into command at some point down the road.
Either way, on to answer your questions.
Yes, I agree that politicians could be a little more careful with accuracy in their statements. However, this is simply how things are done in Washington. Restricted reports (which compose the bulk of sexual assault reporting), by definition, cannot be investigated much beyond evidence collection. It is up to the victim to initiate the full unrestricted report, which triggers the investigation. This reality does not negate the high probability that an assault actually did happen in most of the cases. As military members, we are held to a higher level of integrity and accountability. If you choose to doubt the victims' statements, then that is your prerogative. I take the view that the majority are being truthful, as the majority of military members prize integrity higher than most everything else. So, if the number of restricted reports are rising, then the odds are high that the number of actual assaults (investigated or not) are also rising.
I disagree slightly. The interpretation of statistics varies according to the perspective of the proponent. Data is data and must always be interpreted. As for the "simple minded reader", well, welcome to serving in the US Military that is subordinate to civilian authorities. While that reality keeps us honest (and out of coup territory), it does come with drawbacks, particularly in a democracy-- which is where our representative republic seems to be headed. This is why it is critical to have an educated and moral cohort of voters-- not a new concept, and something our Founders struggled with.
Here is the report from last year. The number of reported sexual assaults is much higher than it was previous years. You can take this two ways. The DoD perspective is that the percentage of reported assaults is increasing (which is good), whereas anonymous survey data indicates the raw number of assaults may be decreasing. It is just as easy to also suspect that assaults are also increasing, which seems to be the perspective that Rep Speier has taken. It is impossible to definitively state which perspective is actually correct. We are relying on member reporting (which is verifiable to an extent) vs. anonymous surveys (which is not verifiable).
I disagree here. As mentioned above, I don't think the data set has been represented. Your perspective is that it has been, but how do you prove that? And no, it doesn't mean everything should be questioned. It also doesn't mean that you shouldn't think and should blindly trust everything the congresswoman says. At this point, you should find the raw numbers yourself and talk to those with real-world experience in the area if you want to form an educated opinion.
Like everything else civilian in the DoD, this will most likely be staffed by prior-military and retired military. Like every other civilian position, these individuals will be subject to oversight as well-- not the least of which will be the military commanders they are advising. We have been through multiple rounds of greater incorporation of DoD civilians into the uniformed services and we are still doing okay. At the end of the day, the DoD is subject to civilian oversight, so there is not much use getting worked up over this. We have traditionally been pretty poor in addressing the sexual assault issue internally, and perhaps it is time to incorporate more accountability outside the chain of command, especially in training environments like the service academies. The status quo has not been particularly responsive, in large part due to unit-level retribution and occasional command-level interference.
As for the independent panel, I am refering to a panel and/or prosecutor that is independent from command influence. Similar to JAG.
The appointees would not be politically independent. That is practically impossible. If you have a major issue with that, then I suggest not serving-- SECDEF, for example, is always a political appointee, by definition. You will never get away from political influence on the DoD as long as it is controlled by people.
I can answer a few more questions, if needed, but I think I have reached about the most I can input on this topic without repeating myself. Thanks again for the response!