Sexual Assault & Sexual Misconduct in the CF

[Journeyman]

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/military-advances-fight-against-sexual-misconduct-1.3187952

Gen. Johnathan Vance told CTV’s Mercedes Stephenson that he will now discharge anyone found to have sexually harassed or harmed another member of the military, even if he or she has struck a plea deal in a military court.

I guess we can start culling the herd of military lawyers.  With this arbitrary release decision, there's much less requirement for our high-priced legal experts to expend time on arguing fair sentencing; this now frees up lawyers to work on other pending cases. 

Instead of a fictional CF-18 'capability gap,' we'll now have an equally notional 'judiciary glut.'
      op:

 

[George Wallace]

Instead of a fictional CF-18 'capability gap,' we'll now have an equally notional 'judiciary glut.'
      op:

See!  The Budget will balance itself.  op:

 

[Jarnhamar]

I guess we can start culling the herd of military lawyers.  With this arbitrary release decision, there's much less requirement for our high-priced legal experts to expend time on arguing fair sentencing; this now frees up lawyers to work on other pending cases. 

Instead of a fictional CF-18 'capability gap,' we'll now have an equally notional 'judiciary glut.'
      op:

Someone was goofing around at work last week and grabbed my ass. You figure this means if I complain they would get released from the military?

I wonder if frivolous harassment and assault complaints will be dealt with in the same finality.

 

[ballz]

I guess we can start culling the herd of military lawyers.  With this arbitrary release decision, there's much less requirement for our high-priced legal experts to expend time on arguing fair sentencing; this now frees up lawyers to work on other pending cases. 

Instead of a fictional CF-18 'capability gap,' we'll now have an equally notional 'judiciary glut.'
      op:

I'll be curious to see the effect of this. If there is absolutely no discretion used in applying this (God forbid the machine and leadership actually exercise discretion), it's going to cause some people to fight smaller things that they would have plead guilty too, it very well could result in even more less severe punishments on the judicial side of the house since the defense will obviously argue "he is now going to be released from the military" as a mitigating factor in sentencing, etc, etc.... Part of me thinks this may cause more backlog.

Days after victims of military sexual assault raised concerns about lenient sentences, CTV News has learned of a new directive from Canada’s top soldier to remove from their jobs anyone who has committed sexual misconduct.

But, at least we can stop paying judges so much money to be objective / impartial, we've got angry victims and a judge/jury/executioner all rolled up into one with the CDS, so we should be fine without judges to rule on sentences anymore.

 

[Jarnhamar]

[quote author=ballz]
But, at least we can stop paying judges so much money to be objective / impartial, we've got angry victims and a judge/jury/executioner all rolled up into one with the CDS, so we should be fine without judges to rule on sentences anymore.
[/quote]

It appears like judges lately aren't doing themselves any favors. There have been some pretty questionable verdicts from judges both civilian and military.

 

[FJAG]

While there are some few judges who have not done the profession proud, I think that most "questionable verdicts" are not so much that they are out of line but are portrayed to be that way because commentators these days can go from zero to totally outraged at the drop of a hat without actually reading the judgement or understanding sentencing principles.

Generally the judges are addressing these cases within the standards of the existing law and by reasonably balancing the competing interests in society.

I've always said that analysing a sexual assault case is very difficult task. When a person stabs another, for example, there is generally very little to analyse about the case beyond self-defence, because no one is likely to consent to being stabbed. On the other hand a sexual act can be found to be consensual or non-consensual depending on who you believe and how the facts check out the two competing versions. Few sexual assaults are the drag-them-off-the-street type of events. The difficult cases come from alcohol fuelled parties and prior consensual relationships where the court is hard pressed to find the truth and these are the ones that always draw the biggest criticism when the court is left with a reasonable doubt as to guilt.

The same can be said for balancing the competing interests in sentencing. While there have been some cases of outrageous judicial stupidity that have rightfully drawn fire, for the most part the courts do a good job. Such individual cases are properly dealt with by judicial disciplining panels and do not call for an overall systemic change.  (I take that back in one respect: the speed with which investigations and the judicial process works, especially in the military, is greatly in need of a systemic change) :2c:

:subbies:

 

[putz]

While there are some few judges who have not done the profession proud, I think that most "questionable verdicts" are not so much that they are out of line but are portrayed to be that way because commentators these days can go from zero to totally outraged at the drop of a hat without actually reading the judgement or understanding sentencing principles.

Generally the judges are addressing these cases within the standards of the existing law and by reasonably balancing the competing interests in society.

I've always said that analysing a sexual assault case is very difficult task. When a person stabs another, for example, there is generally very little to analyse about the case beyond self-defence, because no one is likely to consent to being stabbed. On the other hand a sexual act can be found to be consensual or non-consensual depending on who you believe and how the facts check out the two competing versions. Few sexual assaults are the drag-them-off-the-street type of events. The difficult cases come from alcohol fuelled parties and prior consensual relationships where the court is hard pressed to find the truth and these are the ones that always draw the biggest criticism when the court is left with a reasonable doubt as to guilt.

The same can be said for balancing the competing interests in sentencing. While there have been some cases of outrageous judicial stupidity that have rightfully drawn fire, for the most part the courts do a good job. Such individual cases are properly dealt with by judicial disciplining panels and do not call for an overall systemic change.  (I take that back in one respect: the speed with which investigations and the judicial process works, especially in the military, is greatly in need of a systemic change) :2c:

:subbies:

I agree with virtually everything you say. Only exception is speed of investigations.  Investigations, for the most part (MP type not unit led) seem to be very detailed and go fairly fast.  Pre charge screening on the other hand......

 

[beachdown]

I find it hard to fathom that in light of everything in the news, and the Operation Honour brief we've had so far, someone is still dumb enough / not getting it and see the need to "grab ***".  :

There is no such thing as frivolous harassment.

Someone was goofing around at work last week and grabbed my ***. You figure this means if I complain they would get released from the military?

I wonder if frivolous harassment and assault complaints will be dealt with in the same finality.

 

[beachdown]

Not just that.....The last 2 offenders in the news it seems have the benefit of not having a criminal record and registering as sex offenders

I wonder if this will be applied retroactively, or will previous 'evil doers' be grandfathered in?

 

[brihard]

Not just that.....The last 2 offenders in the news it seems have the benefit of not having a criminal record and registering as sex offenders

A conviction under S.93 should still result in a criminal record. A criminal record is the default for federal convictions except where a section of law explicitly excludes certain convictions. A lot of more minor NDA convictions, if sentenced fall within a certain range, will not result in a criminal record. S.93, Disgraceful Conduct, does not fall in that category.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

There is no such thing as frivolous harassment.

yes there is.  I have knowledge of 2 case that were fabricated.  One in 1998 and one in 2010.    No actions were taken against the accusing mbr.

 

[Jarnhamar]

While there are some few judges who have not done the profession proud, I think that most "questionable verdicts" are not so much that they are out of line but are portrayed to be that way because commentators these days can go from zero to totally outraged at the drop of a hat without actually reading the judgement or understanding sentencing principles.

Fair enough. That's why I say appeared to.  We really only really pick up on cases that hit the news and media and by that time it's usually a social justice shit storm whether it's warranted or not. The WTF rulings get the most attention.  As much as I hate SM I think in some cases the law has tried to bury cases or not do their job and people didn't accept it and made the law revise their decisions.  Rehtaeh Parsons's case comes to mind. I recently read the hacker responsible for hacking into the schools computers (and essentially forcing the police to do more) is facing more jail time and the girls rapists.

I'm going off track though. I wanted to ask you or other military members involved with this stuff about something. It seems like many people feel that victims of sexual harassment and assault are very often put on trial themselves and basically shamed on the stand (I've personally seen it twice). Do you think there is an atmosphere of putting the victim on trial within the CAF?

I find it hard to fathom that in light of everything in the news, and the Operation Honour brief we've had so far, someone is still dumb enough / not getting it and see the need to "grab ***".  :

Horseplay with alpha males in their own den.  The CAF will never be able to turn the work place into a sterile zone with androgynous people observing a 3 foot personal space bubble.  That's where the bystander training is more relevant than a CO cramming a battalion into a room and telling people not to be assholes.

 

[beachdown]

This is like asking if racism exist in the CAF subliminally / covertly

Do you think there is an atmosphere of putting the victim on trial within the CAF?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

This is like asking if racism exist in the CAF subliminally / covertly

And the answer (in your opinion)?

:dunno:

 

[Jarnhamar]

This is like asking if racism exist in the CAF subliminally / covertly

Have you been a witness, victim or assisting officer type person at a sexual harassment or assault trial?

 

[beachdown]

Yes to all of that both on civvie street (a few times) and in the CAF

Have you been a witness, victim or assisting officer type person at a sexual harassment or assault trial?

 

[Jarnhamar]

A victim, a witness and assisting officer during military and civilian harassment and assault trials?  So at least 5 to 6 trials? That's a lot of exposure. How were victims "put on trial" while you were a witness and assisting officer during military trials?

 

[ballz]

I don't envy anyone who has to try and come up with a solution to dealing with sexual assaults from a judicial branch point of view. At the end of the day, the presumption of innocence is absolutely paramount and cannot in any way be compromised. The unfortunate part of this means that, essentially, the alleged victim *is* put on a trial... and I am not sure there is any other way to deal with it.

This is an excellent interview with a woman I admire. Marie Henein was Jian Gomeshi's lawyer. She came under a lot of fire from women and more recently had university students protesting having her speak at their university (this is a whole other rant). She shares her perspective here and thankfully has already organized all of these thoughts long before this interview and is well-spoken about them so that she exposes Peter Mansbridge's idiocy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XB5fG7gbZ0

It is a shitty reality, however, that the victims cannot get justice without being subject to this. I can only think of a few small ideas to help them but in the end, it would never enough.

 

[armyvern]

It seems like many people feel that victims of sexual harassment and assault are very often put on trial themselves and basically shamed on the stand (I've personally seen it twice). Do you think there is an atmosphere of putting the victim on trial within the CAF?

I did not witness that during the CM where I sat on the Panel as a member. 

 

[armyvern]

Yes to all of that both on civvie street (a few times) and in the CAF

Agreed it happens as we hear cases of it in the news all the time.  It doesn't happen every time though.  I understand this topic is close to you (it is the only topic you've posted in on this site since joining).

I think that victim-blaming is not on; however, I also believe that one should let the justice system take it's course and I do believe in the courts having to prove one's guilt.  Good democracies depend upon that. 

I have a friend who is a victim of sexual assault and he is still highly impacted by it to this day --- and I suspect forever will be.  I also was involved in one where the allegations were proven to be false (Edited to add: and this guy still deals with the mental issues of that false accusation to this day).

There are no easy answers, but when a case has been proven, then we must treat it seriously and the punishment needs to reflect that harshness.  We shouldn't be hurting our own.