Andrew Tilghman of Military Times has written this interesting article (with a useful video) about the ultimate outcome of sexual assault complaints in the U.S. military, based on recently-released government data for 2014. He writes:
Commanders ultimately received 2,625 cases to consider for court-martial or other legal action. But when those cases were reviewed, 628 were dismissed outright for reasons including: insufficient evidence to prosecute (323); victim declined to participate in the command investigation (248); a command-level legal review said the allegations were legally "unfounded" (48); or the statute of limitations expired (9).
Of the 1,997 accused perpetrators against who commanders substantiated charges, 477 were downgraded to non-sexual assault-related offenses.
Of the 1,550 perpetrators against whom charges were substantiated, commanders decided not to prefer court-martial charges for 552, opting instead for nonjudicial punishment (318), administrative discharge (111) or other "adverse administrative actions" (123).
After commanders preferred court-martial charges against the remaining 998 service members, 273 never made it to trial because either the commander later decided to dismiss the charges (176) or because the accused perpetrator was discharged in lieu of a court-martial (97).
Some 137 court-martial charges remained pending at the end of fiscal 2014.
Of the 588 sexual assault cases that went to trial, 154 alleged perpetrators were acquitted of all charges.
Of the 434 alleged sexual assault perpetrators who were convicted, about 117 were sentenced to punishments other than prison confinement, which may have included punitive discharges, reduction in rank, fines, restrictions or hard labor.
In the final tally, that left 317 service members who were convicted on any sexual assault charge and received a sentence that included jail time.Of these figures, one that jumps out is the high [26%] acquittal rate for cases that went to trial. The 27% no-confinement rate is also surprising. Taken together, these numbers mean that a member taken to trial for sexual assault had a 46% chance of either being acquitted or, if convicted, receiving no jail sentence. Put another way, those who went to trial had only a 54% chance of a sentence to confinement.
Any comments on why these numbers are what they are? (Please use your real name -- anonymous comments will not be posted.)
Of the 1,997 accused perpetrators against who commanders substantiated charges, 477 were downgraded to non-sexual assault-related offenses.
ReplyDeleteWhy were they “downgraded?” Through pretrial negotiations to avoid conviction of an SOR related crime, with all of its very punitive lifetime effects? That’s just one of many questions about the meaning of these numbers.
Of the 1,550 perpetrators against whom charges were substantiated, commanders decided not to prefer court-martial charges for 552, opting instead for nonjudicial punishment (318), administrative discharge (111) or other "adverse administrative actions" (123).
Is it 1550 or 1997? See also the above comment. Plus, how many of these cases were resolved this way because of input from the complaining witness that she believed that to be a positive result for her?
After commanders preferred court-martial charges against the remaining 998 service members, 273 never made it to trial because either the commander later decided to dismiss the charges (176) or because the accused perpetrator was discharged in lieu of a court-martial (97).
See above two comments. What was the severity of the charges dismissed from court-martial and/or then went through an administrative elimination process where the standard of proof is lower than beyond reasonable doubt?
Of the 588 sexual assault cases that went to trial, 154 alleged perpetrators were acquitted of all charges.
Would it have been better to take those 154 cases through the adverse administrative process? Why were they acquitted? Should more have been acquitted? How many of the 588 were acquitted of the sexual assault but convicted of other offenses such as adultery or fraternization, and given punishment? How many of the convicted plead guilty either “naked” or with a pretrial agreement? What were their sentences? It’s well known that there can be a penalty for pleading not guilty and being found guilty.
Of the 434 alleged sexual assault perpetrators who were convicted, about 117 were sentenced to punishments other than prison confinement, which may have included punitive discharges, reduction in rank, fines, restrictions or hard labor.
In the final tally, that left 317 service members who were convicted on any sexual assault charge and received a sentence that included jail time.
As with all bare facts (numbers), without drilling down into the specifics of each case it is difficult to find a general list of reasons for the general numbers. Is the author impliedly arguing the military isn’t doing enough? Is the author channeling those who complain that the system is wrong, bad, indifferent, or ineffective? As just an example.
Assume an accused is convicted of brushing up against a person's backside. Brushing the backside without consent is a sexual assault. There are no other charges. The accused has an otherwise good record. Is that person likely to be punished severely? I think not, nor IMHO should the person be so punished.
Now a prediction. The number of persons (prosecuted for sexual assault alleged to have happened after June 2014) sentenced to confinement may drop. Why do I predict this? There will be a mandatory punitive discharge imposed on the accused regardless of the nature and severity of the crime. I think there may be a term for that, but I think of it as a reverse adverse consequence of demanding an automatic punitive discharge for every sexual assault conviction. It's an unintended consequence that I certainly will be arguing in such cases.
"Members, the social stigma, loss of benefits, and collateral consequences of a punitive discharge are punishment enough," or words to that effect.
Certain persons and organizations may decry this because their goal is a punitive discharge and a lot of confinement, but, they did think about that, didn't they?
And a final comment—no, I probably am wandering into a rant so I’ll stop here.