Tag: sexual assault

So basically when it was all said and done Lieutenant General Franklin who was forced to retire because of this was actually right:

An Air Force sexual assault case that spanned two investigations, a lieutenant general’s forced retirement and a finding of unlawful command influence ended after more than three years Wednesday with the acquittal of Airman 1st Class Brandon T. Wright.

A military jury made up of officers and enlisted personnel — six men and one woman — found Wright not guilty at Joint Base Andrews, Md., after three hours of deliberation.

The accuser’s former Special Victims’ Counsel said the verdict, although disappointing, was not a complete loss.

“I’m disappointed that the panel did not convict him; however, I am happy that the Air Force finally took the case seriously, as it should have from the start, and my former client received the day in court that she deserved,” Maribel Jarzabek said. “I think the fact that the jury deliberated for three hours and asked to see some of the evidence showed that this wasn’t the slam-dunk case that Gen. (Craig) Franklin and others predicted it would be.”

Wright was accused of raping a staff sergeant in her apartment near Aviano Air Base, Italy, after a night of drinking and socializing in 2012.

Wright’s defense, which focused its closing argument on the prosecution’s burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and what the defense lawyers characterized as inconsistencies in the woman’s statements over the past three-plus years, hailed the verdict.

Maj. Jacob Ramer and Cpt. Patrick Hughes said in a statement that “panel member(s) understood the importance of their role and gave their full attention to resolving the question before them.”

They also said that Wright’s unit had been “monumental in… helping him through the most difficult time of his young life.”

Wright did not testify.

After an Article 32 preliminary hearing in the case, then-Lt. Gen. Craig Franklin, concurring with the hearing officer’s and legal adviser’s advice, dismissed the case in 2013.  [Stars & Stripes]

You can read the rest at the link, but you have to like the spin the prosecution is coming up with.  What is the purpose then of an Article 32 if someone who accuses someone of a crime deserve to have their day in court like the prosecution claims?  Lt. Gen. Franklin has now been vindicated that this case did not have enough evidence to get a conviction.  Also if anything deliberating only three hours shows how weak of a case this was. Even more troubling about this case is that it was so weak despite having the entire Air Force legal community trying to get a conviction to include using unlawful command influence:

An Air Force judge has ruled that the service’s top legal officer committed unlawful command influence in a sexual assault case, partly for political motives. Nonetheless, the case will proceed to court-martial.

Lt. Col. Joshua Kastenberg, in a July 30 ruling in response to a defense motion to dismiss the case against Airman 1st Class Brandon T. Wright, found that Lt. Gen. Richard Harding, formerly the Air Force Judge Advocate General, had improperly influenced the case or had given the appearance of doing so.

One such instance, the judge ruled, was recommending that Wright’s case be transferred to another court-martial convening authority for a do-over after the first convening authority, Lt. Gen. Craig Franklin, dismissed the case in the summer of 2013. Franklin’s dismissal came after an Article 32 investigative hearing at Aviano Air Base, Italy.

Such transfers are almost unheard of. It happened in the Wright case, Kastenberg’s ruling says, in part because Harding was worried that “the failure to have charges preferred against SrA Wright would enable Senator Kirsten Gillibrand to gain needed votes on a pending bill to remove commanders from the court-martial process.”

The ruling took Harding to task for supposedly telling Col. Joseph Bialke, Franklin’s legal adviser, that sexual assault cases, absent “smoking gun” evidence about an alleged victim’s credibility, should be sent to court-martial. In so doing, Kastenberg wrote, Harding improperly attempted to shape Bialke’s future legal advice. Katsenberg ruled that the forced retirements of Bialke and Franklin after their handling of the Wright case created an appearance of unlawful command influence.  [Stars & Stripes]

All this case has likely done is force other convening authorities to send flimsy sexual assault cases to trial to protect their careers after seeing what happened to Lt. Gen. Franklin.

This report from the American Psychological Association I take with a bit of skepticism just like I do all the other so called surveys done on military sexual assault.  Just like prior surveys this one also uses the vague term “Unwanted Sexual Contact”.  I have had women grab my butt in the bar before so does that make me a victim of sexual assault that was unreported?  There is a big different between rape and someone grabbing your butt in the bar, but these surveys tend to equate the two which inflates the number.  This survey is no different:

A study has found that up to 15 times more men in the military are being raped by other man than is being reported by the Pentagon.

The report, released by the American Psychological Association on Tuesday, is based on the responses of 180 anonymous combat veterans.

It says the under-reporting is largely due to the stigma associated with sexual assaults and is the reason that the true extent of male-on-male sexual crimes is so vastly underestimated.

The Washington Times reported that most recent Pentagon sexual assault report, conducted by The Rand Corp last year, found that around 12,000 men said they had been sexually assaulted.

The definition of sexual assault means they had been raped, experienced unwanted sexual contact or someone had attempted to commit those crimes.

Of that number, around a third – 3,850 reported rape or ‘penetrative’ assaults.

But the APA said: ‘Rates of military sexual trauma among men who served in the military may be as much as 15 times higher than has been previously reported, largely because of barriers associated with stigma, beliefs in myths about male rape and feelings of helplessness.’   [The Daily Mail via reader tip]

You can read the rest at the link.

I guess we will see how strictly enforced these new measures are on South Korean teachers:

Teachers found guilty of committing sex offenses will be deprived of their teacher’s license, the Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education (SMOE) said, Thursday.

The office said it will take a zero-tolerance approach to sex offenses by teachers.

The measure came after a group of male teachers at a public high school in Seoul were recently accused of sexually harassing female teachers and students for more than a year.

“Schools should be the safest social fence for students,” Superintendent Cho Hee-yeon said at a press conference at the SMOE building in central Seoul.

“We’ll take stern legal action against teachers found to have committed sex offenses. For a single offence, we’ll not only kick out such teachers convicted of sexual molestation but also disclose their names,” he said.

If a teacher’s sexual misconduct is reported, the SMOE will launch a special inspection immediately and will have the teacher removed from his or her post even before the police investigation is concluded or prosecution’s indictment is issued.  [Korea Times]

Here is what civic groups have to say about the new measures:

Civic groups, however, said that the SMOE’s measure would not be an ultimate solution because most of the abusers have been punished softly and returned to schools after one or two years of probation.

“Of a total of 240 teachers disciplined for their sexual abuse in the last five years, 115 teachers, or 47.9 percent, still remain in school,” said a parent group official.

You can read more at the link.

The Stars & Stripes has a report stating that troops still feel like they are being retaliated against for reporting sexual assaults:

Too little progress has been made in countering perceptions of retaliation felt by those who report a sexual assault, and all the services must take measures to protect victims and others who report wrongdoing from reprisals, especially from peers, Pentagon officials concluded from an annual report on sexual assault in the military.

About two thirds of female troops who are sexually assaulted and report those attacks believe they experience retaliation afterward, according to the report.

“We’re not making enough progress on countering retaliation,” Defense Secretary Ash Carter said at a news conference when the report was released Friday. “Too many servicemembers, the data shows, feel that when they report or try to stop these crimes, they’re being retaliated against in some way.”

The retaliation numbers, which are unchanged from 2012, come from a survey done late last year, and were first released in December. At the time, then-Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel announced new training and an additional study designed in part to prevent retaliation.  [Stars & Stripes]

I think to really understand this issue you have to define what retaliation is?  Is retaliation the command going after you with UCMJ and other measures or is it simply people in the unit not talking to you?  With an issue like sexual assault people may be uncomfortable talking to someone who made a report and that could be interpreted by someone as being retaliation.

Here is an editorial in the Korea Herald in regards to the sex crime issue currently plaguing the ROK military:

The recent comments made by the Saenuri lawmaker Song Young-keun in relation to a sexual assault case in the military reveal why the country’s military is plagued by sexual crimes and misconducts.

Remarking on a case in which a brigade commander sexually assaulted a female NCO, Song, a retired Army Lt. Gen. who served as the commander of the defense security command, said that the brigade commander rarely went off base and suggested that the man, in his mid-40s, could have suffered from sexual frustration as a result.

The remark is deeply offensive to both men and women. Suggesting that men might commit sex crimes because of unresolved sexual needs debases men as creatures that are compelled to act upon impulse. It is bad enough that the sex crime occurred in the military, where discipline is a priority, but Song’s comment brings great dishonor to all men in the military.

Song’s comments also betray his attitude toward women ― as sexual objects ― that condones sexual violence committed against women. Song further incensed women by referring to the victim as the “sergeant agassi” which can be translated as “sergeant miss.” The usage of the word “agassi” fell out of public favor long ago as women find the term to be pejorative. In fact the term has limited usage today, often used in bars or room salons to refer to a bar hostess.

That a three-star general harbors such attitudes about women and sex crimes is greatly alarming. It is just such attitudes and thinking that perpetuate sex crimes in the military.

It is most unfortunate that Song was part of a National Assembly special committee charged with improving human rights in the military and revamping the military culture. He resigned from the committee on Jan. 30 “taking responsibility for causing trouble with inappropriate remarks.” However, more problematic than the remarks are the deeply embedded attitude toward about sex crimes and sexual objectification of women that the remarks revealed.

Perhaps such attitudes run deep in the military. Perhaps that is why some laughable guidelines ― men and women may not be in a car by themselves, men and women should only use one hand each when shaking hands ― have been suggested by the military in its effort to prevent sex crimes.

The military needs more than such superficial guidelines. It should create an atmosphere where men and women in the military can fight side by side as comrades in arms, regardless of gender. Regular gender equality training could be a starting point.  [Korea Herald]

Everything in the editorial is fair enough, but to really see changes in the ROK military in regards to women than there needs to be changes in Korean society as well.  Servicemembers do not enter the military and suddenly put aside all their sexist beliefs they learned while being a civilian when they put on the uniform.  A culture of not treating women as second class citizens and sex objects needs to be changed well before someone enters the military.  To be fair much has changed for the positive in regards to the treatment of women in Korea over the years and I expect these improvements to continue.

The measures the ROK Army is taking to stop sex crimes is even stricter than anything we have seen in the US Army yet:

The Army is scrambling to come up with a new code of behavior in response to a recent series of sex crimes in barracks.

“A top brass meeting held on Tuesday decided to work out a code of conduct to cope with sex crimes,” an Army spokesman said Thursday. “It will be issued in the name of the Army chief of staff and violators will be subject to punishment under military law.”

Male or female soldiers will be banned from visiting the quarters of soldiers of the opposite sex alone. Soldiers of different genders will only be allowed to shake hands with one hand.

Soldiers of different ranks will be prohibited from dating, and no soldier will be allowed to travel, or stay in the same office, alone with another of the opposite sex. When it is inevitable that they are alone in the same office, they must leave the door open.  [Chosun Ilbo]

You can read more at the link.

Maybe this is just a translation error, but does anyone know how does the ROK Army have 18-year old Staff Sergeants?

A South Korean Army sergeant was arrested Thursday on charges of repeated sexual assaults of an 18-year-old solider, local media reported.

The 26-year-old sergeant first class, identified only as Kim, is accused of having raped his junior colleague, a staff sergeant who is also male, several times since March this year.  [Korea Observer]

You can read more at the link.

This is something both the military and civilian law enforcement need to work together to fix to make it harder for weirdos like this guy to continue to carry out their strange fantasy against other people:

Matthew S. Carr is the type of serial sex offender public registries were designed to track.

While serving in the U.S. Air Force, Carr approached women by posing as a doctor training in gynecology. He persuaded them to submit to pelvic exams as he inserted medical instruments, drew blood samples and even administered an injection near one victim’s genitals.

A military court at Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota convicted the airman in 2003 of indecent assault against seven women and sentenced him to seven years in prison.

Exactly how Carr avoided registering as a sex offender when he got out is unclear, but a critical error occurred. The military records sent to civilian authorities mistakenly described lesser assault charges, according to a federal probation officer.

When the mother of a Reedsburg, Wis., woman typed “Matthew Carr” — the name of her daughter’s new boyfriend — into sex offender registries in the summer of 2010, nothing turned up.

She soon found herself racing the 45 minutes to Reedsburg to confront Carr after another daughter’s research revealed his military crimes. By then, her daughter had already submitted to multiple “exams” by the convicted sex offender.

“My blood turned absolutely cold,” said the mother, whom Scripps is not identifying to protect her daughter’s privacy. “I’ve never felt such danger, such helplessness as a mom before.”

Charges were brought against Carr, and he was convicted and sent to prison.  [Stars & Stripes]

You can read more at the link, but I always wondered if servicemembers convicted of DUI or assault for example in Korea have such crimes show up on criminal background checks back in the US as well.

Why university students need sexual consent lessons http://t.co/gTpokfPoR1 by @OliviaGoldhill pic.twitter.com/OqIbHyZ1ax

— The Telegraph (@Telegraph) October 31, 2014

It seems like this guy needs to see a psychologist instead of going to prison:

A man is to face jail time for sexually harassing a call service operator working for a telemarketing company.

The man, identified as Park, age 49, had initially requested to be connected to a specific line, when the operator explained such services could not be provided.

Park then started lashing out at the operator in foul language, using words “objectifying women,” according to Yonhap News Agency.

He was reported to have called 9,982 times since May last year, using offensive speech.

Various other workers at the telemarketing company also said they felt “humiliated.”

The Seoul Central Criminal Court sentenced Park to 18 months in prison after finding him guilty of sexual violence and work disturbance on Oct. 15.

He is sentence also included 80 hours of mandatory participation in a program on sexual violence.  [Korea Times]

To me it is amazing that a guy that did not commit a violent act was convicted of sexual violence and sentenced to 18 months in prison just because he used offensive speech over the telephone.