How not to battle sexual assault in the military

Submitted by Mastodon on Tue, 2013-07-30 12:02

Article here. Excerpt:

'On June 4, the Senate Armed Services Committee conducted a hearing, during which members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff looked defensive and unpersuasive. Their high-ranking judge advocates general explained why Congress should not remove from military commanders decisions about courts-martial or career-ending nonjudicial punishments for sexual assault and other serious offenses.
...
Mrs. Gillibrand emphasizes women’s fear of filing complaints when abusers are in their own chain of command. However, assigning cases to prosecutors elsewhere would not guarantee confidentiality or result in automatic prosecutions or convictions in cases lacking convincing evidence. Instead, cases of sexual assault could be politicized by activists who want to assign “victim” status based on accusations alone, replacing the presumption of innocence with a presumption of guilt.
...
Excluding commanders from disciplinary decisions in serious cases would not reduce incidents of sexual misconduct or add anything to the many options that persons suffering abuse already have. Military prosecutors frequently pursue cases that civilian authorities would ignore. What the legislation could do is shift power to Pentagon feminists and pressure groups who demand their version of “justice” no matter what the evidence shows.
...
Informed military women and legal experts have expressed concern that sensationalized estimates of sexual assault, extrapolated from anonymous surveys, could encourage measures that would make matters worse. In truth, the military is doing a better job on sexual misconduct than civilian colleges and universities.'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

sometimes bear repeating. whatever feminists touch turns to crap. that's what evil always produces.

they showed us how marriage and the family could be improved. what's the average length of marriage now, couple/three years? with all the one-sided laws created to give feminists their way, its amazing any man would sign up for today's wedlock, and the servitude it has morphed into.

and they are always ready to improve the workplace. at least lately, some courts are requiring proof of sexual harassment and such, other than just her word. wonder how many innocent men have paid severely for false allegations?

false accusations of molestation, rape and d.v. are considered by divorce lawyers a sure fire way to win a contentious divorce. like all the other lies women tell in a court room, there is little if any consequences for destroying innocent men's lives. what, filing a false police report? if caught maybe some community service? the "Innocence Project" has used d.n.a., accidentally saved from decades before to free hundreds of men. drop in the bucket. haven't looked lately, but the average sentence served was 17 years. yeah, her word should be good enough. we don't need no stinkin' evidence.

then we have the sacred realm of child birth. how many tens of millions of human beings have been aborted in all stages of development since feminists campaigned to make abortion safe and rare? the courts were so ready to bow down the u.s.s.c. went out and found a right never before validated in any law.

now they are attacking the military; and, like all the topics above, there are legitimate victims, male and female. extrapolated and bogus stat's trying to get special privileges are feminist's forte. prosecution of anybody w/o proper evidence is bad law, by definition. already there is talk of 'special' training for women wanting to go into combat. who didn't see that coming? best to let the military handle their own problems. we already know how civilian courts carry feminist water.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by daveinga on Wed, 2013-07-31 01:01