Taking the decision of prosecution out of commanders hands.

I have decided that I am on the side of taking the decision of going toward a court-martial, is cases of sexual assault, out of the hands of the commander. I have read the bill and listened to hours of testimony and this is another way the branches can show that they have no tolerance for sexual assault.

Of the testimonies against this action were commanders in the different branches. They stated that taking this action would take away the ability of the commander to set the tone for no tolerance. It also would take away the deterrent the commander has of going to court martial if the member does not accept an Article 15 (non-judicial punishment). I don’t see it that way. If there is not sufficient evidence for a court-martial then giving the member the option of Article 15 or court-martial is still there.

Say Marine A is in front of the commander and has been accused of sexual assault. If the lawyer does not see the ability of going straight to a court-martial the commander can still give the Article 15, or lesser reprimand, which with the non-judicial punishment proceedings Marine A could demand a court-martial instead. The ability to back the no tolerance is still there. What is no longer there is the ability of the commander to discreetly do away with the allegations or to give a lesser reprimand to Marine A because Marine A happens to be what they call a golden soldier.

I, unfortunately, saw way too many allegations go nowhere because it is easier to silence a victim than to deal with what is happening in the squadron. Most disturbing was many of the accused were commanders. I understand this was over 20 years ago, but I have not been out of touch with what is still occurring. I have heard hundreds of people’s stories (if not more) and there was ample evidence for prosecution, but the commander decided not to do anything, or give a slap on the wrist, even just a “don’t do that again.”

My reply to the commanders is – this is not some new epidemic, it has been going on longer than 20 years, and so far the commanders (as a whole) have not done a good job, so why would we believe them now? If true action is to be taken, then let’s take it. This actually does not interfere with the commander’s authority, but backs it. If there is ample reason for court-martial then that should already have been the commander’s decision. It is the commanders that want to not prosecute that this “interferes” with. Commanders are not lawyers, they are not (generally) educated in the legal aspects of prosecution, especially for such a heinous crime as sexual assault.