Sex Crimes in the Military

There are facts and suppositions, followed by hype and speculation, that swirl around the question of sexual assaults, rape, and deviant behavior in the Military.  Fortunately, actual facts and figures are also available, even if under-reported in the media.  Unfortunately, some of the data is still presented in murky terms.  Let's face it, politics and social causes do not always want to report the facts.

I have not weighed in on this issue previously, because I didn't have the hard data to provide a true assessment.  Fortunately, I now have a copy of the Download DoD_Fiscal_Year_2010_Annual_Report_on_Sexual_Assault_in_the_Military (2) report on the issue.  There is good news in it, but it is a very long report, 622 pages.  And even at that, I contend that some of the data is defined poorly. 

I have NO sympathy for perpetrators of sexual crimes.  It appalls me that some that wear the uniform commit such crimes, but I also recognize that Our Troops come from all walks of life, and represent a small slice of the civilian population from which they are drawn.  I find that the punishments in both civilian and military life for these crimes is insufficient, but also that the majority of Americans would not support the severity of what I do believe to be appropriate.

Also, I recognize the reasons why a victim of sexual assault might decide not to report the crime, or to decide not to pursue prosecution, though I wish that all victims would pursue prosecution to the maximum extent of the law.  I know victims that have not reported it, that did not even tell me, until it was beyond anyone's ability to take the appropriate actions.  I would encourage those that are victims of such crimes to report it as soon as possible, and to seek the counsel of a trusted leader if they are in doubt as to how to handle it.  The NCO's I've known and respected have taken as dismal an opinion of the criminals involved as have I.

I also have a strong belief in the right of the accused to a fair trial, and to face their accusers.  I have known some that have been falsely accused and some that falsely accused others, almost exclusively in the civilian world.  The American Justice system rests on the concept of "innocent until proven guilty," and this does make prosecution difficult in many cases of sexual assault.

So, on to the good news!  Of all investigations initiated by the military, prior to October 1st, 2009, only 45 were incomplete as of October 1st, 2010 and 1,614 investigations were completed in FY10 of new cases (3,158).  And of the Combat Zone reports in FY 2010 only 163 (251 victims) of the alleged attackers were in the military.  I would like to present the comparison to FBI data of similar crimes in the civilian population, but my searches for that information provided me with only estimates, rather than with the hard statistics I've looked at in previous years.

Of the cases resolved (1614 of those completed in 2010, including 980 initiated in prior years), only 85% were alleged to have been a US Service member attacker.  There were 1759 victims in those cases and 26% were "wrongful sexual contact" as opposed to rape (28%) or aggravated sexual assault (30%).  Disciplinary action was taken in 1,025 cases in FY2010, but not taken in 910 cases.  The primary reason for no punitive actions were that the victim declined to participate in the case (334 cases) or a lack of evidence (335 cases).  In 344 cases, the defendant was cleared of a sexual crime (101 cases cleared of all wrongdoing).  In some cases, the US Military did not have jurisdiction (i.e. the defendant was not US Military) or was completely unknown.

I must stress, the cases involved include those that are not a Violent Criminal Sexual Attack.  They do include inappropriate sexually based actions.  I wish I could break down the statistics precisely, but the information is just not presented well enough, even in 622 pages, to be 100% what the breakdown is.  And even where the information is precise, it sometimes conflicts with itself (minorly) in the same report.

But there is also supposition in the report.  And that has been used by politicians and "activists" to misportray reality.  In fact, in researching the information here, I came across a politician who seems to do so purposefully, or for lack of ability to read.  As I mentioned, I understand why a victim would choose not to report.  I know more victims of sexual assault than I care to believe is "normal," in American society.  And those are almost exclusively civilian sector attacks.  But how does one accurately assess the true incidence of sexual assault versus the number reported?

In order to combat sexual crimes, one must make potential victims and potential heroes aware of how to report it, how to stop it, and ensure that authority figures know how to not make it worse should it occur.  The Military has gone to great lengths to make sure all Service Members have the information necessary to not only stop an assault, but to ensure that the criminals are prosecuted and removed from the ranks.  By doing so, this increases the percentage of victims that will report it.  That is a good thing.

More than 92% of US Troops have faith in the Military System to do the right thing, and believe that they have been given sufficient information to take the correct actions, should they become aware of such a crime.  The Military has a system in place that completely protects a victim, even should they be unwilling to "go on the record."  It is called a "restricted report."  What this means is that victims are more likely to report a sexual assault in the Military than outside the Military.  There are literally layers of leaders and specialists to go to.  A victim does not have to ask a stranger (Law Enforcement) to believe them, nor to tell someone that knows them.  They can get personal help, even if they aren't willing to take the stand in prosecuting the culprit.

But there is a percentage of Troops in the Military who report "unwanted sexual contact" in blind surveys.  What does that mean?  Well, for one person, it may be a hand on the shoulder from someone they suspect of wanting more, while for another it may be an "accidental" bump that they don't think was accidental, or for another an intentional placement of the hand on the butt or thigh.  Quite frankly, the question is flawed and subjective.  That extrapolated percentage is 4.4% of females and 0.9% of males.  It is extrapolated, because they didn't ask everyone and then they used the percentages to suggest how many might have experienced it.  "They" then surmised that more than 19,000 Troops (of more than 1.4 Million) had experienced an "unwanted sexual contact."  From that, "they" suggested that "unwanted sexual contacts" were reported only 29% of the time.

That politician I mentioned?  She turned that "unwanted sexual contact" into "sexual assault."  Yeah, that's a LOT more dramatic.  She also turned the statistics around.  Instead of that representing 29% of reported "unwanted sexual contacts," it became 13% of reported "sexual assaults."  The press (ABC) took her "statistics" as gospel, without reading the 622 page report for themselves.  She is Rep Jackie Speier, D-CA.  She got 44 co-sponsors (in 24 hours) for her bill based on the erroneous information, and introduced a new Non-Profit to profit off of the falsehoods.  And that was reported on the 17th of November, i.e. last week.

There were 3,158 reports of sexual misconduct in the military, including 2,410 unrestricted reports and 882 restricted reports, filed in 2010.  Of those, 134 of the restricted reports were later converted to unrestricted.  That means that 2,410 cases (of all sexual misconduct) can be investigated and 747 cannot be prosecuted, but those 747 can get the victim assistance they need. If DoD's percentages are correct, that would be less than 11,000 cases of sexual misconduct (as opposed to the larger number of cases of "unwanted sexual contact" or the smaller number of those that would be rape.)  But 92+% in the military trust the military to do the right thing, so even that number seems high.

Of those 2,410 reports in 2010, 1033 were reported within 3 days, while another 619 were reported within 1 month, and 378 forensic examinations were performed, including those that filed 111 'restricted reports.'  This affects the capacity to prosecute cases because the least subjective evidence is the forensic evidence, and the greater the amount of time after the incident, the harder it is to prove.  37% of victims declined to participate in prosecution of the culprit, which further complicates the ability to put criminals behind bars.  Without the testimony of the victim, which should not be compelled against her will but should compel every protection for her, prosecution may be impossible.  93% of all Service Members understood their responsibility to stop a sexual assault if they were to witness it.

ONE sexual assault IS too many, but again we have to realize that the Military is a small slice from across the American population.  The Military must (and does) prosecute and toss out those bad apples, but no test will 100% prevent them from slipping through the screening process.  It does no  good to inflate the numbers (aside from those that profit financially or politically from inflated numbers).

So, how do we "fix" this?  First, by accurately reflecting the problem.  Secondly, by ensuring the potential victims understand that Military Leaders won't tolerate the scumbags that do it.  Thirdly, by ensuring that false accusations (as opposed to unsubstantiated cases) are prosecuted as well.  I.e. by ensuring the actual criminals are punished severely and that the innocents are protected.  The "innocents" being those falsely accused and those attacked.  Persecutions of those unjustly accused simply adds to the disbelief against those that falsely portray their innocence.  Future "juries" of one's peers should not be contaminated by the memory of someone they know to have been unjustly prosecuted.  We have to rely on the evidence and facts, despite knowing that some of the guilty will go free.

And for the bad news.  Ten percent of those unrestricted reports and 13% of those restricted reports were male victims.  This is not the kind of thing the proponents of the repeal of DADT want to talk about.  Why?  Because that means there IS a problem, even in the military where homosexuality was not allowed, with homosexual sexual violence.  It means there is a HUGE sexual violence problem in the sexual crimes of secretly homosexual community.  Even Rep Speier included this male-male sexual violence.  One-third of those she put on stage were male victims and 1/2 of those quoted by the ABC report were.  If there is an under-reported aspect to sexual violence, it is homosexual (male-male) sexual attacks. 

And here, I will go to the Download DoJ Rape Survey 2010, because I can't find their hard facts.  The DoJ finds, through contracted surveys that 1 in 1000 adult men, 92,748, are raped 1.2x annually, and that 90% of them are raped by men.  It estimates there are 876,064 cases of females raped annually, or 8.7 rapes per 1000 women. That is ONLY rape, not the additional categories of sexual crimes reported by the Department of Defense. 

And those numbers get considerably worse.  The Survey suggests that 1.9% of all American male kids and 9.0% of female children were raped.  It says that .8% of the females were raped by females and 89% of males were raped by males.  It says that 21.6% of female children raped were less than 12 years old and 48% of males raped were less than 12.  If true, that means 9,062,730 women were raped as a child, and 1,762,212 males were, including 1,548,369 men that were raped by men, when they were still a kid.  It means that 72,502 women were raped by women when they were kids.

According to the DoJ survey, 743,217 American men were raped before they were 12 years old, 661,463 of them being raped by a homosexual male.  That is 60,133 cases of homosexual rape on boys under 12, every year.  Why is the lesser number of male victims relevant.  Because there are fewer homosexual males conducting a larger percentage of rapes than there are heterosexual males doing the same.  According to some, between 2% and 13% of the population is homosexual. If we go with 10%, that means out of a population of 9,274,800 homosexual men, 661,463 male children under 12 were raped, or an incidence rate of 7.13% of the population, or 16.7% of boys raped before they were 18, contrasted with 9% of all female children and 14.8% of ALL women who have been raped during their entire lifetime.

ALL rape is despicable but the rape of children is far more despicable because the victim is robbed of innocence, is scarred for life, and is unable to defend themselves.  I did not set out to highlight the incidence of homosexual sexual predators, nor did I expect to come across that information.  It's not "politically correct" to mention such things.  But not talking about it does not make it go away.

What else should be done?  Well, one must also look at who are the victims and who are the perpetrators of the crimes.  Overwhelmingly, these are lower ranks and younger individuals.  Why is that pertinent?  Well, because if we are to accurately gauge the difference between military and civilian assaults we must know what age group we are comparing, on both sides of the coin.

And with the majority of sexual assaults in the military occurring among those under 26, the closest data we have is sexual assaults on College Campuses.  According to some estimates, the rate of rape at College is between 20% and 25% of all female students.  And, one in 12 male college students admitted activity that met legal definitions of rape.  In comparison, Our Troops are boy scouts, even if one were to believe the worst case "estimates."

What else can we do to prevent the problem?  Instruct ALL women in self-defense and situational awareness.  It is NEVER the fault of the victim, even if she's walking naked through a drug infested ghetto, and even if she's known for promiscuity, but knowing what NOT to do, knowing what to do, can mean she's never in the situation.  It is always the criminal's fault for the crimes he commits, but if we empower women to exact pain on the perpetrator, fewer cases will exist for prosecution.

I am under no illusion that sexual assault will ever be 100% reported or 100% eliminated, whether in or out of the Military.  It should never be condoned or covered up.  There will always be a few cases of false allegations and there must always be a presumption of innocence.  But when we catch a sexual predator, we must investigate and prosecute to the fullest extent of the law.  We cannot force victims to relive the crime, and must protect them to the extent legally possible, but that protection must include the encouragement to put the criminal behind bars for the longest possible time, to prevent the possibility of other victims.  And because even one attack is too many, we should not attempt to falsify the numbers for political or financial purposes.

It appears that in 2010 there were approximately 884 allegations of rape in the military and if the 29% report rate is close to being right, approximately 3,050 total rapes, in a population of 1.65 Million, or an incident rate of less than 1.85 per 1000, which is far less than the civilian population, and extremely less than the college population (250 per 1000), which is the closest comparison in demographics.

UPDATE: Of FY2010 cases in the US Army, 791 Service Members, of 956 assailants, were alleged in the crimes against 945 victims, including 690 Service Members.   There were 396 allegations of rape against a Soldier (474 allegations total), 93 Soldiers of 120 allegations of Non-consensual Sodomy, 287 Soldiers of 326 cases alleged to have committed Aggravated Sexual Assault, and 32 of 37 allegations against Soldier of Aggavated Sexual Contact. There 365 allegations (of 433 cases) of Abusive or Wrongful Sexual Contact or Indecent Assault.  Allegations of sexual misconduct were more likely to occur in non-combat rather than combat areas.

The Army closed 1028 cases in FY2010.  300 (29%) were court-martialed.  161 Allegations (15.6%) were deemed to have insufficient evidence to proceed, following an investigation.  Of the 131 cases 12.7% where the victim chose not to participate in prosecution, 1 suspect was court-martialed and 26 were given Non-Judicial Punishment. 65 cases (6.3%) were tried by non-US Military authorities (civilian or foreign military).  8 Defendants and 3 Victims died prior to prosecution. 

The Army investigates EVERY "unrestricted" allegation of sexual assault, with an average investigation time of 93 days.  As of October 1, 2010, 520 of 1390 investigations initiated in 2010 were pending completion. 41% of (572) victims reported the crime within 72 hours, while 7% (102) reported it after a full year.  42% (582) of non-combat zone attacks occured on weekends. 935 of the crimes occured between 6pm and 6am (off-duty hours).  11 victims filing an unrestricted report and 15 filing an unrestricted report, reported an incident that occured prior to entrance in the US Army.

50 of 373 resticted cases involved a male victim, while in 27 cases the sex of the victim was not reported. 4 of 37 restricted cases in a combat zone involved a male victim.

Looking through the cases (posted in this section), it appears a great number are between Initial Entry Trainees and a good number of the cases involve groping, rather than rape.

If there is one thing that the US Military should be good at, it is defining the terms used, but they always seem to throw in a catchall, general term on top of an otherwise specific definition.  Some of the definitions they include are:

 

For the purpose of this Directive and SAPR awareness training and education, the term ‘sexual assault’ is defined as intentional sexual contact, characterized by use of force, threats, intimidation, abuse of authority, or when the victim does not or cannot consent. Sexual assault includes rape, forcible sodomy (oral or anal sex), and other unwanted sexual contact that is aggravated, abusive, or wrongful (to include unwanted and inappropriate sexual contact), or attempts to commit these acts.

Department of Defense Directive (DoDD) 6495.01, is current as of October 6, 2005.

‘Consent’ means words or overt acts indicating a freely given Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 6495.02, Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR)  Program

"Restricted Reporting:" Allows a Service member to report or disclose to specified officials that he orshe has been the victim of a sexual assault. This reporting option gives the member access to medical care, counseling, and victim advocacy, without requiring those specific officials to automatically report the matter to law enforcement or initiate an official investigation.

DoDD 6495.01. Washington, DC: DoD. E2.1.10 *Note: Victims in California cannot submit to a forensic examination while maintaining victim confidentiality.  In all other areas of the military, victims of rape can submit to a forensic examination with confidentiality.  In such cases, the evidence is maintained for 11 months, before the victim must decide to unrestrict the report, for purposes of prosecution, or allow the evidence to be destroyed at the 1 year mark.  This affects victims in Arizona as well, since the treatment center is in California.

 

DoDD 6495.01 defines Unrestricted Reporting as: A Service member who is sexually assaulted and desires medical treatment, counseling, and an official investigation of his or her allegation should use existing reporting channels (e.g., chain of command, law enforcement, or report the incident to the SARC). When notified of a reported sexual assault, the SARC will immediately assign a [SAPR] VA. Additionally, at the victim’s discretion or request, the healthcare provider shall arrange a SAFE (forensic examination) to be conducted, which may include the collection of evidence. Details regarding the incident will be limited to only those personnel who have a legitimate need to know.

Rape was defined as an event that occurred without the victim’s consent, that involved the use or threat of force to penetrate the victim’s vagina or anus by penis, tongue, fingers, or object, or the victim’s mouth by penis. The definition included both attempted and completed rape. 
Department of Justice.