Home Feminism Military Rape Trials And Convictions

Military Rape Trials And Convictions

Author

Comments

There are those – fuddy duddies no doubt – who always did think that putting women into the military was going to cause problems. An, almost by definition, aggressively male environment is going to be different from the world outside. Thus it’s entirely believable that rape and other sexual assaults are somewhere between handled differently and not handled well within the military justice system.

We could also, maybe, note that the military justice system was hanging people for rape long after the civil justice system.

However, we still have this problem of evidence. And things like numbers convicted at trial used as evidence have a certain problem with them. Nit many convicted might be a reflection of the system not being willing to convict. Sure, that’s possible. But exactly the same numbers can also be read as the system prosecuting, to trial, too many weak cases.

If we’re willing to move a little bit off the insistence of certain feminists that every allegation of rape or sexual assault is, by dint of having been made, proof that is. So, we are starting with the possibly unfashionable assumption that some allegations are not true, some cannot be proven, some are true and can be proven to the required standard. At which point we get these numbers:

Armed forces personnel are twice as likely to be cleared at trial of sexual assaults, a Telegraph investigation can reveal, which is leaving victims reluctant to report allegations.

Figures unearthed by this newspaper show just 29 percent of the 59 military personnel tried at court martial for sexual offences in 2019 were convicted, compared to 65 percent of the 7,742 defendants who appeared before the Criminal Justice System for the same offences in the same year.

There are calls for civilian courts to take on cases after victims told The Telegraph that military boards were failing them because they consist of “old white men who are long in the tooth”.

So, there are – just to keep things easy for our argument here – two points at which a claim of rape can end up not resulting in conviction. The first is in moving from report and claim to trial – whether in a civilian or military court. The second is that it passes this hurdle to actually result in a trial, at which point the verdict can be guilty or not guilty.

It’s possible to tune the system either way. To filter stringently at that decision to prosecute stage, leaving few either way or even weak cases to go to trial. Or to filter stringently the other way, and to insist that all even very weak cases go to trial. Then there’s the courts – will they convict or not on how much evidence?

And here’s the thing. We don’t know, in fact cannot judge, that conviction in court behaviour without knowing about the filter applied before it. It’s the system as a whole that matters, not the one part of it. Because it’s the system as a whole that deals with the report and claim to outcome, not just the trial part of it.

So, imagine, only strong cases get to court. Very few he said/she said without independent evidence do. The conviction rate in the courts will be high, even as the numbers from report to disposal are low. Or, equally, imagine that any report which can even vaguely stand up gets to court. The conviction rate at court is going to be low. But now think about this. Imagine that there is some x number of reports, that y are real and should be punished. Either method of doing it could – could! – be equally efficient at getting to y from x. But complaining about only the court part won’t show that. Just as complaining only about the decision to go to court part won’t.

The numbers presented to us – a low number of convictions in court – is consistent with our weak filter on charging, with any case that has any legs at all moving to trial. It’s also consistent with no one giving a shit about rape in the military justice system.

Because that numerical evidence is consistent with both explanations we cannot use it as proof that it’s the no shit answer.

A low conviction rate can be – again, can be, not is – evidence of taking every allegation seriously and moving most of them to trial. Which is, if we’re honest about it, strange evidence to be using to condemn the system.

SUPPORT US WITH A SUBSCRIPTION?

8 COMMENTS

  1. It may also be due to the different demographics of the people involved. Female soldiers are not as random selection of women nor, therefore, a random selection of people accusing other people of rape.

    There is rarely evidence of rape these days. Evidence of sexual intercourse, yes. So the courts are faced with people who admit to sex but have radically different interpretations of what went on.

    So consider a case involving a soldier and a woman who for the sake of argument we will also call a soldier. Is the woman concerned likely to be 12 years old? No. That is a whole bunch of plausible rape cases out the window. Is the woman likely to have been grabbed on the way home from work and dragged into some bushes? Not really. Someone likely to break into her home to steal her DVD and do a little rape on the side? Not all that likely.

    So we are most likely to be stuck with two young people who have been out drinking and end up in bed together. Very few of those get convicted either. The comparison is not with all rape trials but those involving, say, university students. Bet few of them end up in a conviction either.

  2. There’s one form of rape that never goes to court, never gets punished. That’s the government raping citizen’s bank accounts. It’s morally wrong, but isn’t illegal. IN fact, it’s very legal, because the perpetrator makes the laws.

  3. Working from memory here, but I’m pretty sure I’ve heard the reverse argument from the Left more than once – not a high enough percentage of rape claims are prosecuted! So, take ’em all to trial and your conviction rate is too low or be selective and you’re not taking enough of them to trial.

  4. 30 acquittals out of 59 is 50.8% – that is not twice the 35% reported acquittals in civilian cases. Someone who says 51 is twice 35 is not to be trusted

  5. I’m not it’s the military ‘justice’ system that’s at fault so much as the military investigation system. The quality of evidence I’ve seen produced by the military police would have been laughed out of civil court in my later experience with the latter.

    I’m firmly of the opinion that military police should only be involved in the investigation of military specific crimes. Where, of course, this falls down is that when there is a non-specific crime in a jurisdiction where you have a Status of Forces Agreement (Brit military subject to Brit jurisdiction), you’d want the MPs to have experience investigating wider crime, such as rape.

  6. So we are most likely to be stuck with two young people who have been out drinking and end up in bed together.

    A lot of the cases that I get my attention brought to seem to involve seniors taking inappropriate advantage (or, worse, not taking ‘no’ for an answer.)

    • Interesting. The military is rigidly hierarchical, so perhaps that’d be more of a problem than in civilian life.

      The good old fashioned solution was the Japanese ‘comfort women.’ It’d be entertaining to hear the howls of outrage if that was tried today.

      • Okay but also see Harvey Weinstein. Holywood being massively, if somewhat less explicitly formally, hierarchical. Possibly even more than the military.

        I’ve worked in numerous organisations where the hierarchy was taken much more seriously than in the military. Okay, you might not have had to call them “Sor” or “Ma’am” but they knew they were that step or two up the ladder for you and, right or wrong, they were going to abuse it.

        I may just be unlucky (but Tim Newman on oil and gas suggests I’m not only one so burdened.)

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

expunct

in British English
expunct (ɪkˈspʌŋkt)
VERB (transitive)
1. to delete or erase; blot out; obliterate
2. to wipe out or destroy

Support Us

Recent posts

The Bit That Robert Lighthizer Doesn’t Get

It's right here in the opening sentence of his piece in the New York Times: The Senate recently passed a bill intended to bolster America’s...

Brexit Brings Us Cheap Wine

There's a long way to go on this but this is indeed a start: The U.K. government said it will scrap a piece of planned...

Some At The Post Office Should Be Facing Significant Jail Time

Whether it's just a few or the many still remains to be worked out but there are definitely those at the Post Office who...

Another Beautiful Theory Destroyed By A Mere Fact

Apparently, so we're told, crime is soaring in the United States. But that's OK, we know the reason why. We even know what to...

Idiots – US Life Expectancy Hasn’t Fallen In The Slightest

It's important - actually, vital in both meanings here - to know what is being measured and how in order to understand what the...

Recent comments