• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Sexual Assault: Armed Services Under Pressure

    picturescolourlibrary/Pictures Colour Library/Newscom

    picturescolourlibrary/Pictures Colour Library/Newscom

    The Pentagon is scrambling to propose a handful of new regulations to combat sexual assault in the military. The provisions they are making, however, are the same as those proposed by Congress.

    In May, a group of Senators attempted to eliminate commanding officers’ authority in the military judicial process. This would upend the authority of chain of command in military court proceedings by undermining convening authority and hamper timely sentences by eliminating Article 60 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

    The Pentagon should take precaution, however, and rationally evaluate how to better cope with sexual assault while not infringing upon long-standing UCMJ authorities. Senator James Inhofe (R–OK) recently wrote a letter to his congressional colleagues explaining how certain statistics have been misrepresented in the sexual assault debate. Inhofe called rational discussion of the issue rather than sensationalism.

    Heritage’s Steven Bucci, a three-decade Army veteran who has been a commanding officer during similar cases, says that the effort to remove the chain of command from sexual assault cases in the military “addresses the wrong problem.” He continues to explain that the problem is not with how the commanders operate but with how the prosecutors prosecute. This indicates a flaw in how the military court system operates, not a defect in the law.

    According to Bucci and Charles Stimson, manager of the National Security Law Program and senior legal fellow at Heritage, one way of addressing this issue should start with a fundamental restructure of the Judge Advocate General corps that creates a career track for criminal litigators to provide experienced prosecutors who specialize in specific crimes, such as sexual assault.

    The recent attempts on Capitol Hill to change the UCMJ address the wrong issues in this debate—while pushing for quick answers to a delicate issue—could lead to unintended consequences. Congress should be careful in attempting to throw out established military law based on misguided arguments and knee-jerk reactions.

    Posted in Security [slideshow_deploy]

    Comments are closed.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.