The Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) issued guidelines and tips on how individuals can report and prevent sexual assault crimes through NCIS' Crime Reduction Program. Among other things, it states:
"Sexual assaults are serious crimes, therefore, victims should not report false sexual assault claims.
"Regrettable sex, absent or late for muster with a rape excuse, caught cheating on your spouse or significant other, or becoming pregnant by someone you do not want to be the father of your child are not excuses to report rape and are unacceptable."
Link: http://www.military.com/news/article/navy-news/ncis-aims-to-prevent-sexual-assault.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
24 comments:
And, yes, I know -- it talks about "victims" making false rape claims. Which only goes to prove that it is ingrained in most of us that an accuser is a "victim" -- even for those who are telling accusers not to lie.
Thanks Pierce. I was just going to make the same observation.
Noticed they used the victim language term too. The wording almost sounded like the Navy was speaking to little girls (or children) explaining as a parent would right from wrong. Possibly many of those reading the Navy guidelines would not comprehend the term accuser or allegation if used.
Incredible. Yet, it is a start in the right direction.
Aharon
Just wait til the feminists get wind of the idea that any woman could be capable of lying about rape...
This is great, it's about time someone had a say in military administration and law besides the Gender-Raunch community.
I am troubled by this statement:
“There is no such thing as drunken consent,” said DeBruhl-Daniels. “Drugs and alcohol will impair a person’s judgment and may increase sexual desire, therefore, a person’s actions may be misunderstood when they are intoxicated."
So, apparently that means that "1 drink + sex=rape" according to Special Agent DeBruhl-Daniels.
I agree, ksf. Impairment is not incapacitation. Even Brett Sokolow preaches that. The standard referenced in your comment is unworkable, unjust, and just plain loony. I'm fine bringing back prohibition (I don't drink), but that's not the national consensus.
And, Archivist, if I may make one other should-be obvious and by-now-trite point, please note how women can be relieved of all sexual responsibility if drunk but being drunk is still no excuse for men.
Now, that's what I call fighting sexism.
"I'm fine bringing back prohibition"
I made a great tasting Asian chicken in the crock pot and used a little white wine. I also want to try cooking beer can chicken someday. Forget banning wine and beer. I'm ok with banning liqueur except Kahlua. Besides, the production and revenue is needed by America's crashing economy.
Obviously too much Navy resources are going into these FRA and possibly the Navy Brass believes that it is starting to take an affect on the morale of men in the service. Otherwise, I doubt the Navy could care less about any men getting back stabbed.
Aharon
Go, Navy!
At least they broached the unmentionable 800 lb Gorilla.
First DADT, now admitting to the possibility of false rape claims to avoid being gigged?
In vino veritas.
["In wine is truth") or in other words - we don't do things drunk we didn't want to do sober.
Yeah, but that is what the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office is putting out to their units. I'm a former Army Judge Advocate who has defended quite a few Soldiers charged with Sexual Assault. I recall one case I had down at GTMO, an MP was charged with rape, and I was flabbergasted when I learned that the Sexual Assault Response Coordinator down at GTMO was briefing Servicemembers that if a woman has 1 drink, then she is too impaired to consent. This is why the 'victim' in that case came forward with the charge because she stated that she was too drunk to consent.
In fact, the "1 drink=lack of consent" issue was brought up in a Marine Court martial, as well:
One drink, service members periodically have been taught, renders a woman incapable of consenting to sex. This lesson is easy to remember and it draws a bright line: better safe than sorry. It's also legally inaccurate and can be dangerous in a courtroom.
Last year, for instance, Marine Corps Staff Sgt. Jamie Walton faced charges relating to a brief affair with a 19-year-old female Marine. The charges against the married Walton included sexual assault and providing alcohol to a minor.
Prospective jurors reported that they'd been taught that a woman can't consent to sex after only a single drink. The judge instructed them to ignore the training. One juror, a Marine staff sergeant, nonetheless said he couldn't reconcile his prior training with the new instructions.
"It's just integrity, sir," the staff sergeant told the judge, a trial transcript shows. "I can't agree with it."
The sexual grievance industry has infiltrated the military to such an extent that Servicemembers are being sent to Courts-marital on charges that civilians won't touch with a ten foot pole. The problem is, as in the Marine's case, the panels have been indoctrinated into believing the bs they have been taught by their SARC's each April, which is sexual assault awareness month where each Servicemember has mandatory sexual assault awareness training, and they bring those beliefs to the4 deliberation rooms where they vote to convict.
HB,
If a drunk man and drunk woman have consensual drunk sex, only the man faces prosecution in the military if the woman makes an allegation. His voluntary intoxication has no relevance, even when he argues mistake of fact.
"There is no such thing as drunken consent,” So,If i go to a job interview and they serve wine,I can't consent to the job offer?-Alcohol is not the equivalent of a gun to the head and to say that women cannot consent to sex simply because they've had a few beers is sexist to both genders.
"Regrettable sex, absent or late for muster with a rape excuse, caught cheating on your spouse or significant other, or becoming pregnant by someone you do not want to be the father of your child are not excuses to report rape and are unacceptable."
------------
Then,Why does the military continue to accept them?
Not only do they call people reporting rapes victims but they also call those accused but not convicted of rape perpetrators--
"An unrestricted report allows victims to legally pursue the perpetrator."--Oh when will it end???
Did everyone the image of the female US sailor kissing her girlfriend, splashed all across the media recently? If they both had consumed some alcohol prior, who is the "victim"?
"Regrettable sex, absent or late for muster with a rape excuse, caught cheating on your spouse or significant other, or becoming pregnant by someone you do not want to be the father of your child are not excuses to report rape and are unacceptable."
This is why I don't buy the objection that some people on both sides are making, that these people have no idea about the false rape accusation epidemic,or the denials that it is an epidemic.
If it wasn't an epidemic, they wouldn't have included these examples and warned women not to falsely report, if they didn't know all about it, ALL ABOUT IT, they wouldn't have known that these are some of the most common situations in which women do falsely report.
They know all about it, probably always have. They're just now starting to deal with it only because it's been costing them a shitload of money, I bet.
But still, major step forward. At least, if you call out these examples explicitly, the would-be false rape accusers know beforehand that we're onto them.
Anon 4:37,
The two Navy women kissing would probably both be considered victims if drinking. The perps or rapists would be the last men in the Navy they spoke with or saw walking around the base.
Aharon
HA! This, after they took the word of every female sailor as truth and destroyed the lives of countless male sailors? THEY HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING! The U.S. Military has a loooong tradition of deferring to female members, while f*cking/f*cking over/ disbelieving male members over.
The gender-feminist community in the US Navy stick together. This community have no qualms about throwing an innocent hetero-male under the bus on a false accusation, in order for Gender-feminists to get traction from them.
With that said, there must be some sanity and resistance to US navy Gender-feminists throwing innocent hetero-males under the bus so they can get traction from them.
The Navy also tells it's personnel not to drink underage, have unauthorized sexual relationships, or go AWOL.
There will be consequences and punishments for thos who do not commply.
"Don't mke false rape accusations to CYA"?
Does that mean they will punish the person guilty of making a false rape accusation?
No. Of course not.
What is more dangerous for men in the US military; is it facing combat or having to interact with women in the military?
Aharon
Anonymous said...
What is more dangerous for men in the US military; is it facing combat or having to interact with women in the military?
Aharon
Jan 1, 2012 2:15:00 PM
Both.
I just want you all to read this and please tell me what you think should be done
I think this movie(Invisable War) is documentary is excellent however; you should show both sides of the story many times these women are ending careers and marriages with false allegations. Then what? Nothing happens to them and you have somebody out of a job and there career tarnished. Don’t get me wrong adultery is adultery so if you do something wrong then yes there still is a punishment. But how about the single Soldier or Airman that gets accused of this after a woman regrets her actions the night before. This story has two sides. The policy must look at both sides. This is USA land of the free. In sexually assault case though you are guilty till proven innocent not innocent until proven guilty. Both sides have a story if the female lies about details of a rape then chances are the action didn't occur what other reason she would have to lie. If the action occurred then her entire recount should be accurate with no lies. Just recently a man went to jail for five years for a false claim of rape. Those years he will not get back. Is that fair? Being falsely accused of this crime should encounter the victim with a punishment also that includes jail time. This would help to ensure that the victim isn't just claiming this out of regret or some alternative motive. Please don’t get me wrong about this because it is a serious crime. But let’s not push this just because politics let’s do it for the right reason. Again this needs to be looked at by both sides not ever female that claims this is a victim. However if she does a false claim she should be a criminal. I ask this question is this situaiton fair. Female boast about having sex with her supervisors to other females over and over and even claims she may break in his area and wait for him, after several advances the supervisors gives in and has sex with the female the next day she claims sexual assault. she has no bruises, scrathes, or anything on her or him. She claims she never said the remarks of explict language of things she wanted to do to him however their have been over 6 statements to refute her claim. she claimed she was dragged to a location where the incident happened outside at night. however no screams were heard and the area showed no sign of struggle. The leader tried to cover it up and deny the fact of the sexual encounter since he knew it would be some sort of punishment however he finally admitted to consensual sex with the female. She still claims sexual assualt and the leader was court martial> What do you think the outcome was? What should have been the outcome in your opinion? Was she assaulted or was she regretting having sex with the individual. She also had a previous claim of sexual assualt (never found who actually commited the assault). Oh last thing the leader own child was assualted 1 year ago by her step dad. i know poor decsion on the leader to even involve himself in an incident like this. But the question is did he sexual assault this female or do you believe it was consensual sex. Yes it went to court martial. Becasue of the new policy, common sense i guess doesnt apply. Over 6 Soldeirs wrote statements about the Soldier saying over and over again what she would love to do to her supervisor sexually if given the chance. Well the chance was given and she said she was sexually assualted by the same individual she made the sexual remarks about. Seriouly I would love to get your comments back and I will post the outcome of the trial. I am not saying the Miltiary court system is fair. But i am saying the victim should suffer for false allegations if proven? But becasue of the new policy who do you think won this case and why?
Post a Comment