In this even-handed and balanced news article, we can see that rape culture does indeed generate sufficient political pressure to do something, anything, about rape. But what price appearances for politics sake? For in the end, rape culture of this sort harms the real, genuine victims and manufactures more victims by obscuring the relationship between risky behaviors and sexual assault, all while wasting scarce resources and unjustifiably branding men with the scarlet "R":
McClatchy's review of nearly 4,000 sexual assault allegations demonstrates that the military has taken a more aggressive stance. Last year, military commanders sent about 70 percent more cases to courts-martial that started as rape or aggravated sexual-assault allegations than they did in 2009.Analyzing the numbers in the graphic at the top of the linked article suggests that the tens of millions spent on forcibly implanting a rape culture in the Defense Department hasn't appreciably changed the data much, at least when compared with the civilian sector. According to the data presented, an individual rape and/or sexual assault accusation will result in a courtroom conviction 7% of the time. Including those who resign or accept discharges in lieu of a trial boosts "conviction rates" to almost 10%. Which, incidentally, is the going conviction rate for an individual rape/sexual assault allegation in the UK (could not find reliable figures for the US).
However, only 27 percent of the defendants were convicted of those offenses or other serious crimes in 2009 and 2010, McClatchy found after reviewing the cases detailed in the Defense Department's annual sexual assault reports. When factoring in convictions for lesser offenses - such as adultery, which is illegal in the military, or perjury - about half the cases ended in convictions.
The military's conviction rate for all crimes is more than 90 percent, according to a 2010 report to Congress by the Pentagon.
. . . .
Making acquittals even more likely, the military is prosecuting more contested cases under a controversial law that broadens the definition of sexual assault. Under the 2006 law, the military can argue that a victim was sexually assaulted because she was "substantially incapacitated" from excessive drinking and couldn't have consented.
. . . .
"There is a pressure to prosecute, prosecute, prosecute. When you get one that's actually real, there's a lot of skepticism. You hear it routinely: 'Is this a rape case or is this a Navy rape case?'"
Now it is true that those accused can accept non-judicial punishment in lieu of a court-martial, and that option does muddy the analysis a bit, for we do not know if those fellows were punished non-judicially for rape/sexual assault or some other infraction surrounding the accusation. It would also seem to me that if the government had any kind of a case, in the face of all that rape culture pressure to prosecute, that the government would not offer or accept offers of non-judicial punishment in lieu of court-martial.
So I wonder: is inculcating a rape culture in DoD worth all that extra money, unneeded aggravation and decreased morale, additional broken women, more unfairly tarred men, and no appreciable change in the conviction rates? If not, then why bother?
Posts
17 comments:
A great post, and a great point. It's a point that's easy to overlook. The institutionalized hand-wringing about rape in the military, but also on campus and elsewhere, doesn't work. On any level.
The fact is, despite four decades of "reforms" that are supposed to increase sexual assault reporting and convictions, the sexual grievance industry insists that underreporting and the conviction rates are as bad as ever.
With that kind of track record, you'd think that the persons who dominate the public discourse about rape would toss out the persons leading the "war on rape." The reason they don't is curious, and telling.
The only quibble I have is, didn't the Stern report show the conviction rate as over 50%, as the 6%/10% figure was from the attrition rate, not from the charged as is used for other crimes?
The conviction rate for rape quoted by Stern was 58% in 2008 (if memory serves).
A conviction rate, I believe, is all the cases in the prosecution stage which end in a conviction.
It is not a 'conviction rate' if the police stage is also included (and thats how the low 6% figure is arrived at).
I believe that the '6%' figure, and the term 'conviction rate' should NOT be used in the same sentence.
However, some anti-rape groups in the UK, since Stern, have now re-framed the 6% figure, to get around Stern.
Instead of what they used to say 'only 6% of rape cases end in a conviction', they now say 'only 6% of all recorded rapes end in a conviction'.
They have reframed the 6% figure within the recorded rapes framework (police and prosecution stages).
That way, they are still able to use the 6% figure, and carry on misleading the public into thinking the police and judicary are failing victims of rape.
I should just add to the above post, that the 6% figure is derived from the 'attrition rate' (all those cases of rape that dont end in a conviction, including both police and prosecution stages), the vast bulk of the attrition rate being at the police stage.
The attrition rate also includes those defendants that have been found not guilty by a jury, which feminists do not seem to want to acknowledge, when they quote the 6% figure.
A 27% conviction rape is still very high. IMHO, probably many of those accused where unjustly, in a moral sense, convicted. When I served in the military a sargent once told me that if I ever get accused of a military crime to demand a Special Court Martial (trial by military jury) and to refuse the standard Court Martial which is essentially a trial by officers/peers under pressure to convict the accused.
Atlas Laughed
"So I wonder: is inculcating a rape culture in DoD worth all that extra money..."
A dollar drop in the military bucket when one considers that the US DoD greatest fears are Congress turning the money tap down and agenda-driven corrupt Congressional investigations.
Atlas Laughed
Are you using the term "rape culture" correctly in this article? Whether or not you believe such a thing exists, the term refers to a culture that supports and benefits rapists.
I think the term you're looking for is more like "rape culture hysteria", or something.
"It is not a 'conviction rate' if the police stage is also included"
Quite right, my apologies for muddying the waters a bit.
@ Druk,
I'm flipping the script on the rape advocacy crowd, by calling their culture, one that sees a rapist everywhere they look, a culture that pivots around the hysteria they generate about the crimes of rape and sexual assault, a 'rape culture'.
'Rape culture hysteria' would work too...but it has three extra syllables, thus it is less effective.
Their culture is all about the rape, nothing but the rape, all the time. Why not call that a rape culture...since it is more accurate...and call the sort of culture that excuses rape (but is not necessarily built around it) a rape-condoning culture?
in the mid-nineties, after reading an article in The Oregonian about the "climate of sex-assault terror" that female students were undergoing at oregon colleges, i called the U of O and spoke at length with both Campus Information and Campus Security
the article rang false -- i lived near UO, and figured i would have heard if hundreds of women were being raped by Those Evil Males leaping out from behind bushes
i asked how many REPORTED (not convicted) instances of sexual assault/crime occurred at UO the past year (this was around 1995)
answer: none
so we kept going back, year by year by year, and the answer was the same: none, none, none, none
yet a woman i knew was terrified to send her daughter to UO, on grounds that -- as her government and media constantly assured her --the place was rife with sexual assault against females
The Oregonian of course never corrected their agitprop, for it had the desired effect of hystericising the female population, and demonizing the male population
good business, good social policy
such a kulture deserves to die
Elusive Wapiti said:
"my apologies for muddying the waters a bit."
Its a very difficult area to explain clearly, my friend.
I myself find I frequently make slight errors in language, or forgetfully leave out important information while trying to explain it, as evidenced by my second post above.
Druk:
I think you have a good point here, maybe 'Rape culture hysteria' (or some other extension to that term) would be better than us trying to appropraite the feminist term 'rape culture'.
I thought about us taking their term for ourselves, but on second thought, when we do that, we miss good opportunities, because the feminist definition of 'rape culture' is a complete nonsense, and we will have an easy time deconstucting and showing it as such.
If we use something like 'Rape culture hysteria', it lets the public see the big picture that rape culture is not immediately to be believed.
If there are two definitions of 'rape culture', that may confuse people.
Let them have their term 'Rape culture', and we will criticize it as 'Rape culture hysteria' (or whatever word), but included in our criticism, we will also add the really convincing issues and problems of 'every man is a potential rapist', and, false sexual assault/rape allegations, ----'the real rape culture'.----
This should serve to weaken their arguments, and at the same time, bolster ours.
""substantially incapacitated" from excessive drinking and couldn't have consented."
If someone is too drunk to give consent, that is rape.
Anonymous said...
""substantially incapacitated" from excessive drinking and couldn't have consented."
If someone is too drunk to give consent, that is rape.
Dec 3, 2011 1:52:00 PM
THE OTHER ANON SAYS...Is this why women were not allowed to drink alcohol, because they were no longer responsible for their actions when drinking (like men are)???
No, that's not the reason.
Drunken men had no control over their penises, therefore, women did not drink because they had to remain vigilant.
If women are now a legal liability to anyone they are now dating; maybe they should not be allowed to drink alcohol in the presence of guys. Anyone who could be held accountable for her drinking actions ie(the nearest fully accountable adult male) is now at a legal liability around women that are drinking.
Is this progress???
"If someone is too drunk to give consent, that is rape".
What if both people are too drunk to have made a rational choice and give consent? What if they ended up having sex? Should both be prosecuted for rape?
Anonymous - ”Drunken men had no control over their penises, therefore, women did not drink because they had to remain vigilant.”
Ah, misandry lives!
Okay, so if, as you claim, men drunken men have no control over their penises; then how do you explain the behaviors of drunken women? It seems that a good many drunk women are not only willing to engage in sexual behavior, quite a few are aggressively seeking sex. Hell, it seems that with just a little bit of alcohol, and a “party environment”, there are quite a few women who cannot even manage to keep their clothes on.
And you still insist that the only problems are with drunken men?
Well, Mr. Killjoy, if you put it like that ..... merry christmas to you, cheers *hic*
Post a Comment