President Joe Biden on Friday ordered a historic change to the Uniform Code of Military Justice by transferring key decision-making authorities outside the military chain of command in cases of sexual assault, domestic violence, child abuse, murder and other serious crimes.
Can someone explain the change to me? I do not understand how it was done before, why that was bad, and how this is different and better. (Things I probably would have included in the article, had I written it)
Historically, these investigations have been handled by the higher-ups in the chain of command. Say one soldier raped another and the victim reported it. Their mutual boss and that boss’s bosses would be responsible for any investigation and discipline.
They have the same negative incentive to provide thorough investigation and justice as college campus police do - because in the end it makes them look bad at their jobs and makes the institution that signs their paychecks look bad. So they just don’t. Often victims are ignored or worse, disciplined themselves.
This change will provide a third party not involved in the chain of command for reporting and investigation of sexual assault allegations.
Ok that definitely gives me some context. Thanks!
But wouldn’t them handling it properly, which is part of their job, make them look good at their jobs? ~Strawberry
No because that means admitting that it happened in the first place. It’s a huge problem with reporting. Remember “there’d be less Covid if we just stopped testing for it?” Same problem.
Investigating and prosecuting a rape means admitting that rape happens in your unit. Punishing victims to keep them quiet allows the bosses to continue pretending like it never happens
I’m still confused though, they know handling reports is part of their job. How would doing that part of their job well not make them look good at their job? ~Strawberry
They’re in the position of authority and there is a chain of command, soldiers are trained from the very beginning to obey the chain of command without questions.
To climb the ladder or gain more power, they have to look good. They’re not going to get promoted if their records have any “negatives”.
Who is going to verify the reports? Their bosses, which means they also have the same incentives to only want good stuff, in order for themselves to get any considerations for promotions.
When their boss goes up, the boss under them will likely get promoted too.
What the boss said, goes. There are usually far more consequences toward the victims and whistleblowers than the actual authorities.
That’s why there should be independent review process where these folks have no incentive to have good reports.
I don’t get it, why aren’t “holding sex offenders accountable” and all of the ethical and moral concerns enough of an incentive for those along the chain of command? ~Strawberry
What happens if the boss is the rapist?
Adding to @[email protected] comment: The military has a peculiar concept for responsibility in command, such that a senior officer or even NCO could have thier career totally ruined for investigating a rape. Not for other crimes, mind you, but some arcane language held that they could be held culpable for not having prevented the attack. Biden has rather firmly corrected that error.
Good addendum, I appreciate it!