SHARP response

On May 15th, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel ordered "all the services to retrain, re-credential, and re-screen all sexual assault prevention and response personnel and military recruiters." [Source]

In addition to this, all the officers and NCOs in my brigade had to watch "The Invisible War." This struck me as a strange move -- for the SHARP program to present a movie that is fundamentally critical of the SHARP program -- but it was helpful in understanding the systemic problems that make a tougher response to sexual assault more difficult.

First is that unit commanders have had a fundamental conflict of interest. In recent years, it has been very important for commanders to maintain a high level of unit readiness. If someone in the unit commits a crime, it's better for the commander to handle it at their level than refer the matter to the court system and lose that soldier. This has led to situations where serious offenses are temporarily overlooked just so a soldier can deploy.

The unit readiness requirement had another effect -- there was no guarantee that a victim would be able to switch units to get away from an assailant. Given the high correlation between poor command climates that foster indiscipline and the low likelihood that a commander would properly prosecute a sexual offense, it's easy to see why many victims simply don't report.

Second is the way military justice works -- despite an investigator's recommendations, commanders have sole authority to punish offenders. If a commander is poorly trained, unsympathetic to a victim's rights, or has other priorities, an offender may get off with a light punishment. And unlike a civilian offender, military offenders are not entered into the federal registry unless their punishment exceeds one year (a felony conviction).

Given the movie's message about the systemic problems with the military, I was surprised to read that senior leaders were able to convince the Senate to leave commanders' authority intact. Rather, the Senate committee sided with military leaders who said creating an independent legal adjudication would interfere with leaders' "ability to command." [Source]

Senator Carl Levin defended the decision, concluding that cultural change is more likely to happen if commanders are involved in the prosecution rather than creating a separate legal command.

Yet Senator Kirsten Gillibrand argued that the military has had long enough to fix the problem, and that it has failed. According to the Army Times, "the 'best environment' for rape and assault victims to come forward is one where they believe offenders will be prosecuted. I am just distressed the victims’ voices are not being heard in this debate. Victims have said they are not reporting because it is within the chain of command." [Source]

Although about 3,300 sexual assault cases are reported each year, only 300 or so go to trial. [Source] If the Army is serious about increasing both the reporting rate as well as the prosecution rate, it's going to have to start somewhere.