When it comes to the topic of military-on-military sexual violence, most of us will readily agree that military rape culture is a problem and justice is not being served for these victims who risk their lives every day at the expense of our freedom. Where the agreement usually ends, however, is on the question of how these crimes should be prosecuted. Whereas some are convinced that the Department of Defense has it under control and overturning jurisdiction of these prosecutions would disrupt unit cohesion and loyalty, others maintain that these crimes should be prosecuted in the same fashion as any civilian rape, through the U.S. Judicial System. My own view is that with the growing nature of military-on-military sexual violence, these crimes should continue to be arraigned in the courts-martial, but with trained, unbiased prosecutors in control of the trial.

United States military personnel are losing hope in the Department of Defense’s ability to enforce the laws in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. For example, the DOD estimated that while 26,000 were assaulted, only 3,374 cases were reported in 2012 and 3,192 in 2011 (Justice Needed). Many of these military men and women don’t report their attacks because their commanders often turn a blind eye and the victims never receive the justice they deserve. Those who currently prosecute military sexual assault cases are often not qualified to handle the task at hand. Jane Harman, chair of the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Intelligence says, “women serving in the U.S. military are more likely to be raped by a fellow solder than killed by an enemy fire in Iraq” (Hillman 102). Something needs to change. Military rape culture has grown exponentially in recent years and my personal opinion is that these assailants are not being properly punished for the crimes they commit. A unit transfer, promotion, or honorable discharge does not send the signal that the Department of Defense is taking these crimes as serious offenses. These actions that sweep military-on-military sexual violence under the rug encourage the very behavior that puts service members as risk. The DOD needs to start treating these cases with urgency to send the message that rapists are not welcome in our military. Failing to enforce these laws reinforces gender and racial stereotypes that our society is trying to do away with. It paints a picture that women are too weak to fight and keep up with military men, when in reality, military men need to stop raping their fellow soldiers. The DOD’s Manual for Courts-Martial states, “The purpose of the military law is to promote justice, to assist in maintaining good order and discipline the armed forces, to promote efficiency and effectiveness in the military establishment, and thereby to strengthen the national security of the United States” (Hoyle 356). I didn’t see raping fellow military men and women in there, did you? 

Current military-on-military sexual assault policies include the Special Victims Unit and required unit transfer for victims. These programs are focused more on making resources available to a victim after an attack, instead of prevention (Bhagwati 3). A great spike in military-on-military sexual assault occurred during the time of President Obama’s first and second term. In 2013, he passed the National Defense Authorization Act which contained substantial reforms in an effort to reduce and stop military sexual violence. Some of the most noteworthy reforms include the change to Article 32 and Article 60 of the UCMJ. These reforms include the victim’s choice to not testify and the inability of commanding officers to change the outcome or punishment of a guilty verdict without counsel recommendations (Stimson). These changes were most likely made after the lengthy cross examination of a student at the United States Naval Academy. Over the length of a few days, she was interrogated by the defense lawyers of former Naval Academy football players for almost thirty hours. Military rape culture was revealed when much of the conversation resulted in victim blaming by means of focusing on what she was wearing (Steinhauer). Many, myself included, believe this was unacceptable behavior, and question why more serious action hasn’t been taken to preserve the honesty and justice of the courts-martial. 

The Department of Defense can’t have it both ways. On the one hand, they argue that “rape and sexual assault impair the military’s readiness and impede mission accomplishment,” in the 2010 Annual Report of Sexual Assault in the Military (Hoyle 354). On the other hand, they also claim that they have it under control and don’t need any outside help in the prosecution of these crimes. In making these statements, the DOD urges us to question who these leaders are protecting, our military personnel or themselves? It is our responsibility as citizens of the United States to keep these leaders in check to ensure we stay the best country in the world.

At the same time that I believe the Department of Defense is not doing their job in protecting service men and women from acts of military-on-military sexual violence, I also believe that these cases should remain under their jurisdiction. The UCMJ holds military personnel to different standards. If we cross the line to let rape and sexual assault cases be tried in civilian courts, eventually there will be a fight for every crime committed in the military to be tried in civilian courts. Having unbiased, trained prosecutors in charge of these cases withholds the integrity of the courts-martial while giving victims the opportunity of a fair trial that wasn’t there before.

The experiences of Anu Bhagwati are perfect examples of the corruption of military leadership. Bhagwati, executive director of Service Women’s Action Network, witnessed rapists being promoted or transferred instead of punished for their crimes while stationed at Camp LeJeune from 2002 through 2004. She experienced the willingness of military leaders to dismiss sexual assault crimes without a second thought (Bhagwati 3). These service men and women are fighting for our freedoms, while their rights are being taken away from them by someone who is untrained or unwilling to handle the task at hand. The frequent dismissal of these crimes is the leading reason that military-on-military sexual assault statistics continue to rise. Perpetrators are not receiving proper, if any, punishment for their crimes which creates an atmosphere of invincibility. A lack of action by the DOD encourages acts of sexual violence because no one is being held liable for their actions. These military personnel can’t protect us if they are worried about protecting themselves from their fellow soldiers.

Although military rape culture has been around for years, it is just as prevalent now as in the past. The internet scandal of Erika Butner, a former marine, is a recent example of the boys will be boys attitude of the military justice system and the lack of a desire for change by the DOD. Butner’s pictures were posted on a marine exclusive Facebook page without her consent. The pictures sparked male conversation which included degrading comments and statements of physical sexual violence. Butner’s story evoked action of other military women such as Marisa Woytek who stated that she would not be reenlisting because her picture was also featured on one of these inappropriate sites. Woytek argues that she doesn’t want to encourage sexual violence by continuing to serve. It is likely that this story would have been dismissed if Butner had not gone to the media like many other military sexual harassment incidents that happen every day. Woytek was brave and stood up for her fellow service members. I wonder how many more will have to suffer before a change is made?

The corruption in the prosecution of military sexual assault cases goes beyond a lack of justice for the victim as shown in the 2010 case of Emily Vorland. Vorland was generally discharged after reporting sexual assault against her superior officer. The Army claimed that Vorland had consensual sex with the alleged perpetrator. As a lesbian, Vorland was afraid to state her defense because of the “don’t ask don’t tell” policy on sexual orientation. This invalid discharge resulted in her inability for transition assistance and six months of post-military health care. She also had a hard time getting a job because employers constantly asked for her discharge papers. Mark Thompson, a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter, states that, “Thousands of victims have been pushed out of the service with less-than-honorable discharges, which can leave them with no or reduced benefits, poor job prospects and a lifetime of stigma” (Thompson). The DOD is looking for a quick fix to military sexual assault cases. These Band-Aids that they give to victims result in a lifetime of financial struggles in addition to their suffering.

Jessica Turchik, a clinical psychologist, seems to blame the requirements for volunteering as to why military sexual assault statistics and civilian statistics are drastically different. Turchik brings to light the age and health requirements needed to serve as well as the isolation that comes with their own education system, legal system, code of conduct, and more (Turchik). By focusing on the massive differences between military and civilian culture, Turchik and many others overlook the deeper problem of rape and how it shouldn’t be acceptable to anyone, regardless of the nature of the crime. These men and women choose a life of service. Before we know it, disturbed men and women will be choosing this life style because of the leniency and lack of consequences that are associated with it. Change needs to happen fast.

Kirsten Gillibrand is surely right when she argues, “The Defense Department tells us that if 3 percent of the most senior commanders don’t have sole authority to decide whether a person is accused of rape should be prosecuted, we will lose good order and discipline in our military. That same argument was used against integrating the services; against allowing women to serve; against repealing don’t ask don’t tell; and against allowing women in combat. It wasn’t true then, and it isn’t true now” (Gillibrand). She sheds insight on the defense mechanism that people with power often use: those with power need to keep the power. What these commanders aren’t seeing is that their way isn’t working and it is time to make a change. Anyone familiar with military rape culture should agree that if precautionary steps aren’t quickly taken, the military will lose its honor, integrity and accountability that make it great. 

Nevertheless, followers of the Department of Justice will probably argue that my suggested solution would not be the best move to eliminate military rape culture and seek justice for sexual assault victims. These critics will argue that military rape cases should remain in the control of military commanders. Although this is a great idea in theory, these so called “leaders” are not holding up the honor of our military by failing to stand up for those who can’t stand up for themselves. I’ve always believed that military men and women deserve the utmost respect for sacrificing everything for their freedom, but it is hard to think of these leaders as heroes when they are focused on fighting threats across oceans, but too busy to fight the villains on their own side.

Bringing in trained, unbiased prosecutors to handle these crimes allows these cases to stay under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense, but also provides an opportunity of justice for the survivors that wasn’t there before. These prosecutors will be knowledgeable of the UCMJ and will give the victims the opportunity of a fair trial that any other civilian would be entitled to. Service men and women who experienced these assaults are still citizens of the United States, so why are they not given the same liberties? These military personnel need prosecutors with their best interest in mind and justice as their utmost goal. They choose to put their life on the line every day for our freedoms, now it is time we step up for them. 
