Passing the buck? Army to separate sex offenders.

SGM Matthew Quick — Wed, 20 Nov 2013 19:50:06 -0500

I'm glad the Army is taking such drastic measures to rid its ranks of sex offenders, BUT why are these individual not locked up? Now, instead of incarceration and paying for their actions, they're being discharged to become unemployed (hard to get a job with that on your resume) government aid suckers for years to come.

"The secretary of the Army has issued Army Directive 2013-21 to round up all convicted sex offenders in the service “as soon as possible” and initiate proceedings for their discharge from the Army.

The move is part of the Army’s campaign against sex assault in the service. Soldiers convicted of a sex offense who are deployed will be returned to the states."

Thoughts on this directive?

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 20 at 2013 7:58 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 20 Nov 2013 19:58:07 -0500

I think its great. I also think that being dishonorably discharged is a good punishment however going to jail for a while doesn't sound that bad either but we also should consider how overcrowded they already are. Everyone should know what they and all others should learn from it.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 20 at 2013 8:00 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 20 Nov 2013 20:00:49 -0500

SMA Chandler talks a smaller, leaner force that retains the best. In my mind......NONE of those individuals fit that mold. I do agree with the Secretary of the Army's position but I also believe that criminal action should also be taken against these individuals.

If they're only discharged, what's to stop them from doing this once they're out of the military???

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 20 at 2013 9:03 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 20 Nov 2013 21:03:59 -0500

Not necessarily, I think if we release some of those that are in for small pot offenses or things like that, then we should consider putting sex offenders behind bars.

Response by MSG Curtis Lange made Nov 21 at 2013 7:34 PM

MSG Curtis Lange — Thu, 21 Nov 2013 19:34:39 -0500

That "all" is only enlisted Soldiers at this point. I do not agree with that part of the directive. All Soldiers, no matter the rank or position, should be excluded.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 21 at 2013 8:07 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 21 Nov 2013 20:07:51 -0500

"Separation proceedings for the soldiers will be started regardless of the date of their conviction for the sex offense, according to the directive.

For enlisted soldiers, separation proceedings will start even if after their conviction they were evaluated for retention and allowed to stay. Commissioned and warrant officers will not face separation proceedings if they were already evaluated for retention after their conviction and retained, according to the memo."

Apparently you can still be in if you are an officer and a sex offender just not enlisted.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 22 at 2013 2:41 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 22 Nov 2013 02:41:38 -0500

I don

t agree with it's there had aright to go through your restrictive file just say the founding wasn't quilt but he still get kick out. On the other the officer if there commander retain them they goes on with there career. The Army Times prove and has been report that's it more officer's committing sexual assault and sexual harassment, So why would I let my Soldiers go the chain of command and you know he was charge as sexual assault. stop and think uh that could be your son or daughter or some in your family food for thought

Response by CW2 Joseph Evans made Nov 22 at 2013 3:58 AM

CW2 Joseph Evans — Fri, 22 Nov 2013 03:58:19 -0500

Apparently there was a short period of time in which a registered sex offender could receive a moral waiver and join the service (Were we ever that desperate for people? apparently). Yes, employment will be difficult for them to find depending on the level of offender (I, II, and III) since some are not required to put it on job applications and won't turn up in a standard background check (level I minor offenders like public indecency). Conviction while in uniform should have resulted in dishonorable discharge. In places where the local District Attorney chose to handle the case and got a conviction, it would have required an administrative board be held to determine fitness for service following the conviction. Again, service may have been retained if it was for public indecency on Bragg Blvd... with the recommendation from an influential mentor.
These are people who have already done the time for their crime at some point. The Army has just decided that while they may have been good enough at one time, that is no longer the case. Is it a perfect solution, no. Is it a good solution, probably. Is it a knee jerk reaction to public pressure regarding SA in the military, you betcha. Besides, it significantly reduces the amount of paperwork that the provost marshal has to file every time a registered military sex offender gets transferred to a new post.

Response by CW2 Joseph Evans made Nov 22 at 2013 4:19 AM

CW2 Joseph Evans — Fri, 22 Nov 2013 04:19:03 -0500

NY penal code:
§ 130.55 Sexual abuse in the third degree.
A person is guilty of sexual abuse in the third degree when he or she
subjects another person to sexual contact without the latter's consent;
except that in any prosecution under this section, it is an affirmative
defense that (a) such other person's lack of consent was due solely to
incapacity to consent by reason of being less than seventeen years old,
and (b) such other person was more than fourteen years old, and (c) the
defendant was less than five years older than such other person.
Sexual abuse in the third degree is a class B misdemeanor.
18 yo boy, 16 yo girl, 6 months in jail and now he's a registered offender, and zero tolerance is going to fuck him again.

Response by SGT Drue Rockwell made Nov 22 at 2013 7:03 AM

SGT Drue Rockwell — Fri, 22 Nov 2013 07:03:29 -0500

Is there any way to incarcerate them without having to pay for their salary and such for the rest of their incarcerations?

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 24 at 2013 10:59 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 24 Nov 2013 10:59:43 -0500

Apparently what the Army currently has in place may not be working in rehabilitating "repeat" sex offenders. Sexual assault itself has been a long standing black eye when it comes to the military as a whole. In the age of downsizing, I think it's best to start weeding out the bad apples. However, zero tolerance for sex offenses should apply to officers as well... not just enlisted!

Response by SFC James Baber made Nov 24 at 2013 11:04 AM

SFC James Baber — Sun, 24 Nov 2013 11:04:53 -0500

Didn't we cover this topic already in another post?