Should sex offenders be allowed in the Army?

SFC Aaron Finley — Tue, 07 Jan 2014 00:34:40 -0500

I personally don't have an issue with sex offenders being in the Armed Forces to serve our country as long as there's a tracking mechanism for them and make them register on and off post. What are your views?

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 7 at 2014 12:49 AM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 07 Jan 2014 00:49:51 -0500

Perhaps this is a major part of the problem.  If we refused to recruit, enlist, appoint, and/or retain known sex offenders in the military, perhaps we would avoid having to deal with the huge number of assaults reported and even larger number of assaults estimated to be committed on against male and female service members.<div><br></div><div>What possible purpose is served by keeping known sex offenders in the armed forces?</div><div><br></div>

Response by SFC Stephen P. made Jan 7 at 2014 1:35 AM

SFC Stephen P. — Tue, 07 Jan 2014 01:35:58 -0500

It depends on the offense.

A Nebraska man was sentenced not long ago for sexually assaulting a minor. The victim is now his wife, and they have 4 kids together. Is a teenage romance indicative of a continued threat to the public?

The age of consent in New Mexico is 17, but right across the border in Arizona it's 18.

I had graduated, married, and completed OSUT before I turned 18 (legal age in my state of origin). Is my ex a predator?

There are sex offenders who are guilty of nothing more than public urination.

Response by CW2 Joseph Evans made Jan 7 at 2014 2:15 AM

CW2 Joseph Evans — Tue, 07 Jan 2014 02:15:12 -0500

#TW #satire<br>Special missions unit "Dirty Deeds by the Dozen" style. Put them all
in the same unit for the purpose of plausible deniability  of war crimes
against nature behind enemy lines. <br><br>Seriously though, is recruiting so bad that we really need this in uniform? We are actually prosecuting a General Officer for this at the moment. Are we really ok with predatory exploitation in the ranks? I'm not... <br><br>As for the teen romance, consult your local Congressman and get the crimes pulled off the books or whatever it takes to get off a registered offender list. Case by case basis, judge, governor of your state. You want in the service, don't make it the recruiters job to get you a moral waiver.<br>

Response by CH (CPT) Heather Davis made Jan 7 at 2014 2:28 AM

CH (CPT) Heather Davis — Tue, 07 Jan 2014 02:28:34 -0500

<p>I have an issue with it and it does not align up with our Military values.</p><p><br></p><p>We put our Nation's Sons and Daughter's at risk.</p><p><br></p><p>We compromise the integrity of our units, cohesion, and the impact that it has for those that believed in the sacred bond of brotherhood.</p><p><br></p><p>You have generations that come from military families and they see the military as a family.</p>

Response by CH (CPT) Heather Davis made Jan 7 at 2014 2:32 AM

CH (CPT) Heather Davis — Tue, 07 Jan 2014 02:32:25 -0500

SFC Finley:

How do you put the in leadership positions to shape and develop the next generation when they do not align up with moral integrity and the Army values?

Response by LCpl Mark Lefler made Jan 7 at 2014 2:39 AM

LCpl Mark Lefler — Tue, 07 Jan 2014 02:39:24 -0500

I'd have a big issue with it. The military already has a big, big problem with rape and harassment, we don't need to add to it. Also being the military is about honor. There is no honor in that.

Response by PVT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 25 at 2016 8:29 PM

PVT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 25 Nov 2016 20:29:30 -0500

It's fked up how they hypnosis of the mother or the child of the army reserves children or the mother of military grandchild I will figure this fked up situation out and save children from the sick Masonic ritual, the people who are involved in this in exceptable behavior and the ones who cover this shit up should be handled accordingly!

Response by SFC Daniel McIntire made Nov 25 at 2016 9:18 PM

SFC Daniel McIntire — Fri, 25 Nov 2016 21:18:52 -0500

What if the soldier is on a deployment. I could see the chance of a soldier (who is a sex offender) go on patrol, hang a left and assault a local; or worse, a fellow soldier (regardless of sex). As is, the military makes a soldier charged/convicted of domestic abuse non-deployable. Having a convicted sex offender, on deployment, would cause a major incident affecting host nation relations.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 26 at 2016 10:27 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 26 Nov 2016 10:27:48 -0500

I have zero faith in the registry.

People are on the registry for life for such things as:

Having a freshman girlfriend as a high school senior

Public urination

Having sex on a public beach

Exposing themselves to another person of age once. (Not appropriate but it shouldn't be a black list for life)

I also have moral issues with having people on a list after their punishment has been served. I would eliminate registration completely.

Response by SFC George Smith made Nov 27 at 2016 12:23 AM

SFC George Smith — Sun, 27 Nov 2016 00:23:39 -0500

a convected fellon with a problem... provides the reasonable doubt... when total and complete trust is requires in "in The Foxhole"

Response by SGM Erik Marquez made Apr 13 at 2018 2:18 PM

SGM Erik Marquez — Fri, 13 Apr 2018 14:18:03 -0400

"Sex Offenders in the Army?"
A sex offender as the laws were written for? No, not a person the Service should be devoting time and resources to. Actually not a person society should be devoting time and resources to.

The problem is, DAs a political appointee sometimes use those very laws to punish what most would consider non sex offenses..
I personally know of two SM charged, convicted and required to register who's crime was, peeing in a public area, on school property.......It was Sunday and 2 AM, there were no children present..heck there was no one present except it was caught on camera and reported to police.

Or a Sex offence according to the law, but with a large amount of mitigation...
I personally know three SM charged with rape, the "victim" was in a bar that required one to be 21 to enter, the "victim" was drinking Alcohol. The "victim" told the SM she was 19 and snuck in.
The "victim" consented and approved of the sexual contact. (of note she legally was not of age to consent) The "victim" departed the location happy, telling a friend she had a great time and the guys were nice..... She wanted to date one of them further.
Mom and Dad had other plans, all three SM were charged with rape, that she lied did not matter, that she was in a place one would likely assume the patrons were of age did not matter, that she was consuming alcohol in an establishment that was known to card everyone did not matter.

Those three SM got a reasonable light sentence because the judge and jury felt while not legally possible, it was consensual in that all party's were happy to indulge. And the assumptions of age made were reasonable.

All three will forever be required to register as sex offenders. They clearly made bad judgments and if thinking straight, with an eye for what might be wrong, vice how can we see this as ok..I doubt they would have taken at face value what they did.
She was only 16 at the time.......the old saying 16 will get you 20 applied....almost literally.