7
7
0
If someone files a SHARP complaint what I have seen is the accuser is always seen as a victim and the accused is automatically biased as guilty until proven innocent. But if the investigation finds that the SHARP complaint is unfounded and that the accuser was filing a complaint just to get back at or ruin the career of the accused, what do y'all think should be done about the false accuser?
Posted in these groups: 
SHARP
SHARP
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 14
9
9
0
The punishment for a false complaint should be the same as a guilty verdict.
(9)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
I agree, I can't stand seeing "alleged" reports. I have seen SIR's come across with JUST AN ALLEGATION and the guy is taken off the podium, loses his security clearance, issues a civilian and military protective/do not contact order, etc... for an ALLEGATION. SMH, it is crazy, and wreckless. I also cannot stand the "impact vs intent" b.s., It is an open door for someone to simply say "I am offended" even if they aren't just to impose punishment on someone they do not like, when the window opens. And yes, I do understand that there ARE legit complaints and on some occasions maximum punishments are necessary. I do not need that briefing, I get it.
(4)
(0)
Suspended Profile
LTC Gary D.
The filing of any accusation by a woman in a hierarchical political organization like the military where men often close ranks to protect other men is daunting at best. This is why we have strong anti-retaliation rules to protect the most vulnerable complainants from being directly attacked and/or indirectly penalized for the filing of a completely truthful accusation.
While I can appreciate the motivation behind wanting to penalize some complainants for the filing of any complaint that is ultimately determined to be inadequate to support conviction, the problem is that neither the military legal system or the civilian legal system are perfect, and guilty parties routinely get away with their crimes.
Therefore, regardless of the truth of the complaint, the victims of sexual predators may be inhibited from filing a perfectly truthful complaint if it appears (1) the system routinely fails to effectively prosecute and secure appropriate sanctions against obvious sexual predators and/or (2) these systemic failures may under some new rule result in wholly inappropriate prosecution of vulnerable complainants who may be completely honest.
In the end, the appropriate procedure would be to prosecute any complainant and/or witnesses who can be proven on the basis of clear and convincing evidence to be lying. This could take the form of prosecution for contempt of court and/or criminal perjury. There is no reason to create any new rule to prosecute truthful witnesses or complainants while predators evade conviction.
The last thing we need to do is to inhibit anyone from coming forward with the truth.
The CID/Judge Advocate need to do a better job of investigation before prosecution.
Warmest Regards, Sandy
LTC (Join to see)
<p>I can get the statistics from our SHARP rep here but I don't know that I'd be allowed to post them. I can tell you that we have had incidents of male on male assault here. Our former CG was trying to get the housing segregated to male floors and female floors but since the housing is managed by the Army Support Group and not our unit he was told to go pound sand. When the argument of "Segregating won't prevent same-sex assault" was brought up to him he backed off.</p><p> </p><p>On another note, I think the only way to be proactive is to subject all personnel to psychological testing to determine whether they are potential predators or not. HOWEVER, I don't think that will ever happen because of civil rights infringements. I personally wouldn't object to being tested in order to prove that I mean what I say when I say that I'm not a predator, but some people would protest to it just on principle. I'm interested to know what others think on this subject though.</p>
(2)
(0)
Suspended Profile
LTC Dickey,
I will venture the guess that false charges of male on male rape is very likely to be substantially fewer in number due to social stigma associated with reporting being a male on male victim.
Moreover, SGT(P) Mickles is entirely correct in suggesting that victims reporting sexual assault are likely to be disadvantaged in many ways merely because they reported their sexual assault.
Warmest Regards, Sandy
SGT(P) (Join to see)
LTC Dickey,<div><br></div><div>I am in full agreement. While I believe that everyone should be given the benefit of a doubt, I think testing could be beneficial to the military in the long and short term. I am currently in a TRADOC environment and am surprised at how these IET Soldiers are. I've seen many get MEB'd for psychological issues. Now these young Soldiers without even a MOS are now given severance pay or even quite a few, being medically retired. I've seen one get up to 70% disability from the military for PTSD, yet all he did was basic and language school (and didn't even finish that) without ever seeing AIT and beyond. </div><div>Back to your topic, there are traits that can predict who the predators are. I feel also, that if the accusers have to undergo testing and risk being labeled, so should the accused.</div><div>By testing before military service, it also offers a baseline that can be useful in determining benefits upon separation/retirement as well. I've seen so many Soldiers bilk the system of running to get a diagnosis before they are separated just for the financial gain.</div><div>It can be viewed as a infringement on civil liberties, however, enlisting in the military already requires physicals. Many public service jobs, i.e. many police officers, require it. I really don't understand why we don't. It'll make life so much easier.</div>
(1)
(0)
SGT(P) (Join to see)
The housing situation is also different. You were very right in bringing up the same sex assaults. When I was in Korea, due to rising sexual assaults, the females were moved to one half of the 4th floor, behind a locked door with a hall guard, and it prevented nothing.
(1)
(0)
4
4
0
I have to completely side with 1LT Sandy Annala here for many reasons. I joined the military 'late in the game' for a few reasons. One of those, was to seek financial help to finish my studies in college. I felt my life experiences would guide me throughout basic training and I could mentor other females. I observed many things in basic training all the way through AIT that truly disturbed me. <div><br></div><div>I have yet to see a female ' cry wolf'. I am not saying it doesn't happen though. I will tell you what I did see though...</div><div><br></div><div>Female soldiers being taken advantage of by company commanders to senior platoon sergeants. Oh and if you want to even think about speaking up, good luck. As 1LT said, to punish soldiers (Male or Female) for false accusations would be justified if we went about it the right way. What would happen is true 'victims' might be even more hesitant to speak up. Fear of punishment? Fear of being 'a career killer' perhaps? </div><div><br></div><div>On the other hand... I have to say, I see far too many female soldiers putting themselves in the wrong situations. Or perhaps they come to formation with too much make-up, their nails done etc... Whatever the case may be, we are in the Army. There is a time and place for that. </div><div><br></div><div>That's just my humble opinion though. </div><div><br></div><div>SPC Monaco <br><div><br></div></div>
(4)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google