Posted on Dec 17, 2014
0
0
0
We push SHARP and explain its relevance within the organization. Not only do we conduct numerous training but within that training inform individuals if you're referred on a SHARP complaint your career is over.
As a soldier it's mandatory to support the program right? Indeed it is, so is it fair to those who are falsely accused? Reason being, supporting the program assume the guilt of a person before hand.
I've personally witnessed Court Martial cares where no evidence was submitted, no eyewitness, and accused had all this above to prove their innocence. Do to command influence those personnel were found guilty in a Army military court. How do find someone guilty without evidence? How do you determine an incident occurred without proof? When a victim/s allegation/s is inconsistent, wrote false sworn statements, commit perjury during trail, and gets away with it.
To be fair, I've also witnessed cases on SHARP were actual evidence was presented. An open shut case well investigated, witnesses, consistent testimonies, and credible. Victims were separated and evidence deemed a guilty verdict.
If a any person is willing to compromise their integrity before and during a pre-trial, it doesn't take rocket scientist to predict the actual outcome during trial.
As a soldier it's mandatory to support the program right? Indeed it is, so is it fair to those who are falsely accused? Reason being, supporting the program assume the guilt of a person before hand.
I've personally witnessed Court Martial cares where no evidence was submitted, no eyewitness, and accused had all this above to prove their innocence. Do to command influence those personnel were found guilty in a Army military court. How do find someone guilty without evidence? How do you determine an incident occurred without proof? When a victim/s allegation/s is inconsistent, wrote false sworn statements, commit perjury during trail, and gets away with it.
To be fair, I've also witnessed cases on SHARP were actual evidence was presented. An open shut case well investigated, witnesses, consistent testimonies, and credible. Victims were separated and evidence deemed a guilty verdict.
If a any person is willing to compromise their integrity before and during a pre-trial, it doesn't take rocket scientist to predict the actual outcome during trial.
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 4
1
1
0
1SG Don Stand The benefits of SHARP greatly outweigh the risks. More and more people are now reporting sexual assault incidents even though the estimated incidents has stayed relatively the same.
When those people don't seek help after a sexual assault, it can lead to negative side effects (substance abuse, decreased work productivity, "personality disorder", increased suicide risk, etc.). If we don't take care of our soldiers in their time of need, then we've failed as leaders.
No system is perfect, but it's leap years ahead of what was available before.
When those people don't seek help after a sexual assault, it can lead to negative side effects (substance abuse, decreased work productivity, "personality disorder", increased suicide risk, etc.). If we don't take care of our soldiers in their time of need, then we've failed as leaders.
No system is perfect, but it's leap years ahead of what was available before.
(1)
(0)
1SG Don Stand
I like your last phrase "if we don't take care....." That is my reason for this post. We are failing, if we know this is occurring within our ranks why not address the situation.
Those same symptoms mentioned runs current with that of an innocent soldier except they have no outpost to turn to. No system is perfect but can be directional with results.
Would we rather 50,000 soldiers be falsely accused before we say, let's check the blocks on what's considered evidence, conduct in depth investigative, determining who's credible by testimonies. We are quick to say the system is flawed but it's the leadership that's flawed. Leaders implement the system therfore, leaders can implement a revision based on feedback and experience.
Those same symptoms mentioned runs current with that of an innocent soldier except they have no outpost to turn to. No system is perfect but can be directional with results.
Would we rather 50,000 soldiers be falsely accused before we say, let's check the blocks on what's considered evidence, conduct in depth investigative, determining who's credible by testimonies. We are quick to say the system is flawed but it's the leadership that's flawed. Leaders implement the system therfore, leaders can implement a revision based on feedback and experience.
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
Absolutely. I'd love to hear someone's opinion in CID. Maybe they could provide some insight on any possible solutions.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
It does seem to be a pendulum, 1SG Don Stand, that is swinging hard in one particular direction these days. There's likely a lot of CYA on the part of the units, and - sometimes, as you noted - to the detriment of individual Soldiers. That's unfortunate.
I think those "victims" of SHARP are far fewer than actual victims of sexual assault and harassment, but still.
I think those "victims" of SHARP are far fewer than actual victims of sexual assault and harassment, but still.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
To me, it sounds like a command issue not a problem with the SHARP program. SHARP isn't trial and jury. If a command is influencing outcomes, that's an issue with the command. If JAG/CID are allowing influence from command then they are wrong too.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google