14,000 men in the US military were raped last year. Little to none of them reported it.

[Erttheking]

http://mic.com/articles/99820/about-14-000-men-in-the-military-were-raped-last-year-almost-none-will-report-it

Well...this is a pretty fucking depressing statistic. Apparently the main reasons there are so few reports are for a couple of reasons, partially for not wanted to be snitch, partially because soldiers are supposed to suck it up and partially because of a lack of resources. *Sigh* What a mess. What a freaking mess.

 

[Muspelheim]

Appaling, that is what it is. The U.S. Military seems to have a severe problem in that reguard. Something is very, very wrong in that institution, in reguards to how sex offences are handled within the ranks. Rigid, static thinking, "vested interests", lack of care... There seems to be an appaling apathy towards sex crime in the military's management.

The environment of silence and hesitation to report sex crime is no doubt partly condoned (not neccessarily consciously), since it keeps the problem as small and low down the ranks as possible. Not to mention, there are without a doubt times and places where old warrior-fighter ideals are being embraced too blindly, to the detriment of their behaviour as professional soldiers.

Something must be done, although I fear it'll be difficult and take a very long time, if it happens at all.

 

[WindKnight]

Yeah, this is pretty horrible information, though the article does give a glimmer of hope in that attitudes may be changing... slowly, but with perseverance it will pick up speed.

 

[Aesir23]

While I'm not sure where the numbers came from (being entirely unsure how one figures out the number of unreported crimes) it really is appalling that something like this happens at all. This seems to be something that the military really has an issue with and I'm really wondering what they're doing to try and change this if they're doing anything at all. I've known a few rape victims in my life and it really does wreak havoc on men and women alike. I can only imagine what that's like when you add in the feeling of having nowhere to turn.

 

[Thaluikhain]

The US military, like depressingly many institutions, prefers to sweep problems like this under the rug.

One problem is that, unlike the militaries of many other nations, things like this are mostly dealt with under the normal chain of command, though it might vary by branch. So, the person who decides whether or not to take it seriously just happens to be someone who it will reflect badly on should this be taken seriously. There is a rather obvious problem there, though I had heard they'd acknowledged this, not sure if it'd been addressed yet.

In addition, a year or so ago, there was a spate of sexual assaults reported against people charged with dealing with sexual assault.

 

[Ihateregistering1]

I was in the Military for 8.5 years, and the biggest problem has always been (and continues to be) that they get Commanders far too involved in sexual assault allegations, which they shouldn't be involved in at all. It puts the Commander in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. If they report the sexual assault, they're admitting that their unit is fucked up, which can ruin their career. If they don't report it, they're covering it up and only making the problem worse. They need unbiased investigators to get involved, not Commanders.

One stat I will take issue with, however, is this: "Unfortunately, the military has a history of discharging servicemen for personality disorders (31,000 from 2001 to 2010), allegedly to avoid the cost of treating PTSD or traumatic brain injuries."
I was a Commander, and I can tell you that guys WILL fake personality disorders in order to get discharged, I saw it happen on a few occasions, and it was most often with guys who were literally just out of Basic Training (hadn't seen any combat or suffered any brain damage). Some people join the Military and realize they made a mistake and want to get out of their contract ASAP, and getting booted for having a personality disorder is way better than getting booted for doing drugs, refusing to obey orders, etc. because it doesn't reflect as a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge, and since Psychiatric disorders are actually covered under the ADA, it doesn't affect their future job prospects nearly as much as you might think.

 

[Fappy]

I was in the Military for 8.5 years, and the biggest problem has always been (and continues to be) that they get Commanders far too involved in sexual assault allegations, which they shouldn't be involved in at all. It puts the Commander in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. If they report the sexual assault, they're admitting that their unit is fucked up, which can ruin their career. If they don't report it, they're covering it up and only making the problem worse. They need unbiased investigators to get involved, not Commanders.

One stat I will take issue with, however, is this: "Unfortunately, the military has a history of discharging servicemen for personality disorders (31,000 from 2001 to 2010), allegedly to avoid the cost of treating PTSD or traumatic brain injuries."
I was a Commander, and I can tell you that guys WILL fake personality disorders in order to get discharged, I saw it happen on a few occasions, and it was most often with guys who were literally just out of Basic Training (hadn't seen any combat or suffered any brain damage). Some people join the Military and realize they made a mistake and want to get out of their contract ASAP, and getting booted for having a personality disorder is way better than getting booted for doing drugs, refusing to obey orders, etc. because it doesn't reflect as a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge, and since Psychiatric disorders are actually covered under the ADA, it doesn't affect their future job prospects nearly as much as you might think.

Wouldn't third party investigations be up to MP's or do they not get involved until a Commander has already reported a crime?

OT: That's beyond fucked up.

 

[Antari]

The US Military is in trouble in all areas. The Navy is having to take special measures because its getting so bad.
The Story such as it is. [http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/07/19/navy.commanders/]

 

[Ihateregistering1]

I was in the Military for 8.5 years, and the biggest problem has always been (and continues to be) that they get Commanders far too involved in sexual assault allegations, which they shouldn't be involved in at all. It puts the Commander in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. If they report the sexual assault, they're admitting that their unit is fucked up, which can ruin their career. If they don't report it, they're covering it up and only making the problem worse. They need unbiased investigators to get involved, not Commanders.

One stat I will take issue with, however, is this: "Unfortunately, the military has a history of discharging servicemen for personality disorders (31,000 from 2001 to 2010), allegedly to avoid the cost of treating PTSD or traumatic brain injuries."
I was a Commander, and I can tell you that guys WILL fake personality disorders in order to get discharged, I saw it happen on a few occasions, and it was most often with guys who were literally just out of Basic Training (hadn't seen any combat or suffered any brain damage). Some people join the Military and realize they made a mistake and want to get out of their contract ASAP, and getting booted for having a personality disorder is way better than getting booted for doing drugs, refusing to obey orders, etc. because it doesn't reflect as a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge, and since Psychiatric disorders are actually covered under the ADA, it doesn't affect their future job prospects nearly as much as you might think.

Wouldn't third party investigations be up to MP's or do they not get involved until a Commander has already reported a crime?

OT: That's beyond fucked up.

I've been out for a little while so the policies may have changed, but the issue is that Soldiers will often go to their Commanders to report it, and the Commander is supposed to get the SARC (sexual assault response coordinator) and Military Law Enforcement involved. BUT, here's the catch-22 of the whole thing: by helping to get justice for the victim, the Commander is also essentially destroying themselves in the process, because a Commander with large #s of sexual assault allegations in their ranks will basically be told that their unit is fucked up and it will ruin their career. In other words, the Commander is someone who inherently has a vested interest in having as few sexual assaults as possible, not an unbiased party.

Imagine it this way: say a Cop was assigned to patrol a neighborhood, and his superiors told him "ok, go out and keep that neighborhood safe. But if you bring in too many arrests, we're going to take that as a sign that your street is filled with criminals and you're not doing your job, and we're going to fire you". Would it shock you to discover that the cop looked the other way at times when he saw a crime taking place?

 

[CaptainChip]

I was in the Military for 8.5 years, and the biggest problem has always been (and continues to be) that they get Commanders far too involved in sexual assault allegations, which they shouldn't be involved in at all. It puts the Commander in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. If they report the sexual assault, they're admitting that their unit is fucked up, which can ruin their career. If they don't report it, they're covering it up and only making the problem worse. They need unbiased investigators to get involved, not Commanders.

One stat I will take issue with, however, is this: "Unfortunately, the military has a history of discharging servicemen for personality disorders (31,000 from 2001 to 2010), allegedly to avoid the cost of treating PTSD or traumatic brain injuries."
I was a Commander, and I can tell you that guys WILL fake personality disorders in order to get discharged, I saw it happen on a few occasions, and it was most often with guys who were literally just out of Basic Training (hadn't seen any combat or suffered any brain damage). Some people join the Military and realize they made a mistake and want to get out of their contract ASAP, and getting booted for having a personality disorder is way better than getting booted for doing drugs, refusing to obey orders, etc. because it doesn't reflect as a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge, and since Psychiatric disorders are actually covered under the ADA, it doesn't affect their future job prospects nearly as much as you might think.

Wouldn't third party investigations be up to MP's or do they not get involved until a Commander has already reported a crime?

OT: That's beyond fucked up.

I've been out for a little while so the policies may have changed, but the issue is that Soldiers will often go to their Commanders to report it, and the Commander is supposed to get the SARC (sexual assault response coordinator) and Military Law Enforcement involved. BUT, here's the catch-22 of the whole thing: by helping to get justice for the victim, the Commander is also essentially destroying themselves in the process, because a Commander with large #s of sexual assault allegations in their ranks will basically be told that their unit is fucked up and it will ruin their career. In other words, the Commander is someone who inherently has a vested interest in having as few sexual assaults as possible, not an unbiased party.

Imagine it this way: say a Cop was assigned to patrol a neighborhood, and his superiors told him "ok, go out and keep that neighborhood safe. But if you bring in too many arrests, we're going to take that as a sign that your street is filled with criminals and you're not doing your job, and we're going to fire you". Would it shock you to discover that the cop looked the other way at times when he saw a crime taking place?

If that's the case, then SARC is not doing their job correctly, and that shit should be reported to the Inspector General. There are plenty of avenues to prevent that from happening.

 

[Jaegerbombastic]

I was in the Military for 8.5 years, and the biggest problem has always been (and continues to be) that they get Commanders far too involved in sexual assault allegations, which they shouldn't be involved in at all. It puts the Commander in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. If they report the sexual assault, they're admitting that their unit is fucked up, which can ruin their career. If they don't report it, they're covering it up and only making the problem worse. They need unbiased investigators to get involved, not Commanders.

One stat I will take issue with, however, is this: "Unfortunately, the military has a history of discharging servicemen for personality disorders (31,000 from 2001 to 2010), allegedly to avoid the cost of treating PTSD or traumatic brain injuries."
I was a Commander, and I can tell you that guys WILL fake personality disorders in order to get discharged, I saw it happen on a few occasions, and it was most often with guys who were literally just out of Basic Training (hadn't seen any combat or suffered any brain damage). Some people join the Military and realize they made a mistake and want to get out of their contract ASAP, and getting booted for having a personality disorder is way better than getting booted for doing drugs, refusing to obey orders, etc. because it doesn't reflect as a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge, and since Psychiatric disorders are actually covered under the ADA, it doesn't affect their future job prospects nearly as much as you might think.

Wouldn't third party investigations be up to MP's or do they not get involved until a Commander has already reported a crime?

OT: That's beyond fucked up.

I've been out for a little while so the policies may have changed, but the issue is that Soldiers will often go to their Commanders to report it, and the Commander is supposed to get the SARC (sexual assault response coordinator) and Military Law Enforcement involved. BUT, here's the catch-22 of the whole thing: by helping to get justice for the victim, the Commander is also essentially destroying themselves in the process, because a Commander with large #s of sexual assault allegations in their ranks will basically be told that their unit is fucked up and it will ruin their career. In other words, the Commander is someone who inherently has a vested interest in having as few sexual assaults as possible, not an unbiased party.

Imagine it this way: say a Cop was assigned to patrol a neighborhood, and his superiors told him "ok, go out and keep that neighborhood safe. But if you bring in too many arrests, we're going to take that as a sign that your street is filled with criminals and you're not doing your job, and we're going to fire you". Would it shock you to discover that the cop looked the other way at times when he saw a crime taking place?

If that's the case, then SARC is not doing their job correctly, and that shit should be reported to the Inspector General. There are plenty of avenues to prevent that from happening.

Its not a matter of whether SARC is doing their job or not. An incident where SARC is involved ends up being notified and making its way up the chain of command. The fear is that, like most incidences that make their way up COC, its gradually stripped down to just the bare facts without any context or explanation. So a case along the lines of "SPC Carter in Bravo Company, 33rd Battalion reported being sexually assaulted by a soldier from another unit. Upon notification, CPT Roth immediately turned the case over to SARC" ends up becoming "Bravo Company, 33rd Battalion has one incident of sexual assault." by the time it reaches Brigade and Division, which ends up making CPT Roth look bad even though he followed procedure.

As someone who has (thankfully) not encountered a sexual assault incident yet, I can't confirm whether these fears are unfounded or not. I like to think that they are unfounded, and that Army leadership will handle these issues with a lot more care and focus to detail than, say, a report about a humvee breaking down in the middle of a creek. However, I can understand the worry that its a Catch-22 situation when it should never be that case.

 

[gsf1200]

I call bullshit. I am a correction officer (prison guard) and have been for a long time. You always hear about rape in prison, and I can tell you, it's much rarer than you think. But the politicians believe the movies, and passed the Prison Rape Elimination Act. Now every prisoner that wants a single cell, or a free trip to an air-conditioned hospital on a hot day gets it. All they have to do is say they were raped. Then we have to initiate an investigation, take the claimant to the hospital for a rape kit, and we have no choice in the matter. We had an inmate claim he was raped 4 years ago, and still had to take him to the hospital. He is now listed as sexual prey and has to be celled alone. This costs the state thousands every time one makes a claim. So far our fake claims outnumber the real ones 100 to 1.

 

[CymbaIine]

I call bullshit. I am a correction officer (prison guard) and have been for a long time. You always hear about rape in prison, and I can tell you, it's much rarer than you think. But the politicians believe the movies, and passed the Prison Rape Elimination Act. Now every prisoner that wants a single cell, or a free trip to an air-conditioned hospital on a hot day gets it. All they have to do is say they were raped. Then we have to initiate an investigation, take the claimant to the hospital for a rape kit, and we have no choice in the matter. We had an inmate claim he was raped 4 years ago, and still had to take him to the hospital. He is now listed as sexual prey and has to be celled alone. This costs the state thousands every time one makes a claim. So far our fake claims outnumber the real ones 100 to 1.

How do you know that they are lying?

 

[Erttheking]

I call bullshit. I am a correction officer (prison guard) and have been for a long time. You always hear about rape in prison, and I can tell you, it's much rarer than you think. But the politicians believe the movies, and passed the Prison Rape Elimination Act. Now every prisoner that wants a single cell, or a free trip to an air-conditioned hospital on a hot day gets it. All they have to do is say they were raped. Then we have to initiate an investigation, take the claimant to the hospital for a rape kit, and we have no choice in the matter. We had an inmate claim he was raped 4 years ago, and still had to take him to the hospital. He is now listed as sexual prey and has to be celled alone. This costs the state thousands every time one makes a claim. So far our fake claims outnumber the real ones 100 to 1.

Uh...we're talking about the military here, not prison.

 

[Ariseishirou]

I call bullshit. I am a correction officer (prison guard) and have been for a long time. You always hear about rape in prison, and I can tell you, it's much rarer than you think. But the politicians believe the movies, and passed the Prison Rape Elimination Act. Now every prisoner that wants a single cell, or a free trip to an air-conditioned hospital on a hot day gets it. All they have to do is say they were raped. Then we have to initiate an investigation, take the claimant to the hospital for a rape kit, and we have no choice in the matter. We had an inmate claim he was raped 4 years ago, and still had to take him to the hospital. He is now listed as sexual prey and has to be celled alone. This costs the state thousands every time one makes a claim. So far our fake claims outnumber the real ones 100 to 1.

How do you know that they are lying?

Inorite. Wouldn't it be appalling if rape was rampant in prison, but the guards figured everyone who claimed to be raped was lying?

 

[Ihateregistering1]

I don't mean any offense, but can someone explain how these things typically happen? Is it a man or a group of men who sodomizes another? Also, doesn't most people in the military carry a pistol? How come the rapist hasn't been shot in any of these 14000 cases?

In garrison, no, almost no one carries loaded weapons, unless they are an MP. In fact, it's really the opposite, guns are significantly more regulated on Military bases than they are in the civilian world. To give an example, on Military bases you can't carry a concealed firearm, even if you have a valid concealed carry permit, and you certainly can't open carry.

Military issued weapons are kept in the arms room until they are needed, and even if you're going to a live fire range, they don't issue you ammunition until you actually get out to the range. It's also worth noting that, except for MPs, the vast, vast majority of Soldiers aren't even issued pistols anymore.

 

[jklinders]

Well, I might be in Canada but I am extra glad that I never volunteered now. The part that is disturbing (well one among many) is how the power and authority structure is being abused to keep it going and quiet. Bad enough that it's your peers in the same rank, you might at least have a social standing to refuse or fight back in that case, but if it's your CO? The guy who holds the key to your future, your career or maybe even your safety?

toss in that men are not in a military culture supposed to admit weakness, not to show vulnerability and must support their unit, even if it's their unit that is destroying them.

Fucking vultures.

 

[Danbo Jambo]

I'm not surprised tbh. Testosterone fueled men all put together away from female company and trained to be dominant and impose themselves on situations and people? Not exactly an ideal breeding ground for moral sentimentality and kindness.

It's been happening since the days of Sparta.