Two Cases, One Conclusion on Military Justice

Left, Brig. Gen. Jeffrey A. Sinclair, whose sexual misconduct trial ended in a reprimand. Right, Joshua Tate was acquitted of sexually assaulting a female classmate at the Naval Academy. Credit Left, Chris Keane/Reuters; U.S. Naval Academy, via Associated Press

By HELENE COOPER, NYT

MARCH 21, 2014

WASHINGTON — Two highly publicized military sexual assault cases this week appear to strengthen the argument of those who want to take such cases out of the hands of military commanders — but not only for the reason that has been widely debated in Congress, which is that the hierarchy is unfair to women.

Instead, critics say, the slap on the wrist delivered to Brig. Gen. Jeffrey A. Sinclair, who was accused of sexually mistreating a subordinate, and the not guilty verdict delivered to the former Naval Academy football player who was accused of sexual assault reflect a military command that bowed to political pressure and brought bad cases to trial.

The end of both trials on Thursday, less than two hours apart, abruptly shoved the question of military justice back into the political debate. More significantly, the outcomes left lawyers for the accusers and the accused sharply criticizing the military’s legal system from opposite directions but arriving at the same conclusion: Justice was subverted, and sexual assault cases should be prosecuted by military lawyers, not commanders who have inherent conflicts of interest.

From the point of view of the two accused men, commanders who were under political pressure to stop sexual assault within their ranks overreacted and pushed questionable cases to trial — and failed to heed the advice of lawyers who spotted red flags.

(More here.)