For Rebirth in April: Sexual Assault Awareness Month

Many thanks to the Huffington Post Impact section for including me in an important series of testimonials and blog posts on sexual violence as we observe Sexual Assault Awareness Month.One of the best ways you can discover how to make a difference (this month and beyond) is to visit www.startbybelieving.org. There are far more survivors of sexual violence than you're aware of- the same is true for all of us. You are potential responder, as we all are. Please- respond gently.

Bigotry Is Bad. And Bad for Business

Anti-black bigotry in the American South, persisting with political cover well into the latter half of the 20th century, was an utter disaster for an economy already struggling to overcome unindustrialized, agrarian roots.Anti-gay bigotry, led in part (again) by misplaced religiosity, will now further damage the same region, and perhaps with it parts of the Southwest as well."The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." Martin Luther King, Jr.I'd tentatively add that it also bends toward intellectual growth and common sense. Environments where bigotry thrives will inherit the wind. And little else.

Poetic and Beautiful View of Black Male Adolescence and Violent Death

Stacia Brown, well worth reading.http://stacialbrown.com/2014/02/16/we-have-known-boys-but-none-have-been-bullet-proof/

The Disposability of Boys: Great Read from Goodmen Project

"If you are one of the millions of people in this world who vocalize or otherwise spread your belief that being gay is “bad” or “sinful” you are directly and actively contributing to the trauma of boys who have been sexually exploited."Cameron Conaway, "The Disposability of Boys" The Goodmen Project, February 17, 2014 

James Taranto and the Wall Street Journal: The Issue is the Platform, Not Censorship

Phrenology, the attempt to explain brain function and activity through analyzing the size and shape of a subject’s skull, was seriously discussed within neuroscience circles as late as the mid-19th century. Its adherents can be forgiven for their ignorance based on what was observable and evident at the time. But it’s now known definitively as baseless, and thus would not be discussed seriously in a news article by a reputable media source in some attempt at giving equal time to an opposing view point.But might an opinion piece- on why phrenology should be not only seriously considered but in fact applied in order to meet societal challenges- still merit consideration by, say, the nation’s financial newspaper of record? Of course not; it’s a theory that is not only thoroughly discredited but dangerously misleading and potentially harmful if adhered to. Similarly, we no longer give serious voice to the opinions of those who would persecute azimuthal map-makers, who view their race as genetically superior to others, or- and strictly relevant to the matter at hand- who argue that communistic, central planning is a terrific tool for economic growth.And yet the Wall Street Journal has given a tremendous voice to a collection of ideas just as thoroughly discredited and potentially harmful with the publication of James Taranto’s remarkably ignorant opinion piece on non-stranger sexual assault. The backlash against Taranto has been harsh, but it is richly deserved. In short, there is no excuse, after years of replicated, respected research on the topic, not to mention the observations of hundreds of thousands of victims (and many offenders), to give a voice Taranto’s opinions under the banner of that publication. This is not about “feminist” or “liberal” censorship; it’s not about censorship at all. Taranto is more than entitled to his opinion and he may offer it to the marketplace of ideas like anyone else. The issue is the responsibility of the WSJ editorial staff to make better decisions on what merits publication within its pages.A belief that alcohol creates the urge to commit rape, that offenders and victims are “colliders” in alcohol-fueled sexual situations and thus generally of equal blame, and the claim that false accusations are anything more than rare and usually easily detected events, are all ideas that have been thoroughly discredited.Dr. David Lisak is often rightfully credited with the ground-breaking research that first shed light on the motivations and methodology of the relatively small group of sexually deviant offenders (mostly male) who commit most of the non-stranger sexual violence we endure (his work was replicated with startlingly similar results in 2009). But decades before Lisak, other pioneers (Mary Koss and Joan Zorza come to mind) were making keen observations about the true nature of predatory behavior and the reality of the experience of sexual violence. Their work has proved out convincingly and continues to do so. The further we lessen the stigma against victimization, the more we hear from courageous women and men willing to give accounts that confirm, overwhelmingly, the observations of these experts.In my experience, the only remaining groups that cling to the ideas Taranto was able to espouse to millions are some (not all) so-called “men’s rights advocates,” interested criminal defense firms, and men who have been charged with rape. True, there is still ignorance about the topic in not only the general population, but within the law enforcement and prosecution communities as evidenced by the dubious quotes Taranto printed by members of both. But that’s not a reason to proliferate ignorance further.Taranto may or may not choose to educate himself on the dynamics of alcohol-facilitated, non-stranger sexual assault as it actually and typically plays out: In a premeditated, methodical fashion by pattern offenders who identify, manipulate, attack and then discredit their victims, aided before and after by a larger society still ignorant of predatory behavior and punishing of female sexuality. Either way, I would never seek to prevent him from continuing to hold and espouse his views. My issue is with the major media outlet that chose to showcase them as serious editorial discourse. It’s anything but.

Worth Knowing in the Dylan Farrow Case: The Actual Risk of Suggestibility With Children

Tom Lyon, A law professor at the University of Southern California, has a remarkably valuable dual background when it comes to legal child protection: He's both an attorney and a psychologist. Among the most influential contributions he's made is this article, plainly titled "Let's Not Exaggerate the Suggestibility of Children."In a child sexual abuse case, suggesting the complainant was either coached to adopt fantasy as reality, or simply did so out of confusion between the two, is a popular defense tactic. It's particularly attractive because it doesn't involve judging the victim or accusing her of lying.  She can be viewed as, in a sense, as much a victim as the state is claiming, but in an entirely different way.This has, not surprisingly, been suggested over and over again regarding the allegations made by Dylan Farrow, adopted daughter of Woody Allen. Countless observers, and indeed Allen himself, have suggested that Dylan is not a devious liar, but instead a sad pawn, indoctrinated to believe a false memory in the context of a vicious divorce and custody battle.For this reason, it's important to understand what respected research has to say on the subject of- in fact- how suggestible children are. I'd encourage you to read the article itself if you're interested; it's written for a general audience and not dense or jargon-filled. But in a nutshell, here's what the research reveals:1. Very young children (3 and 4, which is about as young as a child can be forensically interviewed except in exceptional circumstances) can be led to adopt false memories or incorrect versions of events. But this only occurs after extreme efforts such as a very long passage of time between the actual event and the interviews, and repeated interviews over time with constant introduction of false memories. And even with these efforts, a majority of these same, very young children will maintain the actual version of events and resist efforts to conflate fantasy and reality.2. The danger of children conflating fantasy and reality drops off sharply at around 5 or 6 years of age.3. By the age of 10, children meeting normal developmental milestones are no more susceptible to adopting false memories than adults.Even more interesting: The first research done on children and susceptibility (often called the "first wave") was done by respected psychologists, but also child protection advocates and researchers who believed children were not nearly as susceptible as popular culture largely accepted. The so-called "second wave" research was conducted by equally respected psychologists who thought the first-wave researchers were being too rosy in their assessments and set out to demonstrate that children can be made to adopt incorrect or even wholly false versions of events if efforts are strong enough. They succeeded, but generally with extremely young children and through efforts that are virtually unheard of in child abuse cases. The bottom line is that yes, mostly toddler-aged children can be led to adopt false memories with repeated, methodical, and highly suggestive attempts to confuse them after a considerable amount of time has passed between the event and the repeated interviews. But even with these tactics, a majority of children will still maintain a a correct version of events.Dylan Farrow was seven when she allegedly endured what she clearly describes now, at 28, as sexual abuse at the hands of Woody Allen. Describing her as a liar and a willful tool of her embittered mother even after 21 years is arguable, as it always will be. Anyone can lie, and some can lie very convincingly.But claiming that she was simply, easily and permanently led to create a false memory- at the level of detail she now relates- is a claim utterly unsupported by the very best research on the subject, about half of it conducted by skeptical researchers suspicious of children's abilities.Those who believe Allen is innocent may be right; I will never know and neither will they. But neither they nor Allen himself have a right to claim that Dylan was easily confused and now sadly tied to that confusion. To believe Allen is innocent is, in all likelihood, to reject the detailed account Dylan has given, and to reject her as a liar; the worst kind.Period.  

Dylan Farrow’s Allegations Against Woody Allen: A Short List of Truly Unfair Considerations

Sexual abuse allegations against Woody Allen were made first in 1992 by his daughter Dylan. They’ve resurfaced since Allen was honored at the Golden Globes, culminating with an open letter last week from Dylan herself.Allen stands legally innocent of any crime. The question in raising the issue is whether he's acted so dishonorably as to be morally disqualified for an honor like the Cecil B. DeMille. I don’t know what if any character component is relevant to the award; personally, I long ago abandoned the idea that talent or even hard work at a particular pursuit necessarily have much to do with character and honorability in any other sense.What I would suggest, after prosecuting, evaluating and consulting on child sexual abuse cases for over 15 years, is to largely disregard a few of the more popular considerations currently being touted as reasons Allen should be exonerated and Dylan (or Mia Farrow) either blamed or pitied. While nothing can be debated now that will ever settle things factually, there are a few "points" being touted that simply merit far less consideration than they're being given:1. No physical evidence “proving” the case. Anyone with a cursory understanding of both the typical nature of child sex abuse and pediatric anatomy knows that child cases almost never yield compelling physical evidence, even when reports are immediate. Very few abusers seek to inflict injury and know that doing so will likely interrupt the grooming process and trigger a report. Further, the genital area is blood-rich and heals very quickly even if tissue is damaged. Dylan reported nothing to my knowledge likely to yield physical evidence.2. The allegations arising in the context of a custody dispute. Many have bought into the pernicious myth that children are easily and often coached to fabricate allegations of sexual abuse, usually by their mother against a targeted male figure. This is a particularly attractive idea against Mia Farrow, whose perceived bitterness at Allen's actions with Soon-Yi Previn fuel the myth. In fact, sex abuse allegations made during custody disputes have about the same very low rate of false reporting as in any other case. Further, the risk of suggestibility drops off sharply after around the age of 5, two years before Dylan reported.3. The Yale-New Haven Hospital report. A team of investigators, in the still early days of modern child sexual abuse investigation, appear to have questionably investigated and then questionably concluded that Dylan had not been abused. Aside from other very troubling aspects of this investigation that observers have raised, that particular conclusion was neither theirs to reach nor accepted practice with the information they appear to have had.4. Most of what Robert Weide says in his 1/27 Daily Beast piece on the subject. Weide apparently knows Allen personally (and his pro-Woody bias is clear) but he knows almost nothing about sexual abuse dynamics or what is reliable in terms of indicators. What we believe we know about friends or colleagues is simply not relevant, most of the time, to what they might be capable of, period.5. Evidence that Dylan suffered with mental health issues, either as a child or since. Nothing indicates that mental illness- certainly the kind she appears to have faced- is likely to cause delusions of abuse or an inclination to lie about being abused. Further, individuals who suffer sexual abuse often develop mental illness subsequently. And, if the condition was pre-existing, it tends to make sufferers tragically logical choices for abusers who know they won’t be believed.As for what's worth considering?Dylan’s account. It's not dispositive either, although it could be sufficient in a criminal court. The kind of sensory detail she gives even now, and the surrounding details of other acts she remembers very clearly, are exactly the kind of indicators that have helped win rightful convictions in child abuse cases as we’ve improved in investigating it over the last 25 years. Those memories, in a competent investigation and prosecution, can also yield powerful corroborative evidence.I love Allen’s work and have no desire to demonize him. But I cannot in good conscience deny the plausibility- at least from where I stand- of Dylan’s accusations. It's sad. But as Allen himself often showed us, so is life.

The Top 5 Reasons Charles Dunlap's "Top Ten Reasons" Article on Gillibrand's Military Justice Reform is the Worst Thing I Read In 2013.

Note to readers: I usually limit myself to 700 words in this space. Since I'm going after the author so forcefully on this topic, though, I've blown that limit and gone over. I very much respect Prof Dunlap's experience and his service to his country. Regardless, I take issue with what he wrote, and this is why.Last month, Duke law professor and retired two-star general Charles Dunlap released an article with his “top ten” reasons why Senator Kirstin Gillibrand’s unfortunately un-acted upon initiatives regarding sexual assault in the U.S. military were a bad idea.I don’t lightly take on a former general officer and law professor on military justice. That said, I’ve never been given more ammunition to do so. Dunlap’s article offers very little substance to the needed discussion on how to curb sexual violence within the military. Instead he writes with a repetitive and largely hyperbolic tone that exposes more a fear of change than anything else.My top five objections:1. The piece begins with a meaningless distraction. Dunlap questions why colleges and universities aren’t being “targeted” with regard to sexual assault instead of the military. He’s right to suggest that colleges aren’t doing nearly enough to curb what is a shameful problem in their environments. But aside from the fact that the military is far more centrally controlled by Congress and far easier to change institutionally than thousands of separately managed, public and private schools in 50 states, it’s also utterly beside the point. Higher education’s problem with sexual assault is another matter, period, and it’s being addressed through powers like Title IX.2. It follows with a meaningless comparison to the highly-flawed civilian criminal justice system and the lowest-common-denominator environment it must govern. Dunlap, like many who have argued against the Gillibrand reforms, points out that, in cases where both civilian prosecutors and military prosecutors have had jurisdiction over a sexual assault case, military prosecutors were more likely to prosecute. This is true and not surprising, but again largely pointless to the issue of the Gillibrand reforms. First, most sexual assault cases with the potential for dual jurisdiction are ones involving military personnel in off-base environments. Since these cases tend to involve military victims and military witnesses, I’m not surprised that the military justice system is more likely to take them than civilian offices (and good on them for doing so). Secondly, the traditional model of civilian rape prosecution has only recently begun to evolve to address these cases competently. Civilian prosecutors are also not dealing with members of a closed and selective system. Regardless, civilian prosecution needs to improve and should not yet be used, in general, as a model for anyone. What Gillibrand was hoping to create were enlightened, motivated and highly trained prosecution teams that would have been the state of the art in sexual assault prosecution. This is what I was helping to create through my civilian service to the Army, and I was joined by some of the very best minds in the business, some of whom are still in service to the military both in and out of uniform.3. It grossly distorts the purpose of the prosecution function by conflating it with the command function. Dunlap believes that, since military commanders are focused on battlefield victories and not courtroom victories, they’ll be more likely to bring cases against defendants in order to “send clear messages” to troops. This may or may not be true, but in any event it is a terrible perversion of what justice is supposed to mean in any environment. No prosecutorial authority may ever bring an inappropriate or otherwise non-prosecutable case to bear against a defendant in order to “send messages.” Cases are appropriate for prosecution if admissible evidence exists that would support a conviction for an identified crime, not in order to further some other agenda, no matter how well-intentioned. I personally met no commanders who would confuse this profound responsibility, but Dunlap seems to encourage it.4. It mischaracterizes the purpose and goals of military law. Dunlap insists that military justice is ultimately more about protecting the security of the nation than any individual or group, no matter how deserving. He believes this overarching goal actually provides more incentive for commanders to purge rapists from their midst as they understand that sexual violence in the ranks threatens good order, discipline, and ultimately fighting capability. On one level this is true, but on another it exposes a dichotomy that actually makes commanders less able to make appropriate prosecutorial decisions particularly in sexual violence cases. Protecting national security ultimately involves success in combat if combat becomes necessary. That is achieved through lethality, brutality and strength. The vast majority of our warriors are not sexually violent; rather, a prolific few cause most of the harm, as in any environment. But what is undeniable is that some of the same traits that make a person deadly when called upon are present in sexually aggressive people as well. In the military environment as in most environments, the offenders are often respected and very good at their jobs. Their sexually offending behavior is carefully compartmentalized and hidden. Conversely, the victims are often outcast and not valued. Commanders with the best intentions, particularly when unfamiliar with the dynamics of the kind of sexual violence most people experience, may still view a sexual assault case through the lens of what is best for the mission or the unit as a whole, and at the same time be misled by the otherwise sterling reputation of the offender. This is not a criticism of commanders; they simply have an enormous range of differing responsibilities, more so now than in previous generations.5. It is insultingly dismissive of Trial Counsel, the military lawyers who enforce the UCMJ. Dunlap seems generally hostile to the decision making ability of prosecutors in pretty much any case, which might make slightly more sense if Gillibrand’s goal was to strip military officers of involvement in prosecutorial decisions in favor of civilians unfamiliar with military life, culture and circumstances. But this is not the case. Neither Gillibrand nor anyone with any influence has suggested replacing uniformed personnel with civilian prosecutors. What Gillibrand proposed was a corps within a corps of specifically trained legal experts untethered to the myriad responsibilities and conflicts of the command, but still active soldiers, airmen, sailors and marines. I was not always impressed with the military as an institution, but I was deeply impressed with the level of not only legal competence but military bearing and sense of duty that I encountered in the JAG’s I worked with across the services. Unlike Dunlap’s assertion that decision making authority will be removed from commanders and given to “lawyers far from the battlefield,” I helped create a system of special victims prosecution in the Army that places specially trained JAGs around the globe and in theater. There is no reason this could not continue. Dunlap then wastes a good page or so citing a Pew research poll that suggests Americans have more confidence in military leaders than in “lawyers,” apparently lumping all of them into one ignominious group. The fact is, Trial Counsel come from and serve in all aspects of military life, including special forces groups and “tip of the spear” units. They fight and die as honorably as anyone in uniform and should not be disregarded as the bureaucrats and pencil pushers Dunlap seems to characterize them as (“staff lawyers”).Those are the top five, but there there is far more to dislike in this piece. Dunlap’s insistence on hyperbole, suggesting that commanders would be completely stripped of responsibility for serious crimes within their units (they would still have a great deal of involvement and influence and would maintain total control over directly mission-related crimes like desertion) is unhelpful and misleading. At one point he all but lends credence to a “political pundit” who suggests that the open service of homosexuals in the military could produce higher rates of offending. This is so patently baseless and offensive it has no place in the debate. Dunlap also bemoans the supposed $113 million cost of the Gillibrand initiative, claiming again with shameless hyperbole and fear-mongering that it will divert resources from the needs of service people, veterans and families. But with a defense budget of around $600 billion this does not move me. His only valid points are made when he correctly questions some of the legal definitions currently in place after 2012 amendments to the UCMJ, and whether the experience of foreign militaries is directly applicable to ours.I am quite sympathetic to the arguments of friends and colleagues, some of them experienced Trial Counsel themselves, who are wary of Congressional “fixes” and public demand for change. I’ve made the determination that Gillibrand’s initiative would have served the military well, but I absolutely acknowledge room for debate. Just not the kind professor Dunlap has chosen to engage in. 

Men's Rights Advocates Hit a New Low

An "accuse-a-thon" to promote filing false claims against an Edmonton, Alberta, sexual assault advocate. This, apparently, in order to punish her, for the audacity to tell the truth: That false reporting in sexual violence cases is very rare.No reasonable person suggests that a male or female of any age or circumstances is incapable of lying about sexual assault. The issue is the remarkably unfair and demonstrably fatuous claim that a women's natural and common reaction to 1000 different stressors involving men is to falsely "cry rape."A more probable scenario, to me at least, is the idea of sexually offending men seeking a patina of denial under the cloak of defending "men's rights." 

Jameis Winston Case: Another Prosecutor Invokes an Incorrect Standard for Prosecution

William N. Meggs, the State's Attorney for Florida's Second Judicial District, declared last week that no charges would be filed against Jameis Winston, the Florida State football player accused late last year of sexual assault against a 19 year-old fellow student. In so doing, he made this statement with regard to the standard he was under when considering whether to charge Winston:“We have a duty as prosecutors to determine if each case has a reasonable likelihood of conviction,” said Meggs, who added that the evidence was carefully examined. “After reviewing the facts in this case, we do not feel that we can reach those burdens.”I've been able to review the released details of the case. It appears from witness statements and other circumstances that Meggs had a difficult (although not impossible) case to prove had he chosen to charge Winston with a sex crime. My issue isn't with Meggs' decision not to prosecute; it's with the standard he articulated before the press as to why he did not do so. That standard, at least according to everything I know that guides prosecutorial decisions, is incorrect.I know of two nationally accepted sources for charging standards for prosecutors. The first is from the American Bar Association's Criminal Justice Standards, Prosecution Function.  The ABA directs prosecutors to charge only cases with "admissible evidence to support a conviction." The second is from the National District Attorneys Association National Prosecution Standards, which states that prosecutors should only bring charges when the prosecutor believes the charges "can be substantiated by admissible evidence" at trial.Note the key phrases: The existence of admissible evidence that would support a conviction. The ability to substantiate charges with admissible evidence at trial. Neither "support" nor "substantiate" connote anything about a likelihood of the defendant being convicted.Meggs is not the first prosecutor I've seen invoke an incorrect standard with regard to declining to press charges. Unfortunately, too many tend to claim that cases "cannot be brought" unless the prosecutor bringing them believes they are likely to result in a conviction, or some very similar language. That simply isn't correct. A case does not have to have a likelihood of success in order to be prosecuted. It does not have to be a "slam dunk" or anything close to it. It simply needs to be a matter that can be brought in good faith, competently and ethically, with evidence to support a conviction that is likely to be admissible in a court of law. What prosecutors are specifically admonished not to do, in fact, is to consider what effect an acquittal might have on their conviction rate or any political considerations that might come to bear from bringing a case.It wasn't long ago when no sexual assault victim could hope to have her case heard unless remarkably favorable circumstances (like a videotaped full confession) existed to back up her allegation. Victims of color, victims with disabilities, sex workers or others with perceived compromised circumstances were denied justice even more, and most still are. Prosecutors who have made the decisions to deny these victims their day in court have been entitled to do so under the accepted standards, for any number of reasons.  It's not malpractice or unethical for a prosecutor to decline to press charges, even if s/he believes the complainant, if the reality is that admissible evidence is lacking, or under a tougher calculus involving available resources or other non-politically driven considerations. The reality is that American prosecution is a highly imperfect system, involving subjective judgments and competing priorities. But that reality must be faced up to, analyzed transparently, and admitted freely. Things are improving, and part of what courageous prosecutors do to move a community forward is to focus on the pursuit of justice in less obvious cases. But in the meantime, if a case won't be brought because a prosecutor doesn't believe it can be won or that s/he lacks the resources to do it correctly, then that must be stated as such. Hiding behind an incorrect standard for when cases can be brought is deceptive and intolerable. The communities our prosecutors serve, and most importantly the victims they encounter, deserve more than that.  

A Firemarm versus A Pencil

A common meme of gun rights enthusiasts is that if you're going to blame guns for homicides, then you might as well blame pencils for making spelling errors.It's an utterly true statement. It's also utterly meaningless.If your three year-old picks up an unattended pencil and makes a spelling error, it's unlikely your world will change much. In fact it's unlikely the entire world will change much, unless your child is tasked with creating, say, a final draft of a national constitution not subject to editing. That's not likely.But a three year-old picking up the unattended firearm of a pathetically, inexcusably negligent parent who relishes in ostentatiously carrying it in public but then casually leaves it like junk mail on a counter?Even that toddler will know the difference. Particularly when he reaches for and manipulates the thing that isn't a pencil.

Johnny Cash, Prison Reform, and Christianity

Johnny Cash recorded Folsom Prison Blues, and the dead-eyed, wanton line about shooting a man in Reno, just to watch him die, some 12 years before I entered the world. But like many I was chilled by it, even when barely old enough to understand it. Cash was thereafter and forever associated with the outlaw archetype; many believed he either committed that crime or one nearly as vicious. He spent no time in prison and never committed murder, but apparently once joked that, while he had absolutely made up the line about Reno, he had done it without much trouble.The myth around Cash as an outlaw also brought prisoners to him, mostly in the form of letters from men around the country who believed that he spoke for them, and that perhaps he could be a voice for a group that decidedly had none, particularly when modern ideas of prison reform were still years away. Unpaid, he not only played concerts in correctional facilities for 30 years, but also pushed for humane conditions and meaningful reforms as far as the White House.I’m no Biblical scholar, but his efforts were Christian in every sense of the word as I have come to know it. I’ve never been a fan of the supposedly rhetorical “What Would Jesus Do?” as I think Jesus was more often unknowable than knowable in terms of what he did or why. But I think it’s more or less obvious that he would have answered the pleas of despised and caged people in a similar way.I spent most of my career attempting to put people in prison, usually men, and usually for offenses involving violent and sexual crime. There should have been little concern on my part for those I sent to correctional systems, a relatively decent if imperfect one in New York and a sadly far worse one in Virginia.But as I’ve written before, the abuse of incarcerated persons is something that frankly frightens and disgusts me as much as the underlying crimes- whatever they are- that make prisons necessary in the first place. When we allow the destruction of order, dignity and decency in caring for people we cage, we forfeit our rights to do so.We also seed our own destruction just as surely, for as a society we are correctly judged by how we treat not only the weakest but also the most dispossessed and yes- despised- among us.I am not naive to the potential for depravity or manipulation by many who find themselves in correctional facilities. Most are there because they belong there, and some are truly frightening and harmful people, however they became that way. Regardless, we owe them a safe and healthful, if stripped down and monastic, environment. Worse, from time to time, investigators and prosecutors get it tragically wrong- every decent law enforcement official’s worst nightmare- and we land innocent people in those environments as well. We cannot tolerate punishment that isn’t legal and preceded by due process; it mocks our authority to do so and it risks far too much.There are practical as well as moral and legal reasons for treating incarcerated persons humanely. Among them is the reality that most will be released; if their time is made brutal by abuse and mistreatment, we cannot expect them to be released with any inclination to live better lives.I don’t think Cash was focused on the practicalities of better treatment for prisoners, though. I don’t think Jesus, whoever he was, would have been either. Christianity, as weakly as I may understand it, is to me mostly about giving and sacrificing for those on the margins, away from the table, and deeply shaded from the light of admiration, comfort and companionship.Much to the chagrin, particularly in recent times, of those who see the necessity for a morality play in terms of structuring charity and alms, the reasons for why a person is damned or forgotten really don’t matter. It’s about giving to those people even when it’s deemed foolish; indeed, even when it might be foolish. It's a challenge I often fail to meet. But not one to which I will be willfully blind.    

The Next Challenge for Religion: Accept Mental Illness and Embrace the Sick; Don't Shun Them

On Veteran's Day last month, Televangelist Kenneth Copeland insisted that American veterans returning from combat need not suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), mostly because they were killing in the name of God and would therefore remain somehow Biblically "blameless" and thus emotionally unharmed.The comments were moronic, and in fairness intensely criticized by heavily conservative religious groups including the Southern Baptist Convention. But Copeland's words shouldn't just be written off as an isolated and ignorant rant. There is reason to believe that many religious individuals- particularly ones with a "just world" view and a belief in an omnipotent if often inscrutable God- tend to want to explain away mental illness in terms of a spiritual failure or a demonic force.Historically, this should come as no surprise. The physically disabled, disfigured and diseased were for millennia made to feel somehow responsible for their predicaments and admonished to either beg forgiveness or somehow pray harder. There has long been an irksome internal conflict presented to those who believe in an all powerful God Who would yet allow disease and disability to stalk His creatures. Certainly not all religious thinkers over the centuries wrote off these maladies as the fault of the stricken, but even as religious thought has evolved, the idea that people are somehow responsible for their fate has remained a tempting conclusion for those who have a difficult time with how God appears to work in the world.  It is also, sadly, a common, defensive strategy imposed by the lucky to distance themselves from the unlucky. Ask the legions of sexual violence survivors who have borne blame in exactly that way.Where somatic disease is concerned, though, to a large extent, medical science, common sense and better standards of human decency have led most religious away from blaming and isolating the physically ill.But we need to ask ourselves very frankly if the same thing is true when it comes to mental diseases and disorders. Prayer may no be longer be the sole remedy suggested by a deeply religious person for an inflamed appendix or a broken bone. Yet how often is it still being suggested confidently as the only necessary answer to chemical depression, organic mental illness, and yes- Post Traumatic Stress Disorder?

Proposed Changes to Military Preliminary Hearings: Reasonable, Easily Implemented, and Sorely Needed

While I believe Congress should pass the Military Justice Improvement Act, there's a far more easily implemented change being urged on the President that should meet little resistance. But even it is considered "radical" in some military circles. Recently, a Navy Times article focused on proposed changes to Article 32 hearings, which under the Uniform Code of Military Justice operate like preliminary hearings in civilian systems. The “32,” as JAGs typically refer to it, is a less formal hearing where evidence is presented to a neutral investigating officer. That officer then makes a recommendation about the case to the Convening Authority, that is, a commander (usually a general officer) who then makes the final decision as to whether the case is “referred” for court martial.The changes- implementable by the President- are being proposed specifically for the enhanced protection of complainants in sexual assault cases; the need for them became apparent to reformers particularly after the exhausting, multi-day examination of a Naval Academy midshipman involved in a rape case against three classmates late this summer. The changes are sorely needed, in least in terms of how Article 32 hearings often play out in sexual violence cases, and they are eminently reasonable. Yet the language used in the article is perhaps a measure of how concerning any change to the military justice system is to insiders. The reporter describes the proposal as a “major reform” and a “radical overhaul” of the process. It is neither.The officer who presides over the Article 32 hearing listens to evidence, prepares a summary of the testimony, and gives recommendations for disposition to the Convening Authority. At present, there is no requirement that the investigating officer in an Article 32 hearing be a military judge. Or a JAG. Or someone with any legal training at all. The I.O. can be simply another officer uninvolved with the case, meaning a company commander in an artillery brigade, a signal corps officer, or one of any other specialty.For many UCMJ offenses,  this is not a matter of concern. The idea of the Article 32 hearing is to allow for a neutral party in the officer corps to consider the matter before a commander at a much higher level considers whether to convene a court martial around it. That officer doesn’t have to be legally trained, in many cases, to competently consider facts and listen to witnesses.But sexual assault cases are unique and difficult to adjudicate fairly. This is particularly true when they involve (as they almost always do) circumstances like parties known to each other, alcohol consumption, or counter-intuitive behavior like delayed reporting or post-assault communication. Aggressive defense attorneys, bound by ethics to defend their clients zealously, can and do sometimes take advantage of both the relative informal setting and legal inexperience of the I.O. to ask questions of complainants that would not be permissible in a court martial.In the extreme, this can amount to a strategy of harassment in hopes of improperly discouraging a victim from continuing with a prosecution. Certainly not all defense attorneys plan this kind of legal attack, but without an adjudicator that is familiar with the limits of the law, aggressive and improper questioning can go unchecked even when prosecutors object. I.O.s can seek legal assistance during an investigation, but they don’t have to. Further, defense attorneys may actually outrank both the prosecutor and the I.O, adding a further complicating dynamic. Senator Boxer and co-sponsors (Senator Blumenthal and Congresswoman Speier) are asking the President to formalize the Article 32 process so it mirrors more closely preliminary hearings in Federal courts. This is not too much to ask.I’ve been told by JAG friends in other services that military judges are regularly utilized to oversee Article 32 hearings. My observation of the Army process though, was much different. I personally never saw a military judge assigned to an Article 32 hearing, and knew of only one or two cases when a JAG presided over one.Military-wide, the process should be tightened to guarantee that justice for both parties is best approached, and in exactly the way that American criminal procedure provides: By guaranteeing that legally trained professionals who know the rules will also enforce them.

Serial Child Predator Jonathan Adleta: Portrait of a Common Occurance

In addition to the horror accompanying the details, it might seem unrealistic that a predator like Jonathan Adleta could find more than one woman willing to provide him a child to rape. And yet Adleta managed to find at least two that authorities know of. This is far more common, sadly, than many realize. Not only are men like Adleta driven to abuse again and again, they are also demonically skilled in attracting people who will give them access to victims again and again.

MJIA: The Right Approach to Military Justice with the Right Kinds of Cases

C.S. Lewis, in the character of a demon in The Screwtape Letters instructing a protege on how lead men to Hell, notes that murder is no better than cards, if cards will do the trick. Lewis was talking about sin, of course, and which ones could successfully separate a person from God. But a limited analogy can be drawn between Screwtape’s analysis and the subtle circumstances that can thwart criminal justice. Cynicism, perfidy and incompetence are all well-known enemies; players in the system influenced by these will fail victims and their community. But there are also more subtle, even inadvertent circumstances that can hinder justice as well.In almost three years as a civilian expert with the Army JAG Corps, I encountered almost exclusively highly competent, honorable and devoted trial lawyers both prosecuting and defending criminal cases. I also largely found commanders- the decision makers within the military system- to be fair-minded, conscientious and decent.Still, at least in terms of how the concept of criminal justice is viewed in the civilian world, I saw systemic aspects of military justice that, despite best intentions, somtimes stand as impediments to the kind of justice we expect in response to serious crimes. These are best confronted by Senator Kirsten Gillibrand's Military Justice Improvement Act.  Military expedience and deference, in particular, can have unintended negative consequences, at least in the cases I consulted on, which included rape, assault and murder. Expedience is demanded in the court martial system given the common exigencies of military life. There must also be great deference, not only to individuals of higher rank, but also to the institution itself.These are not negative in and of themselves; indeed, they are important principles of an institution that must be cohesive, responsive and lethal. Service members willingly accept a lower value on individuality for the good of the institution. Being a part of the military is a very different experience from civilian life. Its justice system should and does reflect these differences.But when it comes to felonies, particularly ones not instantly related to military readiness, it does not have to. That is the thrust of the Military Justice Improvement Act.Under it, commanders, the men and women responsible for increasingly larger units within the ranks, can and will continue to have complete judicial authority where mission-specific crimes like desertion, insubordination, and espionage are concerned. What will shift, partially, will be the responsibility for deciding the merit for prosecution of more traditional felonies like sexual violence, murder and robbery. These crimes can certainly affect a unit’s readiness and cohesiveness, but they have a decreased relationship to military operations, and a profoundly different effect on victims. Traditional, often interpersonal crimes deserve an approach both 1) unhindered by the larger concerns of the command and 2) enhanced through handling by specially trained, unformed legal experts. Sexual violence in particular, given its utter uniqueness in criminality, demands this approach and thus has largely inspired it.In the meantime, commanders will still have involvement over cases, including supervision of the accused and the victim during the process, and the opportunity to seek lesser disciplinary action in the event that a case is not referred for prosecution. We ask more from military commanders than ever before; the vast majority respond honorably and competently. But asking commanders, even with legal counsel, to make decisions about interpersonal crimes- particularly when inextricably burdened with concerns about unit effectiveness- is both unnecessary and potentially detrimental.Where sexual violence is concerned, critics point to the willingness of commanders in most cases to pursue charges against offenders, and this is a fair point. But we only know about what is reported, and a major belief behind the MJIA is that the direct involvement of commanders in criminal justice decisions has a chilling effect. This is more than a hunch; it’s been gleaned from surveys, interviews and the accounts of service members over time.The MJIA is not a panacea for sexual violence or other major crime in the United States military. But it is an idea far less radical than critics charge and worth implementing to bring one aspect of military justice- and only one- in line with that of the larger world.

Technology in the War Against Child Exploitation

Keeping pace with predators, one dossier at a time. Good on this Dutch organization; let the world follow suit.

Evoking the Spirit of Freedom and Rugged Self-Reliance by Intimidating Four Moms

Yes, Open Carry Texas, your website extolls the the "safe and legal" carrying of firearms openly in the State of Texas.And apparently you believe a reasonable way to stress how dedicated to safety and legality you are is to show up in a restaurant parking lot to intimidate a four-person gathering of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America with your weapons displayed.MDA formed after the horror of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, where a legally obtained assault rifle was used to slaughter 20 six and seven year-old children and six adults. So I can understand why you'd believe that a threatening display of firepower at an in-town business location on a Saturday in broad daylight was an appropriate response to their efforts. Truly, it takes a tough group of guys to bully a tiny gathering of mothers.Once again, you've proven their point: The danger begins, and far too often ends, with you.As for the point I'd make? For now, I'll go with this one: Angry mobs made up of mouth-breathing, adolescent masturbatory rednecks shouldn't be trusted with concealed sling shots, let alone firearms.I'm happy to discuss this further; feel free to surround me with your fire power, if it'll make you feel more masculine. I won't be intimidated by it. Thankfully, it doesn't look like MDA will either.

Hidden Webcam Captures A Common Occurrence: Child Sexual Abuse

A 14 year-old girl in France was, thankfully, able to demonstrate the reality of a horror that her account of would likely have been insufficient to bring charges. A hidden web cam captured her father sexually abusing her.  The man's attorney claims the abuse occurred- and only occurred- during a period of unemployment and the pressure of a divorce.Doubtful. More than likely this has occurred 1) about as long as the man's sexual interest in his daughter has been established, and 2) with no regard to any other stressors in his life.This is how predatory behavior works. Thank God a camera was able to make the existence of it undeniable.

Dr. Jo Ann Rooney, Navy Undersecretary Nominee, Has Made Sen. Gillibrand's Point on Military Justice

I’d say that Dr. Jo Ann Rooney, the President’s nominee for undersecretary of the Navy, perhaps misspoke when she made the patently awful sounding statement “the impact [of judge advocates outside the chain of command making prosecutorial decisions in sexual assault cases] would be decisions based on evidence rather than the interest in preserving good order and discipline.”Except that Dr. Rooney didn’t speak. The statement was written, as testimony, to the Senate committee considering her nomination. One would think that answers reduced to writing are a product of more coherent thought and willful expression than what is sometimes uttered, despite best intentions. Rooney chose, or approved of, these words, and frankly they sound shocking, at least to people who don’t view justice the way she appears to view it. In fact, it seems that Rooney views military justice the way many military commanders and insiders do, that is as a tool for commanders to maintain discipline and good order rather than an ideal unto itself.I’ve written on this before and I’ve pointed out, in fairness, that the promotion of justice is the first of the three clauses that describe the purpose of the United States military justice system. But Rooney’s apparent attitude that justice is more of a tool toward the forging of a larger goal- the maintenance of a cohesive and lethal fighting force- is one I commonly saw reflected during my civilian service to the Army.She has since back-tracked in a letter to chairman Carl Levin, saying that while commanders certainly need to consider evidence in whether to bring charges such as sexual assault, they also need to consider more than that, and include factors such as the impact on morale and discipline.Small wonder this clarification served to alarm Gillibrand more, not less.Rooney believes that prosecutors are, apparently, too narrowly focused on simply whether a crime was committed against one human being by another. “Prosecutors, in my experience, evaluate evidence with an eye toward whether a conviction is likely,” she said. “Commanders consider additional factors.”I’m not sure what prosecutors Rooney is referencing. Prosecutors are not, despite this description, auto-piloted hammers who bring charges as long as a cold analysis favors a conviction. In fact, prosecutors at all levels do consider other factors like resources and the interest of the involved parties and the community.But what civilian prosecutors don’t do, ideally and certainly structurally, is concern themselves with whether the prosecution of a wrongdoer might be best avoided because of its effect on a larger group as an organism or entity.This is exactly what Gillibrand is correctly fighting to end once and for all: The understandable but potentially justice-adverse tendency that commanders have to consider factors unrelated to whether one individual committed a serious criminal offense against another.Rooney also notes favorably that commanders have “non-judicial punishment options” in dealing with offenders. But the offenders that Gillibrand’s initiative targets are service members who are committing rape and felony sexual assault. Non-judicial punishment under Article 15 of the UCMJ involves relatively minor confinements, restrictions, extra duty, counseling, and other disciplinary measures in lieu of a court martial for minor offenses.Gillibrand herself, in reference to Rooney’s original troubling statement, asked “in what world would you recommend that the decision to prosecute a serious crime....not be based on evidence?"Indeed, I’d follow up with, “in what world would you recommend non-judicial punishment for a felony sex crime?Gillibrand’s proposed Military Justice Improvement Act does not disturb a commander’s ability to use non-judicial punishment for minor offenses, which means Rooney is either dreadfully misinformed or actually believes that NJP might be the answer to some cases of sexual violence, given the “other factors” she believes commanders should consider.The supremacy of the individual observed in our culture is not one that can be similarly observed in military life. Many aspects of it involve compromising the needs of individuals for the larger health- and fighting ability- of the group.But where justice, and a competent and effective response to sexual violence is concerned especially, the current system should be amended- reasonably- to do better. Dr. Rooney seems to make this very clear.