McCaskill offers thoughts on curbing sex crimes in the military

In a newsletter issued today, Sen. Claire McCaskill discusses legislation on curbing sex crimes in the military.

For me, the ongoing debate over how to curb sex crimes in our Armed Forces is personal. Before I got to the Senate, I spent years prosecuting rape cases in the courtroom, and later became the first woman prosecutor of Jackson County, Mo. -- which includes Kansas City -- where I launched an office exclusively dedicated to combating domestic and sexual violence. And in the Senate, I’ve fought hard for policies like the renewedViolence Against Women Act and legislation forcing the Pentagon to preserve evidence in rape cases.

When President Obama signed the annual defense bill just a few months ago, it meant a new day for justice in the U.S. military. The legislative reforms we successfully included to curb sexual assaults in the ranks were history-making, and are dramatically changing how the military handles these crimes.

• Military commanders have been stripped of their power to overturn jury convictions.
• Civilian oversight is now required if a commander declines to prosecute a case.
• Victims who report an assault will now automatically be assigned their own independent legal counsel to protect and fight for them. 
• Dishonorable discharge is now required as a minimum sentence for those convicted of sexual assault. 
• It is now a crime for any servicemember to retaliate against a victim who reports an assault. 
• The statute of limitations in rape and sexual assault cases has now been eliminated.
• And the "Article 32" pre-trial process, which was in the media spotlight following a recent Naval Academy rape case, has been reformed to better protect victims.

These changes are already taking root to stem rapes and sexual assaults in the ranks, but more work remains. I’ve introduced another bill that would go even further, adding to these already historic reforms by eliminating the "good soldier" defense for those accused of assault, and letting victims have a formal say in whether their case goes to military or civilian court. And in this debate, I've taken a hard look at every idea with one question in mind -- will it better protect victims and lead to more prosecutions? It’s because of that measure that I oppose an alternative plan that you’ve likely heard about, one from my colleague Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, that would completely strip commanders of the ability to launch courts-martial.

I fully understand and respect that different folks will reach their own conclusions, and support the policies they believe are best. And frankly, I believe that this disagreement between Senator Gillibrand and myself has gotten outsized attention from the media because it’s a debate between two strong Democratic women. It’s a good thing when we have women driving more of the policy debates in Congress, and I’ve wondered if this one area of disagreement (Senator Gillibrand and I have worked very closely together on the reforms outlined above) would be getting the same attention if it were a debate between men.

For me, this isn’t about politics, it’s about getting the policy right for victims.

I oppose Senator Gillibrand’s alternative for several reasons:

• I believe it would risk more retaliation against victims who report these crimes.
• America’s allies who have made similar changes haven’t seen the increase in reporting of these crimes that we’re seeking.
• And the bill would leave some victims behind (over the past two years, there have been at least 93 cases in which a commander launched a court-martial after prosecutors declined—that's 93 victims who would never have had their day in court if commanders couldn’t bring a case to court martial).  

Others also recognize the risks posed by stripping commanders of their court-martial authority. A panel of policy experts created by Congress -- independent, majority-civilian, and majority-women -- recently took a comprehensive look at the idea, considered testimony from more than 150 witnesses, and ultimately voted decisively to reject Senator Gillibrand’s bill. The group included leaders who I admire, like Mai Fernandez who leads the National Center for Victims of Crime, Former Federal District Judge Barbara Jones who wrote the judicial opinion striking down the Defense of Marriage Act -- and Former Democratic Congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman, author of the federal Rape Shield law, who said: "I started out with the view that Senator Gillibrand is a very bright and intelligent and committed person… and I thought her proposal sounded right. I’ve changed my mind, because I was just listening to what we heard.  I started out… thinking, why not change it and now I am saying, why change it… Just turning it over to prosecutors doesn’t mean you are going to get the results you are looking for…"

I believe that dramatic reform to the military justice system must be evidence-based. We have to thoughtfully build the strongest possible reforms to protect and empower victims, crack down on commanders' ability to abuse their authority, and retain a commander's ability to do it right.

Thank you for your support,